Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Chris Langan on IQ, The Singularity, Free Will, Psychedelics, CTMU, and God

Starting point is 00:00:00 Alright, hello to all listeners, Kurt here. That silence is missed sales. Now, why? It's because you haven't met Shopify, at least until now. Now that's success. As sweet as a solved equation. Join me in trading that silence for success with Shopify. It's like some unified field theory of business.

Starting point is 00:00:20 Whether you're a bedroom inventor or a global game changer, Shopify smooths your path. From a garage-based hobby to a bustling e-store, Shopify navigates all sales channels for you. With Shopify powering 10% of all US e-commerce and fueling your ventures in over 170 countries, your business has global potential. And their stellar support is as dependable as a law of physics. So don't wait. Launch your business with Shopify. Shopify has award-winning service and has the internet's best converting checkout. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash theories.

Starting point is 00:01:03 Chris Langan is an autodidact who's known for having the highest recorded IQ in America, and he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, or the CTMU for short. This introduction will be fairly lengthy, so feel free to skip to the timestamp here if you're uninterested and want to get straight to the podcast. My name is Kurt Jeimungal, and I'm a filmmaker with a background in math and physics who is investigating the topic of theories of everything. As usual, this isn't meant as an introduction to the guest, but rather where one goes after they've done some research. In fact, the first hour can be rather technical.

Starting point is 00:01:39 Most interviews with Chris are somewhat superficial and talk about his days as a bouncer, his experiences, what it's like to have a high IQ. But we're interested in the topic of theories of everything and you're not afraid to get your hands dirty. I don't often like to give my opinion on the variegated theories that exist, but in Chris's case, I have to say that if I was to say that I'm impressed, that would be an extreme understatement. have to say that if I was to say that I'm impressed, that would be an extreme understatement. His theory is unfairly criticized by critics who have read his theory for approximately a day at most and who point to its supposed incoherence, but I found that critics tend to do this with virtually every theory that's self-proposed, like Eric Weinstein's or Stephen Wolfram's, though from my investigation of these, these theories are far from erroneous casuistry. It just takes plenty of difficult work to understand. It's far from nonsense,

Starting point is 00:02:30 and the easiest way to tell is to ask the critic, can you explain their theory back to them in a manner that they would agree? Another way to think of this is that one field's technical achievement is word salad to someone who's outside that field. What we have in the case of Weinstein, Wolfram, and Chris Langan is that in their own way, they're inventing their own field. Thus, it's understandable that it's difficult to penetrate because it doesn't have a team of people over the course of years decocting the essence, but difficult to penetrate is not a synonym for this work is gibberish. I highly recommend you check out CTMUuradio.com and ctmu.org to gain an overview of Chris's theories, as there are several in-depth PDFs containing some of the technical details and derivations. Another word on style. I may ask the same question to Chris

Starting point is 00:03:17 in different ways multiple times because, like I said, his theory isn't exactly trivial, and so hearing the same phenomenon from different orientations often illuminate what was previously obscured. Now, a word on myself. Preparing for this particular podcast took weeks and weeks. Usually I'm able to prep for multiple guests simultaneously, but this one was so involved that it consumed me and took a physical toll. I went through virtually each one of Chris's papers and even spoke to someone who is conversant in the CTMU, just so that I can make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly.

Starting point is 00:03:54 That person's name is Sam Thompson, and he's a brilliant, mathematically gifted, humble soul, who I dedicate this entire episode to, since he put up with with my naive pestering questions on a daily basis in fact it got to the point where i i had to ask him if i could add him on whatsapp because texting takes far too long and it's much easier for me to send voice notes so almost every hour i would send him a voice note and then he would send me back and then i would ask him follow-up questions thank you sam thank you because of this physical toll, like I mentioned, the pressure of releasing another podcast soon with the same quality as this one and the same quality as the others is a bit too much for me, and I'm going to have to take a couple weeks off.

Starting point is 00:04:36 Soon, I'll be interviewed by ZDogg, the simulation podcast, Coast to Coast AM, and I'll be on someone else's podcast whose name is a fairly large name but i can't announce right now like i mentioned those aren't my podcast i'll be interviewed instead so i'll post the links to those on twitter as they occur as well as perhaps put them on the itunes slash spotify audio version if you're interested if you'd like to hear more conversations like these then please do consider going to patreon.com kurt kurtjaimungle. It may sound silly, but literally every dollar helps, and this is now, thankfully, what I get to do full-time. It's absolutely encouraging to see that people care, and often the notes that I get when people donate

Starting point is 00:05:16 are of the form, this is so that you don't have to worry so much about finances and you can spend time with your wife. Thank you so much. I've recently opened up a crypto address and PayPal is also an option. The plan is to have more conversations like this of the same quality approximately once per week, at least. At some point toward the end of the year, I also plan on interviewing some of the audience members who have sent me their well-articulated PDFs. People such as Steve Agnew, Tyler Goldstein, Steve Scully, and Jennifer Scharf. Links to their remarkable work are in the description. Again, I feel a bit icky saying

Starting point is 00:05:51 this as I'm not a self-promoter, but I've been told by some people who have donated that I need to be saying this a bit more as they wouldn't have donated if they didn't hear it to begin with. Please do consider donating or supporting it in any way that you can at patreon.com slash kirchheim mongol there are a couple sponsors of today's podcast algo is an end-to-end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps business users optimize sales and operations planning to avoid stockouts reduce returns and inventory write-downs while reducing inventory investment. It's a supply chain AI that drives smart ROI headed by a bright individual by the name of Amjad Hussain, who's been a huge supporter of the podcast from its early days.

Starting point is 00:06:35 The second sponsor is Brilliant. Brilliant illuminates the soul of math, science, and engineering through bite-sized interactive learning experiences. Brilliant's courses explore the laws that shape our world, elevating math and science from something to be feared to a delightful experience of guided discovery. More on them later. Thank you and enjoy one of the longest, most in-depth interviews

Starting point is 00:06:59 with one of the brightest people on the planet, Chris Langan. If I look down or look angry, that's my thinking face. You're familiar with that. But if I look down, I'm making notes, so please don't think I'm not paying attention. Now I have my full attention. You have a bitchy resting face. Apparently I do.

Starting point is 00:07:17 People tell me that I just look angry all the time. It's those eyebrows. You're a good-looking guy. That means a lot coming from you. Thank you. well it's it's those eyebrows yeah you're a good looking guy thank you i tend to get that compliment primarily from guys okay how long does it take the average person to get through your theory such that they can grok it it's intuitive to them uh well you know i really can't say that's their subjective criteria would determine the answer to that. I don't have access to anybody else's mind. If it were me, I think I would catch

Starting point is 00:07:52 on fairly quickly. But some people, I don't know, you know, I have a couple of groups and we occasionally hold conferences and they get to ask questions. And I think that I bring a lot of them up to speed on a theory fairly quickly. The ones who have read the theory, there are people that read the 2002 paper, for example, many of them. And they're they're quite expert on it. And they've done a lot of thinking about it. And they know what it's about. Other people, they'll read a couple of paragraphs. And, you know, I hate this. And then they stop and then they go online and do some trolling or whatever. And that's the end of that.

Starting point is 00:08:32 Why don't you give an overview of your theory for those who are uninitiated, a broad strokes view? Well, the CTMU is a theory of everything. There are two kinds of theory of everything. One of them is a physical theory. Usually it's related to a unified field theory in some way, which means the forces of nature are supposed to be unified into one general force. But of course that's only part of reality. My theory is a theory of everything in the metaphysical sense. It actually has to conform to certain logical criteria, which in philosophy and

Starting point is 00:09:04 metaphysics govern what a theory of everything has to conform to certain logical criteria, which in philosophy and metaphysics govern what a theory of everything has to be. So I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself about itself. It is a language. A language is an algebraic structure. This is a particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself and to make decisions regarding how it models itself, which is another way to say how it evolves. And it can be modeled in many ways. You can actually look at it as an operator algebra, as a quantization, a new kind of quantization of reality,

Starting point is 00:09:41 or a reality self-simulation. You can look at it from the perspective of quantum mechanics as quantum metamechanics. I believe you must have read that paper, or you mentioned having read it anyway. And once again, as a metaformal system, which is like a formal system, but it's a generalization of the formal system

Starting point is 00:10:00 that goes deeply into the nature of language. And what it takes to... Here's another way to describe the CTMU. Basically you've got a system, you've got this metaformal system, and it relates intelligence and intelligibility. Reality has to be... ontology and epistemology are coupled in this thing. So reality actually has to recognize itself and process itself. It has to do both. So that's what it does.

Starting point is 00:10:30 It relates intelligibility and intelligence, which are dual quantities in CTME, thusly defining both of them in the recursive sense. It's a mutual recursive definition of those two terms within this CTME structure. of those two terms within this CTMU structure. So, can it even be regarded as a theory of consciousness? For example, it says what consciousness is because of the way it quantizes. So, is that enough? Yeah, let's start from what's most fundamental

Starting point is 00:10:58 and then how you work your way up from there to derive your theory. Okay, well, the theory is developed by a means called logical induction. You start with, you've heard of Descartes, you know, cogito ergo sum, right? Cogito ergo sum, which is, I think, therefore I am. And you've heard of Berkeley's Essay of Precipice, okay? Which which is basically to be is to be perceived or to perceive. You start with perception and cognition. Then you develop the minimal

Starting point is 00:11:31 model of how cognition and perception work. Then you induce an overall system that works by those processes. That's the way you get to the CTMU. It's called logical induction. I've been using that terminology for years. It's superior to empirical induction, by the way. Most scientists use empirical induction, which means that they just kind of guesstimate, inductively guess, what the proper theory is and sort of affix that, sort of glue it

Starting point is 00:12:02 on to the observations that they make. That's how science usually works. This logical induction thing is a more precise process, more general process. Let's get into some of the more technical questions. And for those who are listening, as a first pass, you don't have to understand all of the terminology. It's much better. I think Wheeler said this, or Wigner, I'm not sure which one. He said that people are trying to drink from the fire hose, but the point is to just get wet. And then another quote that I like is from Neumann, von Neumann, who said, you're not supposed to understand math, you get used to it. don't worry if you don't understand all the terms or follow the logical steps in the first pass of this podcast it's more about re-watching and then recontextualizing for me one of the greatest pleasures in life is being is that feeling after you're so confused and then all of a sudden you start to glean what you're supposed to and different connections are made and you comprehend and you push through that confusion okay so push through the confusion eventually some parts of it at least will make

Starting point is 00:13:07 sense is there a duality between syntax and semantics yes sorry is the duality between syntax and semantics a generalization of stone duality yes well all these dualities are related you know they're they're they're all kinds of dualities out there. With duality, the idea of duality originally comes from two points determine a line, two lines determine a point, where the lines intersect you've got a point, whereas if you draw two points, put two points on a piece of paper, you can draw a line between. That's a duality, basically. You permute your terms, and you still have an invariant truth. The original form of the relation remains true. So that's what a duality is. Anytime you can do that, anytime there is an invariant,

Starting point is 00:13:58 and you can switch things around within that invariant, and the invariant stays true, that's a duality. There are many kinds of duality at the CTMU. So how are syntax and semantics related? Well, the syntax is intrinsic. If you take a look at a language, those are the absolute invariants that every intelligible statement is made from. You know about grammar and non-terminals and how non-terminals are substituted cumulatively until they result in terminal expressions, right? That's basically what it is. If human cognitive syntax is syntactically covered by reality syntax, how can one meaningfully describe reality as humans?

Starting point is 00:14:43 Well, as a language, when you talk about syntax and semantics, you are talking about a language. And as I say, syntax is the intrinsic structure of the language, whereas semantics is, that involves things like definitions and interpretations. You have to define terms, all the terms, syntactic terms are supposed to be primitive, the non-terminals are cognitively primitive, whereas when you get into semantics, now you're combining those primitives to get defined terms, to get definitions,

Starting point is 00:15:12 and then you're combining those in certain ways, and then once you form your expression, now you have to interpret it or form a model of it in some other structure that you've got, right? And so it's a big process. Language is, as I say, the most general algebraic structure there is. And to see that, any other algebraic structure you can name is a language. When you write it down, you are writing it down in the form of language. So automatically, you know language is the most general algebraic structure. Right. I heard you say that many people think that mathematics is extremely precise,

Starting point is 00:15:48 has high fidelity. It's unequivocal, whereas language, natural language, is considered to be indistinct, opaque, dubious, volutinous at the edges. That's just that most people use it sloppily, that's all. In reality, there's nothing dubious about it. Every mathematical language, every mathematical theory is by definition a language. So you have to decide how precise you want to be, how precisely you want to formulate things, and then you make your judgment about what's lucid and what's tight. Is there a relationship between the inner expansive domain where syntactic operators are entangled and mutually absorbing?

Starting point is 00:16:31 And so this inner expansion and love, is there a relationship between those two? Yes, there is. There's at least an analogy between the two. Because when things combine in the non-terminal domain via inner expansion, when they overlie each other, that they are more or less merging their identities. And that's what love is. Love is also a combination, a merger of identities that enhances the self-actualization or self-expression of the combined entity. In other words, it's synergistic. It's more than the sum of its parts.

Starting point is 00:17:06 Now, of course, you know, the merging, the syntactic merging that occurs due to inner expansion, that has to be actualized. And that actualization is semantical. The first is a syntactic process. The second is a semantic process. And that's what causes what you as a physicist would call quantum wave function collapse or measurement of that.

Starting point is 00:17:33 Why is there no such thing as a literal interpretation? Is it because you mentioned before we move between models and to look at the symbols, one must apply an interpretation on it. and so to say literal interpretation is like saying uninterpreted interpretation and so it's oxymoronic the meaning is very simple and that is that if i hand you a book written in say sanskrit

Starting point is 00:17:58 unless you understand understand sanskrit all you're going to see is little geometric shapes on the page and it is going to see is little geometric shapes on the page, and it is going to have no meaning whatsoever. To extract any meaning whatsoever from those symbols, you first have to know the alphabet, the signature of the language. Then you've got to know the grammar and the syntax of the language. And then you've got to actually put things together, you know, put all the terms and the expressions together, and then you've got to interpret those or model those in some framework that allows you to actually make sense of them, right? All of those steps are necessary. These are absolutely necessary steps of language. And as a matter of fact,

Starting point is 00:18:37 in the way we deal with reality, you can look at reality, external reality, as a language, you're looking at it. All of those steps, they all have to be solved for. They all have to be deciphered before you can actually make sense of your environment. As a preface to this, I thought it would be instructive to go through some of the sentences that are seemingly inscrutable to the person, to someone at

Starting point is 00:18:59 first glance. Then we break it down term by term so that someone, they can read this Sanskrit, essentially, not understand it, and then all of a sudden be able to.

Starting point is 00:19:11 So let's take one of them. Standard physics is largely confined to the linear ectomorphic semi-model, which is retroscopic. So firstly, what is retroscopic?

Starting point is 00:19:19 That means looking backward. That means you're seeing the past. You're looking at it in the past rather than in the, of course, you're That means you're seeing the past. You're looking at it in the past rather than in the course. Actually, your reading operation is performed in the present, but what you're looking at is in the past.

Starting point is 00:19:32 It takes time to get from there to your eyes. So the speed of light dictates that it has to be in the past. The referent of the expression has to be in the past. So that's what a retroscopic is. Okay, and what's a semi-model? The CTMU consists of two semi-models because it consists of two semi-languages. Those semi-languages have to be coupled with each other

Starting point is 00:19:57 or transformed into each other, and so there are two semi-models, one in each direction. There's the advanced semi-model that goes backward in time and basically from future to past, and then there's the retarded semi-models, one in each direction. There's the advanced semi-model that goes backward in time, basically from future to past. And then there's the retarded semi-model, which goes from past to future. Okay, and linear. Why do you say that standard physics is linear with respect to being a semi-model? Because particles and objects follow linear trajectories.

Starting point is 00:20:21 And of course, there are a number of other reasons that they're linear as well. Those are algebraic reasons. I'm sure you're familiar with most of those. But basically, when I use that terminology, I'm referring to the fact that things follow lines through space. And what does ectomorphic mean? Ectomorphic means basically when something is moving, it is projected to a point outside of itself. That's the ecto. That's the outside. So in other words, when a particle is moving, it's moving from here to there,

Starting point is 00:20:52 and the there is outside of the here, right? Whereas if the there was inside the here, then it would be endomorphic. Right, right, right. A special kind of endomorphism called a distributed endomorphism in the CTMU. Okay, now how does this ectomorphism relate to your issues with Zeno's paradox, or with motion as standardly defined? Well, it relates to the fact that the real manifold, as we understand it, is really kind

Starting point is 00:21:16 of a paradoxical construct. Okay? You can't really... Where is... If you take two adjacent points, obviously something has to move. You realize that a manifold consists of limit points or zero points or cuts, dedicated cuts, and they have zero extent. Now, no matter how many times you add zero, what are you going to get as a sum? Zero. So how does a manifold have any extent? If it consists of zero dimensional points,

Starting point is 00:21:44 when you add all those points up, it's nothing but zero itself. So you start with nothing and you get nothing. Okay, so it's a paradoxical construct, right? You've actually got to construct a manifold in a different way so that things actually, so that no point leaves its predecessor. So there's no jump that it has to make

Starting point is 00:22:02 through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another. And that's no jump that it has to make through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another. And that's basically what I mean. Okay. Telec recursion, I imagine, is the process by which a point makes some evolution? Yes. Yes. But it's a feedback between past and future. You've heard all about, you've heard all about, you know, retrocausation is a very big term in physics today. You've heard all about retrocausation is a very big term in physics today. You've already mentioned it.

Starting point is 00:22:29 But this idea of, there was somebody named Costa de Beauregard who came up with these zigzags, which are basically, let's just try to simplify here. If you have a trajectory through space-time, it's going from the past to the future, right?

Starting point is 00:22:45 But it's a correspondence, and correspondence is symmetric. So there's got to be some kind of a symmetry thing going on between the cause and the effect. Where a certain particle is at one minute and where it is at a later time, there's got to be some kind of symmetry there. Not just a temporal symmetry, but a causal symmetry as well. So that's what we're talking about. Conspansive manifold is a term that will likely come up plenty, so we should define that. Conspansive manifold is a manifold that is self-dual in the sense that it has both distributed endomorphic and linear ectomorphic aspects.

Starting point is 00:23:23 Simple as that. And those two things are absolutely dual, totally equivalent. If you can explain something adequately in the linear world, in the ectomorphic world of physics, for example, automatically it is guaranteed to have a dual in the distributed endomorphic semimodal. I'm going to call it a semi-model here. That's a bit of a liberty because I'm using the term now in a different sense than I used it before. But, you know, I have only so much terminology to go around, so I'm going to reuse it. Okay, we have this telic recursive process which is associated with metatime. And metatime, as far as I understand from your theory, has a preferred arrow, whereas our time doesn't.

Starting point is 00:24:08 But our experience is of unidirectionality. So what I'm wondering is, is there a way to take the preferred arrow from this meta space and pull it back or push forward to our experience? Yes. Basically, meta time and time are orthogonal. The reason they have to be orthogonal is because metatime distributes programming over time. You can think of it as being like programming. Okay. It's actually grammar. I call it S-C-S-P-L, grammar. But it's actually like distributing programmer over an entire timeline. Okay. So they have to be orthogonal for that reason. But you can actually restrict metatime so that it lies along the timeline.

Starting point is 00:24:51 Right? In other words, people tend to talk, you know, about time is a before and after thing. It involves prepositions. Metatime always terminates at an origin. Okay, and that origin is not temporal in nature. It has to contain both past and future meta-simultaneously. I don't know if you're familiar with that term.

Starting point is 00:25:14 What do you mean when you say meta-simultaneously? Things are meta-simultaneity. It's just, you know, simultaneity with a meta in front of it. But basically, things are simultaneous when you look at them and they're both in space and you're looking at them at the same time. Metasimultaneity means that they're not only,

Starting point is 00:25:32 you can not only see them at the same time in space, you can also see them at the same time in time. In other words, you can consider a past event and a future event to be simultaneous even though they're separated by a timeline. And this is something that you have to do to use the concept of metatonic. Because if you write a computer program, you schedule events in the program. You see, you schedule one event has to happen here,

Starting point is 00:25:57 then there's a sequence of other events, and then finally there's going to be event B is going to happen, right? But when you've got that program in front of you, both of those events are present, programmed at the same, in the same time, and you're looking at it simultaneously. Okay, that's meta-simultaneity. You see, they're separated in time when they're at, when the program is run. Okay, those two events are at different times. But when you're looking at the program itself, they're virtually simultaneous or metasymultaneous. What's the assertion that what generates our experience or generates our world, this terminal world, is this metatime world, this non-terminal world? Right. Where there's metasymultaneousness.

Starting point is 00:26:37 Right. Yeah. That's basically it, yes. The universe is closed. There's nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect it. If it's real enough to affect reality, it's got to be real, and it's got to be inside reality. All right, so that's closure. All right, so everything has to be closed.

Starting point is 00:26:57 Everything has to be formulated in a reflexive way. In CTMU set theory, there's descriptive inclusion. And I'm wondering if there's an analog of the axiom of foundation, which states that elements of a non-empty set must be subsets thereof. So is there an analog of the axiom of foundation in the set theory that CTMU has? Sure. Well, actually, when you're dealing with set theory, you're dealing with something called topological inclusion. Topological space is a point set. It's a set of points that relate to each other in certain areas. Whereas when you're looking at it, there is a dual to that. And it's because sets have intentions, right? Usually, if you take any

Starting point is 00:27:39 given set and you say, okay, consider the set of all red apples. Red apples is your intention. It's actually a property. And you just choose elements which instantiate that property. Okay? The intention requires that you can't talk about topological inclusion with respect to the intention. You've instead got to talk about descriptive inclusion. In other words, you've got to talk about more specific properties that are included in the main overall intention of the set. So you've got two kinds of inclusion, topological inclusion, which applies to sets,

Starting point is 00:28:10 and you've got descriptive inclusion, which applies to properties. In set theory, the way that we understand it as mathematicians would be axiomatic. And yours, how would you describe it if not axiomatic? It's not based on a first-order language. Well, first of all, it's not just a set theory, right? It's not even just category theory. It's both. The metaformal system is a foundational language.

Starting point is 00:28:37 It is presented as a foundational language for mathematics, physics, the sciences, pretty much everything. Okay? Set theory can't pull that off, and neither can category theory. But on the other hand, once you've defined the metaformal system, you get to make use of both of those other languages as you see fit. You can pull anything out of them you want. The important thing is that you have the metaformal system, which is the very outside, item-potent metalanguage that spans between

Starting point is 00:29:06 these two so-called fundamental languages, set theory and category theory. Of course, they say there's already a blend between set theory and category theory called topos theory, but that too leaves something to be desired. There's a lot of missing structure there. It doesn't qualify as a foundation language. So how does your Metaformal System differ? Like, what is it? Describe it simply for people who are unacquainted. Sure. The metaformal system is simply a language that is quantized, not in terms of signs,

Starting point is 00:29:35 but in terms of syntactors and identification events. Syntactor is an active sign. It's something that actually has two data types, a syntactic data type and an input data type. It can accept things from the external world, process them internally, which gives it an internal state, and then, you know, release its processing back into the real world, its output. a sign. Usually, when a person looks at a sign or a word or something like that, they do all the processing inside their head, and they forget the fact that, wait a minute, you know, this processing, whatever it is, it requires me. I'm actually having to do this. Mathematicians don't usually reason that way, okay? If you're a mathematician, you kind of forget about yourself, and you look at things as though they're totally objective. That is not how reality is quantized in the CTMU. It has both a subjective and objective aspect. That's what

Starting point is 00:30:29 syntactors and tellers or syntactic identification operators and telec identification operators are in the CTMU. And we would be an example of a teller. Yes. And what are some other examples? I heard G-O-D or God is the ultimate teller then we're almost

Starting point is 00:30:47 global operator description right and then fundamental fermions let's say are a tertiary level so is that correct okay and explain those are tertiary syntactics so explain that that there are three levels of syntactic operators or tellers right okay so why first of all why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means again once more to be a syntactic operators or tellers. Okay, so first of all, why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means, again, once more, to be a syntactic operator? You know, they're just scales. They're scales of coherence in causation,

Starting point is 00:31:13 in structure and causation. Just basically, you have the universe. The universe is closed. It is one unary entity. That's your primary quantum. Okay? But now everything, it's got to be self-composed because there's nothing external of which it can be composed. It has to use itself as its secondary and tertiary components.

Starting point is 00:31:34 So it has to map itself internally by descriptive endomorphism or de-endomorphism to tertiary syntactors, and then those tertiary syntactors can agglomerate, can come together in organisms, which then nucleate secondary quanta, or telos, which are necessary to complete causation. Because ordinary quantum particles don't have what it takes to actually decide on events and emerge in events. That takes telesis. You've got to have this other kind of quantum of causation, this secondary quantum of causation called telesis, and that means that telesis is bound, that's the monic substrate of the universe, it must be bound by these things called tellers. We are tellers. We actually bind telesis in this way so that causation can be completed,

Starting point is 00:32:23 so that events can actually occur. All this nonsense about well quantum randomness and quantum indeterminacy if something is totally random and indeterministic there is no reason for it to occur and it won't occur all right it's not just the principle of insufficient reason that I'm talking about here I'm talking about something has to be distinguished from its logical complement, right? And that basically, that act of distinction, it takes a certain amount of information to complete that. So we are the ones who provide that information, either directly or indirectly. What is meant when you say that TELUS is bound, that we bind it?

Starting point is 00:33:01 but we bind it. Well, basically we're quantifying it. We're logically binding it using something analogous to quantifiers and predicate logic so that events occur. In other words, we're binding it into events. We're taking something that is basically expansive, that is self-potentializing, it consists of potentials and actualities, and actually giving those potentials and actualities something to connect them. We're actually selecting many possible futures from many possible futures, which is a potential.

Starting point is 00:33:34 We're then selecting specific events that combine, that are related, intellons, which are these quanta of causation that I'm talking about, secondary quanta. quanta of causation i'm talking secondary quantum intelligent recursion one of the ways i've heard it explained is that for an evolution of the system it looks back at all possible at all the states that it previously has in its memory to make a decision about the future and it makes a decision about the future based on a generalized utility function When we are exercising free will, first of all, does free will exist? We can talk about that. Okay, secondly, let's assume free will exists because it exists. Yes, right. How when we're operating with our free will, how are we looking back at all the decisions? So for example, right now, if I make a decision, I don't have perfect memory. But at the same time, in teleprocursion, it seems like all of the states are being considered.

Starting point is 00:34:27 So am I only conscious of a few, but unconscious? You're locked into terminal consciousness. You have a form of consciousness that is appropriate to life in the terminal domain. Okay, what I'm talking about, telec recursion occurs in the non-terminal domain. It involves a different form of consciousness. And in the expansive manifold, it's its own memory. It consists of layer upon layer upon layer of events that never disappear and never go away. They're right there. Nothing, you don't even have to reach into storage and pull this information out. It's right there. All right? That's one of the

Starting point is 00:35:02 advantages of having a manifold structured in the way that CTME is structured. Everything is right there as it is needed. And of course, telons are adaptive. Okay. Telequick recursion is adaptive. When things happen that are not necessarily in accord with a certain telon, the telon adapts to the new set of resources at its disposal and comes together again, approaching the same final outcome. Does one have to be adaptive if one is, let's say, incoherent, which I heard you equate evil to? Is that a possibility? I didn't equate evil to incoherence. I said evil is incoherent.

Starting point is 00:35:41 Basically, it's incoherent because evil is anti-existence alright basically it hates existence and it wants to go out of existence right, but when you take a bunch of evil and it won't recognize its own existence and it won't recognize the existence

Starting point is 00:35:59 of anything else, it's very hard to coordinate it can't be coordinated so it becomes incoherent. The only way that evil actually achieves any sort of reality is it uses physical systems to do it, nucleates physical systems, and uses their structure, their power structures, their hierarchies, in order to be realized. But it has no coherence of its own. It's anti-coherent. In the CTMU there's this hierarchy of meta-languages, and what I'm wondering is, is it possible for two sub-languages to be incomparable under ordering? In other words,

Starting point is 00:36:38 can languages be arranged in a partially ordered set? Totally incomparable? No. That's a violation of syndiffinesis. In the CTMU, there's a universal relational structure called syndiffinesis. It means that syntax, something semantic, is being distributed over different related or relays. Things that are related. The syntax distributes over them and makes them comparable.

Starting point is 00:37:05 Things are never totally incomparable. related, okay? And the syntax distributes over them and makes them comparable, makes them... things are never totally incomparable, never totally out of order. I mean, things can be partially ordered, you know, there's a lattice structure called a partial order, you know, where things are actually moving. It can't necessarily be related to each other with any definite form of simultaneity, right? But that's basically what I mean. Okay, so this gets into separate objects, which you would argue doesn't exist. So let's say we have an apple and then we have a cup. They're, in your terms, diffeonic Rillins.

Starting point is 00:37:38 But then by the fact that I can point them out, I'm using a cognitive structure, and that cognitive structure distributes over both of them, which relates them. And so by pointing out that there are two separate objects, I'm also pointing out how these objects are the same. So by pointing out difference, I'm pointing out sameness. Is that correct?

Starting point is 00:37:53 You don't have to point anything out. Basically, you're just distributing your awareness over both. Your awareness, the focus of your awareness is a logical property which you are distributing over both of those objects. That's syndiffianesis. That's syndiffianesis. which you are distributing over both of those objects. That's syndiffianesis action. A conscious universe has to have that.

Starting point is 00:38:13 It's the only possible relational structure it can have. Okay, so we have this conspansive manifold, and it has an intrinsic background, or I assume that's related to what physicists may call background. It is its own background. That's closure. It's ontic closure. All operation, all real operations, real, relevant,

Starting point is 00:38:28 valid operations, basically start with reality and end with reality. It's complete closure. Nothing unreal ever really comes into it. For obvious reasons. This background free place, does it consist of non-terminal symbols? It consists of

Starting point is 00:38:44 telesis. It consists of telesis. The whole idea here is we need a theory of multi-aspect monism. The monism refers to one underlying substance. It's actually a meta-substance because it's both self-attributive and self-composed. It does all of that stuff for itself. It makes attributions to itself, and it is composed of itself. In this monic structure, how does one get differentiation from monism, from unity? That's what teleis does. Teleis differentiates itself syndiffionically. There are utility deficits. We have secondary telors. Utility deficits arise. You know what utility is?

Starting point is 00:39:26 It's value. Okay, when you don't have any food, now you have a severe utility deficit because you place value on food. There's a hole in your value structure. That's a utility deficit. You automatically react to that by forming a telon designed to remove that deficit.

Starting point is 00:39:44 Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Excuse me? Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Leptogenesis? Yeah. You got me on that one. There's a disparity between matter and antimatter. And one of the propositions is there's something called leptogenesis, which accounts for this

Starting point is 00:40:02 asymmetry. Right. Yeah. Can the CTMU explain? Well, let's just put it this way. If it cannot be explained within the CTMU, then it cannot be explained. The CTMU is called a TOE for a reason. Okay? It's comprehensive. All right? So if this distinction is valid, and it is because we know that both matter and antimatter exist, then it has to be explicable in the CTMU. Would you consider the CTMU to be more of a definition than a theory? It's both a definition and a theory. Okay, it's the self-definition of reality. Reality must define itself. Okay, but it does that in the form of a language, the metaphorical language we were speaking about earlier, and it takes the form of a theory.

Starting point is 00:40:52 In other words, every theory, technically, it's not just a theory, it's a theoretical language. That's what a logician or a model theorist would call it. It's a kind of language. So it has that structure. Getting back to this background independent place, there's a question here about if this coincides with Einstein and Mach. Einstein and Mach had this idea of, sorry, I'm sure you've heard of Mach's principle. Yes. Okay. What does the CTMU have to say about Mach's principle and is it related to this intrinsic background? All right. Maybe I

Starting point is 00:41:35 better ask what your formulation of Mach's principle is. Sure, sure, sure. It's strange that we can feel rotation when we do so. And it seems as if it's related by the distribution of matter far away, like there's an actual background. So now if there's an intrinsic background in the CTMU, does that serve as some basis for Mach's principle? Yes. Well, you're actually coupled with your background. That's one thing that you see in the theory of relativity. Basically, the medium is given some kind of separate structure, separate from the content of the medium. But you actually have to couple those two things.

Starting point is 00:42:13 Relativity would make no sense at all if you didn't. So, you know, as far as being able, inertia and being able to feel, you talk about angular momentum and, you know, inertia. Basically, those two things are a function of that coupling, the way you are coupled to your environment. Like I said, this is how the CTME quantizes things, uses these dual couplings to do that. And I quote, but that's all intrinsic. I mean, keep in mind that's all intrinsic. There's nothing external to the universe. So if you're going to talk about the universe rotating in some external medium, that's not valid.

Starting point is 00:42:47 Okay, the rotation, all rotation is intrinsic, and the way it can be intrinsic is because you're formulating it as a coupling of it and its content. You're actually introducing some kind of angular momentum in between. That's intrinsic. And of course, as you know, theory of relativity is is our major intrinsic theory of physics it's intrinsic based on intrinsic geometry and so forth i also heard you talk about the fact that the universe is expanding is it's a strange concept because what is it expanding into however i think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding it's a strange concept because what is it expanding into? However, I think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding. It's more about the metric is changing.

Starting point is 00:43:31 So now let's imagine that that's what the statement is. The metric is changing. So what's the problem with that statement? And why does it need the CTMU to solve it? Because it's conspanding. It's basically when you say the metric is changing, you mean that the scale of the whole and its parts are changing with respect to each other.

Starting point is 00:43:50 They're changing contravariantly. As the universe gets bigger, the parts, the little particles and objects embedded in it get smaller relative to the universe. It's this, you know, everything is relative, right? And the size of objects is defined relative to the size of the universe and vice versa. So you've got this relativistic relationship between whole and its parts. And this contravariance is called conspansion.

Starting point is 00:44:20 I'm not understanding how the CTMU solves, like, firstly, I'm not sure what the problem is. So explain to me once more. What is the problem with saying that the metric is expanding? I understand that there's a problem with saying that the universe is expanding because it implies that it's embedded in something higher. The metric isn't expanding. The metric is actually contracting. You're getting, you know...

Starting point is 00:44:42 You know what co-moving coordinates are. Basically, you start out, as the universe expands, co-moving coordinates actually co-move with the universe itself. Right? In that sense, the metric is expanding with co-moving coordinates. But our metric is contracting relative to the size of the universe's

Starting point is 00:45:00 polarity. So you've got to make this distinction. Our metric meaning as tellers, as syntactic operators? It means the metric that we use, the scale of distance that we use in the everyday world that exists between us and the objects that surround us.

Starting point is 00:45:20 You understand, right? That comes from Arthur Eddington. He talked about a cosmic observer, you know, things getting smaller and smaller, faster and faster from the point of view of this cosmic observer. That's what it is. I got to give credit to Arthur Eddington for that. He got to it before I did with this cosmic observer thing. You know who Eddington was, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Starting point is 00:45:41 Tested Einstein's general relativity. You know, I'm going to be jumping around quite a bit. Now that we're on the topic of how you thought of your theory and how you came up with it quite some time ago, I'm curious, what does the process of coming up with the CTMU look like, practically speaking? Do you have a whiteboard? Do you just sit alone with a pipe?

Starting point is 00:46:06 Do you bounce it off your wife? Do you go for walks? How are you coming up with the theory? Just sort of comes to you. Sometimes, you know, you start thinking, okay, I'm very good at recognizing paradoxes and inconsistencies. It's just a little thing that I'm good at. And I noticed a lot of paradoxes and inconsistencies from an early age onward in the way people explain things, right? I'd ask them for explanations. They wouldn't be able to explain things to my satisfaction. And I'd, you know, ask myself, why doesn't this appear to make sense?

Starting point is 00:46:38 And I would find out there were certain things that didn't make sense. Then, armed with those paradoxes, I would work on resolving. And from those resolutions came the CTMU. Let's give an example of a paradox that's been resolved by the CTMU. So Newcombe's paradox is one. Do you mind explaining the paradox of Newcombe and then also your solution to it? So that's kind of a long paradox, but basically you've got this predictor who has never been wrong before. And he's got this game that he plays

Starting point is 00:47:11 where he shows you a box with $1,000 in it and tells you that you can take either one of these boxes, the opaque box, or you can take both boxes. But if you do not take this transparent box with $1,000 in it, I've put a million dollars. I already know what you're

Starting point is 00:47:31 going to do. I've put a million dollars in the opaque box. But if you try to take both boxes and make that extra $1,000 that you can see right in front of your face here, if you've done that, I've left this opaque box empty. So you're going to get scummed. You're going to get your, you know, you're going to get your thousand bucks and, you know, you're going to have a nice dinner someplace and then that's going to be it. All right. That's Newcomb's paradox. Okay. But unfortunately the, the, the subject, the one who is, he's running this game on, okay. Has two strategies that he has to, from which he has to choose. And one of them is, of course, that, well, this predictor has, you know, never been wrong, you know, and so therefore, you know, I'd better do that.

Starting point is 00:48:14 The other one says, well, wait a minute. Nobody can actually predict the future. This is some kind of a lucky run that this guy has had. And, you know, I have nothing to lose because that money that he says he's, he's, he's acting as though he's going to, he's predicted what I've, that money is already in that box one way or another, because I'm looking at it. He can't tamper with that box at all. It's already there. So I've got nothing to lose by taking both boxes. So instead of just winning a million dollars, if that's what he put in that box, I'm going to win, you know, one point, you know,

Starting point is 00:48:43 a million plus 1000, right. And one point, you know, a million plus 1000. Right. And one point, you know, zero zero one million dollars. And so that's enough, you know, the thousand dollars has enough value that he's going to take that instead. He's going to enrich himself more and thusly increase his utility. And of course, increasing your utility is the, is the whole raison d'etre of economics, right? An economic theory.

Starting point is 00:49:03 That's what you're always supposed to do. Increase your utility. So it's considered an important paradox because of its applicability to economics and causation in general. Is it possible to predict the future? Well, Newcomb's demon, which is what I call him, is analogous to the programmer of a simulation. He's already run this simulation in which you think you have free will,

Starting point is 00:49:26 but he basically knows what your free will is in advance. So that is what has allowed him to do this with the boxes. Okay, so that's the paradox. Now how does the solution of resolution come in? The resolution is nobody ever placed it in a simulation before. I was the only person to ever place it in a simulation back in 1989 by saying, okay, well, basically now we have to use the idea that reality may be a simulation and that Newcomb's demon is somehow a programmer of this simulation.

Starting point is 00:50:02 This was the first application of the simulation hypothesis. Everybody talks about it now, but you'll never see my name mentioned in connection with it. But I was the first person to apply it, at least as far as I know. It could have been somebody else that did so, but I've actually looked and I can't find anything. As far as I know, you were the first with self-simulation.

Starting point is 00:50:21 Well, that too. Absolutely. Self-simulation appears, you know, that terminology appears in a paper I wrote 20 years ago. So, basically, I'm Mr. Simulation. Okay? Unfortunately, nobody ever comes to me. They always ask Elon Musk. Why the hell do they ask Elon Musk?

Starting point is 00:50:39 I don't know, you know. Okay, Mr. Moneybags Elon Musk. And then there's another fellow named Nick Bostrom, I guess he's at Oxford or someplace. He's got something called the simulation argument, which is basically a little bit extraneous than simulation hypothesis. It's how likely the simulation hypothesis is to be true on the basis of how humanity has evolved. evolved. How certain, how, how shall we say these, the species that is simulating reality for humanity has evolved. Do they have the technology to do it? Don't they have the technology to do it? That's what Bostrom's. Now, how does opposing Newcombe's paradox in a frame of simulation help it? It basically tells you that you might be in a simulation, so you'd better take a very close look at what Newcomb's demon has actually succeeded in doing.

Starting point is 00:51:33 It's got a long, arbitrarily long sequence of correct predictions. You'd better give the demon its due, and you'd better take just the opaque box. That's the only way you're getting your milk. Does that mean that the person being simulated doesn't have free will? No, it does not. Why would it? Just because the demon knows what he's going to choose, that somehow deprives him of free will? Well, see, this is the problem that I had to solve

Starting point is 00:52:03 by integrating this into the CTMU. Okay, you actually have a pre-geometric or non-terminal domain in which Newcomb's demon actually exists and in which he actually makes his predictions. You see? So that's what it amounts to. How does being in the non-terminal domain and being able to discern what this person's decision is going to be not violate free will for that person? For that person, from their perspective, are you saying they have free will, but from another perspective, they don't have free will? Or no matter what, they have free will from both vantage points? Well, you have free will, period, to the extent that the universe has free will. As I said, the universe is self-composed.

Starting point is 00:52:46 All right? You are a component of the universe. Therefore, you have inherited free will from the universe itself. So, you know, everything, even a quantum particle to some extent, has free will or freedom. It has degrees of freedom. It's not totally determined. Now, as far as whether, from God's point of view, however, God knows. Let's just put it this way.

Starting point is 00:53:05 Let's forget about Newcomb Steeman for a second and talk about God. Okay. God can see reality as a whole. You know what Einstein's block universe is, right? God sees the universe not as a block. He sees the universe through the eyes of its secondary tellers. Okay. That's how he's seeing.

Starting point is 00:53:22 That's how he's looking and seeing the universe through our eyes, where God's sensor controls. Right. Which puts a whole different complexion on that. He waits for us to make up our minds before he knows what he's seeing. In other words, what we see is what we've decided on. Okay. So God is automatically allowing for our decisions. Automatically making room.

Starting point is 00:53:46 We see what we decide. Can you explain? Everything we decide, you know, when we decide to commit an event or commit an act, okay, automatically we know we can see ourselves committing the act. That's what I mean. That doesn't mean

Starting point is 00:54:01 that we determine everything that's going on around us. Right? But God sees that too through our hearts. That's what I mean. That doesn't mean that we determine everything that's going on around us, right? But God sees that too through our eyes. So it doesn't mean that we can see whatever we like? Like if I wished that there was no wall here, then I would see no wall? Does that mean that, or are there limitations on my perception? Well, of course there are. There is a state of affairs, an external state of affairs,

Starting point is 00:54:25 that has been created by other telors. It's not entirely up to you. So you are constrained in what you can see by the state of the external world. When one does psychedelics, are they operating now in this geometric pre-info-cognition plane? Well, what the psychedelics do is they introduce a gap between the terminal and non-terminal realms and kind of allow you to see things that aren't really in the terminal realm. And that's what those hallucinations are. Okay, you still got one foot in the terminal realm, but the psychedelic has kind of, you know, opened up a gap there, and you're sort of in that gap.

Starting point is 00:55:02 So there are degrees of freedom in which you can actually uh perceive or should i say hallucinate you see you have things that you think are perceptions that seem like perceptions but actually there's this this gap that has opened up and you're inhabiting that gap and that's why that's what the psychedelics are doing you know they're they've been finding out that, you know, basically all chemistry is quantum, and they know, for example, that quantum mechanics is involved in how opiates and morphine, heroin,

Starting point is 00:55:34 things like that affect psychology. This is basically what we're talking about. Psychedelics are doing a little bit of the same thing. When one says hallucinations, usually they mean we're seeing apparitions that aren't actually there, that's not real. Now I know that you have a qualm with saying that anything is not real.

Starting point is 00:55:53 Well, it is. It's mentally real. I mean, what I'm saying is, reality is a coupling of mind and physical reality with non-terminal and terminal reality. and physical reality with non-terminal and non-terminal reality. So therefore, there is such a thing as subjective existence. Syntax exists, for example. Any combination of syntax, you can put it together however you want to,

Starting point is 00:56:18 and that has mental existence. Is it realized in the terminal realm? Not necessarily. You don't find me a unicorn. There are unary and slash nullary relations. They have two levels, synetic and diffionic. Do you mind explaining that?

Starting point is 00:56:36 Well, all relations are syndiffionic, right? When you see two different things, or even when you see yourself, right, you're distributing your own cognition over yourself. Therefore, you've got that synesis and diphenesis you've got you've got basically a property and something instantiating the process that's what that means you mentioned that there are three ways in which the syndiffionic relationship is self-dual

Starting point is 00:57:01 there are three ways but does it have to be ways? Does it just happen to be that there are three ways? Or is that a necessary component for them to exist somehow? I'm talking about general symmetries of the syndipionic relationship. You know what a Minkowski diagram is, right? It's got a space axis, a horizontal space axis, and then temporal axes that are orthogonal

Starting point is 00:57:20 to it that go up into the future and past. And just imagine that you could rotate Minkowski's space. You can rotate a syndipionic relation in the same way. Because the time axis is ordinal, whereas the space axis is all about arity, or the number of things that you're seeing in parallel out in the real world, you're actually making transformations between ordinality and arity in the real world, you're actually making transformations between ordinality and arity in the relation. And there are other kinds of duality as well. I could probably

Starting point is 00:57:51 find more than three if I looked very hard. So synetic is ordinal, diphionic is arity. No, the line, metatime axis that relates one to the other. Okay, that's order. Okay, because you've got levels. You've got, you know, the property level, and then you've got the instance level. You also mentioned that they're dual because they have an active and a passive interpretation.

Starting point is 00:58:15 So what do you mean by that? An active and passive interpretation? Okay, well, we recognize things, but have you ever heard of John Wheeler's observer participation thesis? No. Okay, John Wheeler had this idea called the observer participation thesis, that when we see a quantum event, when we look at a far away star, and a photon from that star hits our eye, we are somehow participating in that event. Okay? So that's what we're talking about. Basically, you cannot just watch something without actively participating. Okay? You're actually agreeing to it in some way. You're

Starting point is 00:58:59 actually actively putting yourself, by perceiving it, you are contributing your perception to it. And because of the nature of telesis, it's impossible for you to stop yourself from becoming actively entangled with it. Okay? You can't just passively perceive things. Okay? Those things also have, you and the thing that you're observing both have an impact on each other. That's the way it has to work, because all of these, you've got this causal symmetry in the CTMU, and in other theories as well. How would that work on a more mundane level where there's a wall, let's say?

Starting point is 00:59:36 Whether I look at the wall or not, does that have any bearing to the wall? Does it exist or not exist when I look? Does it erode more when I look, for example? Yes, you are participating in the existence of the wall does it exist or not exist when i look does it erode more when i look for example yes you are participating in the existence of the wall right can the wall not self-perceive can it not perceive itself the tertiary syntactors in the wall can and do perceive each other in a limited way yes but in terms of the in terms of the secondary utility of the wall, what it's actually doing in the world, you're participating in that. As a matter of fact, human constructed

Starting point is 01:00:14 walls wouldn't exist unless they were useful to tellers like you. You can't look at anything without participating in its existence. That's what a measurement event is. When you measure the spin of a particle up or down, you are participating in that determination. That measurement is yours. You're the one who set up the measurement device. You're asking a yes or no question, and your question is being answered. You impose the question on reality, and reality is answering the question for you. So there's this active-passive symmetry in everything. Let's get to one more of these abstract sentences. The maximal generality in brackets

Starting point is 01:00:59 universality-comprehensiveness criterion of a reality theoretic identity, or ontologically necessary and sufficient theory of everything, means that a fully general formal structure must be selected as the skeletal identity of a Toll framework. Okay, so let's break down some of these terms, term by term. Maximal generality. Comprehensive. Okay. Reality, theoretic, identity. That means when you know what an identity is, that's something as which that thing exists. Okay?

Starting point is 01:01:34 Basically, that's its identity. You exist as a secondary teller. That's part of your identity. Any property you can assign to yourself, that's part of your identity. Fully general formal structure. Is that related to the metaformal structure you mentioned earlier? Yes. Sometimes I use formal for metaformal because the metaformal system is intrinsically a metaformal system

Starting point is 01:01:58 by virtue of its description. But I have to write that description down in a formal way. It's got to be written on a piece of paper, and you kind of add the metaformality to it by understanding what it's saying, but it's written down on a sheet of paper, and that makes it formal. It's a form as opposed to the content of the form. All right. And the skeletal identity. Skeletal means that it's just a set of invariants in which, you know, without interfering with those invariants a lot, there's a lot of variability. Reality can vary, can change, can adapt, okay, without disturbing its essential invariants.

Starting point is 01:02:39 So those essential invariants are skeletal reality. You flesh it out. Must a theory of everything explain mental activity? Yes. Consciousness? To a certain extent. It's not going to determine mental activity.

Starting point is 01:02:59 There's no such thing as a deterministic theory of reality. But it has to explain the wherewithal of metal activity. I'm trying to find out what ingredients, some people have different definitions of theories of everything. You mentioned this before, a grand unified one, which is more of a physics term for gravity and so on, or one that explains consciousness or one that explains the explanations themselves. The theory of everything has to explain all of those things. Everything. It's to be taken literally. Anybody who doesn't take it literally is making a mistake.

Starting point is 01:03:35 Do you have any thoughts as to the biological origins of life? Sure, life originated biologically, but it also originated metaphysically. It comes from the origin. It's part of the structure of the universe. It was inevitable to say that, well, there could have been a universe with no life, where life just never got started, never formed. That's hogwash. There is basically no reason for such a universe to exist even for itself.

Starting point is 01:04:06 Right? That's an absurdity. It's a little bit like the anthropic principle, but there's got to be it's the anthropic principle with utility, right? Part of the reason the universe exists is because there are secondary tellers

Starting point is 01:04:21 that derive utility from it. Otherwise, what is its reason to exist? The universe just simply exists, and it has baked within it some teller, some purpose, and one of those purposes is to observe itself through secondary tellers? That's its structure. In order to exist, the universe must have certain aspects of structure. One of it must be completely self-explanatory and self-justified. Because it's closed. It has to provide all of these things for itself.

Starting point is 01:04:54 And if it can't provide those things for itself, then its structure is inadequate to support existence. And it will not exist. Why is that inconsistent with the anthropic principle? Why can't it just be that there are multiple universes, and we can call the collection of universes one meta-universe or one large universe and call that the true universe, let's say? Well, that's what the CTMU does.

Starting point is 01:05:16 The CTMU incorporates something called a syntactic metaverse. But in terms of how do all those universes that you're talking about putting them all together and collecting them into a set, how do they come into existence? Why? That's the reason. You need to justify it, otherwise it's pointless to hypothecate their existence. What are your thoughts on many worlds, generally? You know, many worlds is basically, you know, if it can exist, it does exist. But it's got things that matter. It's Everett's theory, of course.

Starting point is 01:05:56 His idea was, well, the Schrödinger equation is deterministic, you know, and everything that, you know, all of those possibilities that exist in that equation should continue to exist without quantum collapse. And so he converted quantum collapse events into a divergence of universes. In order for this to work, you need to have certain things, certain assumptions have to be imposed. For example, you need a fixed array in order to parameterize all the events and identify all your particles and events in the universe so that you know just exactly how the eventualities are splitting. Okay?

Starting point is 01:06:30 It turns out that these assumptions are not orthologically viable. So, although Everett was correct in that there is a metaverse, he sort of mischaracterized it. It's not, you know, infinity upon infinity of pointlessness, universes that are pointlessly diverging in every tiny little quantum event. That's ridiculous. Okay, but the idea of a metaverse, of this Ur universe that exists prior to, in some sense, the reality that we inhabit, that's a valid idea.

Starting point is 01:07:07 So he sort of, you know, he sort of hit the nail on the head and then he kind of went off on a tangent in order to make his theory work, you know, in order to get his interpretation of, you know, all of these, you know, to interpret the multiverse or the metaverse as being this collection, this vast collection of pointlessly diverging universes. Because we have telic recursion, the way that I understand that is that at each conspansion point in the manifold, over time, somehow the points are evolving and including their neighbors.

Starting point is 01:07:43 And I recall you saying at the speed of light. Forget about at the speed of light, because that can take us down another route. Regardless, they're... The speed of conspansion, the rate of conspansion is usually the way I refer to it. Okay, cool. So they're absorbing.

Starting point is 01:07:53 And then that translates to a positive cosmological constant, because the universe seems as if it's contracting from one point of view or expanding from another. Okay. Do you happen to have a prediction for... I know that your theory says there should be a positive cosmological constant. Does it have a calculation as to what range it should look like? Yes.

Starting point is 01:08:18 There's plenty of positive numbers. I've made calculations. I'm not going to announce them here. I'll publish them first, and then we can talk about them. You're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics, consciousness, and the ostensible connection between the two. What's required to follow some of these arguments is facility with mathematics as well as discernment of the underlying physical laws, and you may think that this is beyond you, but that's false. Brilliant provides pellucid explanations of abstruse phenomenon such as quantum computing, general relativity, and even

Starting point is 01:08:48 group theory. When you hear that the standard model is based on U1 cross SU2 cross SU3, that's group theory, for example. Now this isn't just for neophytes either. For example, I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in these lessons to vastly aid my penetration into these subjects, for example, electricity and magnetism. Sign up today at brilliant.org slash toe, that is T-O-E, for free. You'll also get 20% off the annual premium subscription. Try four of the lessons at least, don't stop before four.

Starting point is 01:09:19 And I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you comprehend subjects you previously had trouble grokking. Links are in the description. Okay, let's get to some philosophy. Alright, what's meant by existence is everywhere, the choice to exist? Well, that's that active-passive duality that we were talking about before. In the CTMU, telors are basically secondary quantum, and they've got to nucleate physical bodies. All right?

Starting point is 01:09:50 So they actually have to actively participate in their own birth. Do they do so of some proto-will? Or is it happenstance? They inherit the will of the universe. The will of the universe is to exist. Therefore, these... Therefore, you know, in any part of the universe, The will of the universe is to exist. Therefore, these, therefore,

Starting point is 01:10:05 you know, any part of the universe in the non-terminal domain, you've got things everywhere that are seeking to exist. You know, the, the terminal domain provides them with resources that they can use to actualize themselves. And this is what happens.

Starting point is 01:10:22 And you mean that they want to exist at the Diffionic level, at this terminal level, or you mean to say that they want to exist at all? Because to me, as I hear that, when someone says this entity wants to exist, it implies it already exists. You need a physical, in order to truly exist

Starting point is 01:10:39 in the sense that most people mean, you actually need this form content feedback. Okay, so in order to fully exist, things do require some kind of a terminal body. Where people get confused is they think that their terminal body can only be of a certain kind in a certain world. All right, that's not necessarily true. There can be many different kinds of terminal realization. All right, for example, there can be an afterlife, a heaven or a hell, for example, in which you can exist and have another kind of terminal body,

Starting point is 01:11:12 which was generated just for that world or just for that heaven or hell. You see, it doesn't necessarily have to be right here. One way or another, you need those resources in order to fully instantiate your existence. Otherwise, your existence never achieves full resolution. It is never fully actualized. The universe wants to actualize itself everywhere it can. That's why we have this profusion of life, right? That's why we have all these different species, all these different organisms.

Starting point is 01:11:41 Telesis wants to actualize itself. It wants to exist, and this world provides it with the resources to do so. So is it akin to God wanting to exist? God wanting there to be more God? God is God. Yes, that's exactly right. That's why I say it. Reality is closed. It has to be totally self-justified. Right? Existence is the will to exist. All right?

Starting point is 01:12:09 And you've also heard me possibly use a term called triality. Right? As the identity of reality, this global operator descriptor is not only an object and a relationship. It's also a process or an operator. Right? In other words, you can imagine that the universe is not just an object, it's an event. It's a creation event.

Starting point is 01:12:31 That's what the universe is. It's a self-creation event or self-identification event. You see? And everywhere in the universe, these self-creation or self-identification events are seeking to occur. They're trying to occur. Particles are being created and annihilated everywhere in the universe.

Starting point is 01:12:52 Because they're inheriting this will to exist from the universe itself, and this is a criterion of existence. Without it, existence is impossible. You can't just exist for a second and then not be an operation that maintains your existence because that second is meaningless. It's got to be a permanent existence. It's got to be,

Starting point is 01:13:15 in some sense, atemporal or eternal. That's what God is in CT. Basically, God is being equated to ultimate reality, so God is eternal in this sense. And to get Wittgensteinian, when you say eternal, do you mean infinite temporal length or timelessness? Basically, we're talking about atemporality, which is timelessness. In other words, it's prior to time. It's pre-temporal in a way. It just exists as a kinetis exists as an impulse as an imperative but it is not fully actualized without existence and all that goes into it and there are these existential criteria are what most physicists and other people leave out of their understanding of reality. But these criteria are logically necessary,

Starting point is 01:14:05 and they do, in fact, exist. Before we get further, some people may be turned off by the use of the word God, so I'd like you to define how you use it, because you have a... Well, it comports with the general definition of God, but it's more specific. Well, I've done everybody the favor of making an acronym out of it Global Operator Descriptor the identity of reality or ultimate reality as far as personifying it is concerned anthropomorphizing it or whatever you want to call it that follows from the properties of the G.O.D.

Starting point is 01:14:39 of the Global Operator Descriptor we find out that it has certain properties ordinarily attributed to God by people who have religious beliefs, usually monotheistic beliefs. That's the correct way to look at it. So that's what I mean when I say God. I'm not saying, well, I'm not necessarily the Christian God, the Muslim God, the Jewish God, whatever kind of God, right? I mean the global operator descriptor, and it does have sentience. It is all of the criteria that go into the basic religious definition of God, creating the universe, all the rest of that stuff. These can actually be validly interpreted in the CTME.

Starting point is 01:15:21 The CTME models those properties. Therefore, God exists. Now, these tertiary tellers come into existence because of their will to exist, at least from my understanding, but at the same time, at the secondary level... Because of the universe's will to exist. At our level, it seems like not everyone has a will to exist, which you also mentioned is equivalent to evil, or at least cognate with it. Is it possible for a particle to have an anti-will to exist?

Starting point is 01:15:54 Most people who commit suicide basically have no will to exist. They're not anti-existence. Suicide is not necessarily evil in the sense of a mass murderer who tries to destroy civilization and the human species. They're not quite the same thing. Can a particle commit suicide in a sense? Can a particle have a suicidal will? A particle does not have sufficient self-modeling capacity to make that decision for itself. That's why we require secondary tellers. They have the self-modeling, the advanced self-modeling capacity

Starting point is 01:16:25 to be able to make decisions of that complexity, and only they can do it. That's why they're necessary. That's why we have to be quanta, coherent quanta in this universe. Can you talk about what good is defined as and what evil is defined as? Well, basically, good is what reality as a whole wants. Teleology, the will of God. People have many terms for it. And evil is its opposite, the negation of it.

Starting point is 01:16:51 Simple as that. And good wants? Good wants self-actualization and self-identification. That is what the universe is doing. It is one huge, massive self-identification event. Everything in it, all of the events are self-identification events that go into its self-actualization. What's meant by self-actualization? That's a term that some new age people use, and let's delineate it.

Starting point is 01:17:21 Okay, well, as physicists would call call it a quantum wave function collapse okay the quantum wave function you know something is generally according to the the score in your equation you've got a quantum wave function it's expands you know it's it's radiating out into space and then suddenly the poof it collapses that's inner expansion and collapse. That's a expansive meta-event. This is what the universe is made out of in the CTMU. You're no longer just looking at particles. You're looking at more advanced kinds of quanta that are much, much easier to tie together in the expansive meta-event.

Starting point is 01:17:59 I tend to get bogged down in words, so I'm going to press you sometimes, and it may seem unduly persnickety, but when you say self-actualized, isn't it not the case that there is only self-actualization, not just actualization, because the universe is itself? That's correct. That is correct.

Starting point is 01:18:17 Everything is self-actualization of the universe, if not necessarily of you. Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the human singularity versus the theological, sorry, necessarily of you. Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the human singularity versus the theological, sorry, versus the technological singularity? The tech singularity, right. Well, the human singularity, it's all about how,

Starting point is 01:18:36 it's all about human destiny and how responsibility for human destiny is distributed. All right, if there's a tech singular, if there's a human singularity, we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and where it's going and how to realize it. All right, that distributes the whole thing over humanity as a whole and no one gets left out. If we have a tech singularity, everything will be controlled by the people who own the technology. Those are mega corporations, okay, run by people who are not typically very nice or public-spirited people.

Starting point is 01:19:10 They're highly acquisitive, okay? They tend to be narcissistic, Machiavellian, sadistic sometimes. Basically, these are not all good people. I mean, there are exceptions. There are some people, you know, that have a lot of money or are in charge of various kinds of technological enterprise that aren't totally bad people. But when you put too many of them together, they start getting the idea that they're elite, and they should be in charge. And they start deciding that people are useless eaters. There

Starting point is 01:19:41 are too many of them, and for the good of the planet, and really because they're a nuisance, we have to get rid of them. All right? This kind of talk has been going on for centuries. All right? A lot of people aren't aware of it, but the elite tend to form these ideations when left to their own devices. Okay? So if there is a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology,

Starting point is 01:20:03 that technology will be used against the human species. It's almost certain. And that is called a parasitic divergence, where they become a parasitic subspecies of the human race, and the rest of us become their hosts. Now, the human singularity, it's one that you advocate for, something that we should have instead of the technological singularity. What is the human singularity?

Starting point is 01:20:27 Well, it's been laid out by others. For instance, Teilhard de Chardin, you're probably familiar with him. He was a Jesuit priest who came up with this idea of the omega point. We're approaching this quickening of consciousness where we're going to realize what we are, who we are, our relationship with God and reality, and fulfill our destiny. And this is going to be this huge worldwide global event.

Starting point is 01:20:54 And it's going to save us and allow us to pass through the great filter and realize our destiny. That's what it is. He used that term great filter? Or did you just come up with that? Great filter? No, great filter is a term that's been around for a while. It's basically every species, you know, as it develops technology and starts killing itself with pollution and overpopulation, every species comes to a point where it either has to grow up and live sanely and sustainably in its environment, or it dies.

Starting point is 01:21:27 Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts, scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover. Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines, Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible. Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors,

Starting point is 01:22:05 not the best razor business. So that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old school shave with the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions

Starting point is 01:22:24 and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash everything. If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart. Plus 100 free blades when you head to h-e-n-s-o-n-s-h-a-V-I-N-G dot com slash everything and use the code everything. Part of the technological singularity, one of the reasons why people are venerating it is because there's the potential for minds to be uploaded into classical computers. Really? And whose theory is that? Right, right. This is what I want to ask you about. There is no theory. has no why do you laugh why is it absurd and let's imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to but some other maybe quantum computer why is

Starting point is 01:23:14 that outrageous because that's not the way reality is structured reality exists it exists on other terms entirely you're not going to build a machine. It is not mechanical. It is metamechanical or protomechanical. You might be able to call it that, but you're not going to be able to use a universal Turing machine, or for that matter, a quantum Turing machine, to simulate it. It can't be done. It does not satisfy the requirements for existence.

Starting point is 01:23:43 There is no theory. There is no theory of transhumanism, how this whole thing is going to occur. Unless you can point me to a theory. Now, if you can do that, I'll change my mind. I'm an open-minded person. I don't think there is such a theory. You just mentioned mechanical.

Starting point is 01:24:01 Is this because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telecausation? Or is this unrelated to that? telecausation or is this unrelated to that i have a causation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is mechanical causation is incoherent you have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be bolted together in the right way the machine works performs a function the way it's supposed to but they don't work coherently in the sense of quantum mechanics. Telequercursion is coherent in the sense of quantum mechanics. Alright, so

Starting point is 01:24:29 everything is superposed on each other. All of the possibilities interfere within these quanta of causation called telons, which are just configurations of telors like you. Do you have any thoughts as to entanglement speed? So what I mean by that is are just configurations of tellers like you. Do you have any thoughts as to entanglement speed?

Starting point is 01:24:51 So what I mean by that is some theories predict that there's a maximum speed of entanglement. Right now, as far as we can tell, there's no speed to it. It's just instantaneous. I'm curious if, in your models, it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere simultaneously, or if there is also a speed associated with it. Well, you're just talking about some kind of terminal lag. In reality, entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain where things are metasimultaneous. It's

Starting point is 01:25:13 not appropriate to try to schedule them the same way things are scheduled in the terminal domain. But there could be a little bit of a lag where, yes, there is some measurable amount of time that it takes for things to become entangled once their wave functions hit each other. That is a calculation I have not yet performed. How does one solve the liar's paradox in your model? The Epimenides paradox? The one that says this sentence is false. Right. Well, you simply exclude that kind of sentence from reality.

Starting point is 01:25:48 You say, well, that is a pathological construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain. Unless you can find me an instantiation, and I don't think you can because it's paradoxical. So it's akin to naive set theories moved to

Starting point is 01:26:04 ZFC where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements of them, set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves. It's akin to that. You just negate it. You say that's not a possibility. It is a possibility. You just can't involve the negation part. You can't involve the self-negation part. You can have sets that are self-inclusive.

Starting point is 01:26:22 We've got self-inclusion all over the place. Practical geometry. There are all kinds of things. Consciousness itself, all kinds of things that are self-inclusive. But you can't allow this misuse of the negation factor. Okay, you can't allow that to intrude on them and render them paradoxical. That's what I'm saying. Is there a realm, let's say the pre-info-cognitive realm, this primordial place, unbounded to Lisa's place, where, as far as I understand, paradox roams.

Starting point is 01:26:49 It's fine. It's just in our experience, our world of the terminal. Right, right. It can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form, which is sufficiently well-formed that you can apprehend it or think you apprehend it. But in reality, it is incapable of instantiation you can formulate it right and then you can you can envision it in the non-terminal realm you cannot however achieve an instantiation an actualization of it because it violates the terms of existence in the terminal realm physical existence existence. Right. What happens after death? So there's a couple ways to interpret that. What I mean is let's talk about what is death?

Starting point is 01:27:33 What does it mean to die? That's the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this present time. When you are retracted from this reality, okay, you you go you you go back up toward the origin of reality you can be provided with a substitute body another terminal another kind of terminal body that allows you to keep on existing with the same memories

Starting point is 01:28:00 is what religions excuse me with a modicum of your memories before or a complete eraser? You can have... These memories can be... Nothing goes out of existence in the conspensive metaphor. Your memories can always be pulled back out if that's... But there's no reason to do that, usually. Okay? Why cling to memories of a world in which you are no longer instantiated?

Starting point is 01:28:27 So there are certain automatic psychological things that happen on death, at the moment of death. Also, you mentioned what happens after death. That's not quite appropriate, of course, because that's a temporal preposition. And when you're extracted from the terminal domain, you're no longer time-like. Now you're basically metatemporal. So, everything changes. However, you exist that way right now. Arguably, all of your lifetimes, if you were to be reincarnated again and again and again,

Starting point is 01:29:00 all of those reincarnations are metasimultaneous. There is a sense in which they all occur at once in the non-terminal domain. So when people talk about heaven, which I know you have your own views, a specific differentiated view I haven't heard before as to what heaven is and even hell. When people talk about heaven,

Starting point is 01:29:21 usually what they mean is something like a reinstantiation of this body with probably a better hairline than I have. And you could be younger. I have a great hairline. Oh, man. It's better than mine is. But you should see Bernardo Kastrup, who I should put you in touch with. Have you heard of Bernardo Kastrup? I've heard of Bernardo.

Starting point is 01:29:41 Yeah, he's wonderful. I think he was on an email distribution. I think it was one of Jack Sarfatti's email distributions. Who's that? Jack who? Jack Sarfatti? Yeah. Jack Sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics.

Starting point is 01:29:56 Uh-huh. Is he related to UFOs? Does he study UFOs? Yeah. As a matter of fact, I think he's working on, right now, As a matter of fact, I think he's working on, right now, he's working on metamaterials that will allow us to build spacecraft that emulate Tic Tacs. Remember those Tic Tacs that the... We're going to talk about that, man. I mean, yeah, he's a gonzo physicist, right?

Starting point is 01:30:19 But he's been around since the 1960s, and he and a bunch of other guys, like Sarag and Nick Herbert and Fred Allen Wolfe and other people like this. There's a guy named David Kaiser, I think he's at MIT. He wrote a book called How the Hippies Saved Physics. And these were the guys, these were non-locality, and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes came from these guys. But in reality, they have a lot of very productive thoughts. In a way, the world we're living in now is an outgrowth

Starting point is 01:30:52 of some of what they were thinking and doing in those days. Some of these guys are still around. I mean, not just Jacques Lafayette, but you've also got other guys like, you know, I know Nick Herbert is still there, you know, and I know that Wolf is still there. Sir Ag is still there, you know, and I know that Wolf is still there. Sir Ag is still there.

Starting point is 01:31:06 These guys are on email distributions that, you know, Jack sometimes puts me on one of his distributions. I want to talk to Jack at some point. I heard that I should talk to Jack. What I've been exploring recently is the topic of UFOs because, like you know, this podcast is about theoretical physics, consciousness, free will, and God. And it seems like UFOs, from our observations of them, break the laws of physics as we know. So a simple one is conservation of momentum. How can you move back and forth? We have to assume a certain mass is associated with a craft.

Starting point is 01:31:43 Well, yes, and of course mass amounts to inertia, and that's a violation of inertia. You can't just suddenly turn on a turn of a con like that. Right, so that's what I've been exploring. Unless you're dealing with a projection. Right, right. That's also called spoofing, I believe. Have you heard that term?

Starting point is 01:32:00 Yeah, I have heard the term spoofing, but you need a better theater of reality in order to explain what this kind of projection could be. Okay, while we're here, man, let's talk about this. What are your thoughts on UFOs in general, as well as the recent disclosure movements? convincing that they are in fact maybe us from the future maybe associated with god or demons or angels or just an advanced civilization visiting us in the same way that we house people at zoos i mean well animals they could be any or all of those things there could be different kinds that some kinds that come from the future sometimes some kinds that come from another planet elsewhere in the universe right but they definitely you've got too much reportage on them.

Starting point is 01:32:47 There are too many people who are coming up with heartfelt stories about them. They can't possibly all be fake. People aren't liars. If someone's going to risk his reputation and be called a nut by coming out and saying, I saw a UFO, you have to take that person a little bit seriously. Sure, there are scammers out there and people who are going to lie about it, but I don't think we could have this much reportage without actually having something to it.

Starting point is 01:33:16 So I think a lot of people are telling the truth about UFOs. That means they have to be explained, and there are a number of possible explanations corresponding to different kinds of UFO. You mentioned the word woo about five minutes ago. What I'm wondering is, did you used to have a conception of what you thought was woo? So, for example, telekinesis or psychic phenomenon, maybe when you were in your teens, that now, because of your development of the CTMU, you no longer regard it as incoherent mysticism? Well, I mean, I have had a number of paranormal experiences

Starting point is 01:33:52 and began having them at a rather young age, and that's one of the reasons I had to develop the CTMU, to develop an extended picture of reality that would actually accommodate alternate states of being, alternate states of mind. And so that is, rather than dismissing the experiences that I had in the past, I've actually become more comfortable with it. What are some of these paranormal experiences? Well, you know, psychokinesis, telepathy, lots of precognition in my case, out-of-body experiences, you name it.

Starting point is 01:34:33 I don't know of a single kind of paranormal event that I haven't spontaneously experienced at one point or another. Have you witnessed any UFOs on your own? Well, yes, I have. And I was basically up near, I was working for the U.S. Forest Service and I was up near in central Montana, near Malmstrom Air Force Base, by the way,

Starting point is 01:34:58 where they're known to have shown up. I saw something in the sky and actually stood and watched it for 30 minutes until I got bored and drove away. And I was driving a U.S. Forest Service pickup truck, but literally stood there, leaning against the back of the truck, looking directly at it for a long, long time. Okay, it was perfectly, it did not change shape. It did not change position. It was right up there in the sky over, they were called the Little Snowy Mountains.

Starting point is 01:35:32 I was in charge, kind of in charge of this mountain range in Montana. And that's where it was. And it was huge. It was titanic. I mean, there was no missing. I don't know if anybody else saw it or not. But yeah, it was up there. What do you estimate its size to be?

Starting point is 01:35:48 Excuse me? Sorry, what do you estimate its size to be? You see, it's very, very difficult to tell because getting a distance fix on something like that is very, very hard. It could have been anywhere from 500 yards to five miles in diameter. So I don't know, but it was huge. Was it one of the triangular UFOs or was it a more disc-like? It was oblate.

Starting point is 01:36:18 It looked to me like an oblate spheroid. And one of the first things I thought, well, this must be a lenticular cloud. And so I kept on looking at it to find out if it was, you know, to see, okay, if it's a lenticular cloud, I'm going to see some sign of movement. There's going to be something there. It was nothing like that. This thing was totally solid metallic, and it did not change. I kept on staring directly at it to see if it would change. You know, if it doesn't change, change. You know, do something. But it wouldn't.

Starting point is 01:36:47 So, as I said, I stayed there for, you know, until I was quite sure that there was no doubt about it. And then I just drove away. Can you give me an example of another paranormal experience of yours, a specific one? There are just simply all kinds. Well, the first time I had an out-of-body experience, I was lying down.

Starting point is 01:37:11 And I experienced, you ever hear of nocturnal paralysis? Yeah. Basically, I was lying down, and I woke up, and I thought, maybe I'll get up and go to the bathroom or something. So I tried to move, and I couldn't. Immediately, I started to panic. And there was a wall next to me.

Starting point is 01:37:30 So I figured, what's going on? And I look, and there's a bookshelf next to me on the wall right next to my head. That bookshelf was four feet above the ground. In other words, somehow, I must have risen above my body. I couldn't figure out how this did happen. But anyway, I thought, oh my God, am I dead? What time is it? How long have I, you know, if I'm dead, how long have I been dead? Suddenly I floated, I began to move. I floated in from the room that I was on into the kitchen of the house that I was in, turned a corner and looked directly at a clock that was on the stove there and saw the time.

Starting point is 01:38:10 And at that point, I realized, you know, this is, you know, basically the middle of the night. And I woke up back up in my body. I mean, it took me a little bit and I got control of my muscles and I walked back in and it was one minute later than it was when I looked at the clock. So, of course, now some people are very good at gauging time and figuring out what time it is, but that was an exact estimate of the time after I'd been asleep for some period of time. So, you know, that was something.

Starting point is 01:38:40 Of course, it was terrifying because the first time you experience this nocturnal paralysis, you are going to be in the fruit. But then many, many of these experiences after that. Have you had any intimations of God speaking to you? Well, now you're getting a little bit, yes, I have had religious caliber visions. Now I'm getting a little bit what? Now you're getting a little bit personal. No, no, you're asking me to reveal some of the

Starting point is 01:39:12 most personal details. Right, right, right. If you want, you can be general about it. I have too much experience with these despicable creatures called trolls that have been specializing in my case for a while. You admit that you had a paranormal experience and suddenly these creatures are looking for any reason to crawling all over the internet right saying nasty things about you and unfortunately you know what is i don't know

Starting point is 01:39:34 if you know anything about me but i've been canceled me and my ideas have been canceled despite the fact that they're totally provable been canceled for a long time because of the god thing and also because people don't like IQ differentials. So if there's an IQ differential, it's politically incorrect. And if you're talking about God and say God is mathematically provable on top of that, the trolls come out of the woodwork on you. And pretty soon, people are reading the internet, and they see all this troll nonsense, and they somehow get the idea, oh, wow, well where there's smoke, there's fire, so this guy must be like totally off the wall. And then they don't pay attention to you, or they think that it's somehow your ideas are somehow tainted. And so this leads

Starting point is 01:40:15 to what is called cancellation or cancel culture, which in my case has been going on for over 30 years, but somewhere between 30 and 40 years, and let me tell you, I'm sick of it, okay? There is not an academic alive that can do a thing about anything that I have ever said or done. Nevertheless, I am not invited to, you know, conferences or symposia. I'm not invited to do media appearances. I mean, these are, you know, things that I should have been able to, there are ways that I should have been able to spread the word about, you know, my work and actually get it out there so that people could look at it.

Starting point is 01:40:52 They were denying me. So I'm a little bit, I don't like trolls. I don't like people that talk out of turn about things they don't understand. And there are a lot of those people out there. And unfortunately, it would be fine, I guess, if most people were able to distinguish between a troll and someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Most people can't.

Starting point is 01:41:14 If the troll uses a little bit of language, well, I work at a university, and here's my opinion. It's all nonsense, okay? Then, you know, people think, well, he says he's from a university. Maybe he really is. All right. And this is, you know, the problem.

Starting point is 01:41:30 People can't distinguish between truth and falsehood, especially when it's, you know, when it takes the form of internet noise. What I find is that people don't go into the... Honey, can you get me something to drink, please? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Pardon me, Craig. That's okay. My mouth is getting dry yeah no problem no problem what i find is that people dismiss intellectuals like steven wolf from eric

Starting point is 01:41:54 weinstein yourself without delving into the papers maybe they'll watch they'll do a cursory glance at their work quote some of it so that if they want to look like they've read, they'll quote a few paragraphs here and there. I've seen criticisms of yours, but they're not, they're not, they haven't. See, I'll tell you, my, my difficulty is when I'm going into your theories or anyone else's, it takes sometimes weeks. And i try to put myself in the position where not only am i understanding it at an intellectual level but i'm realizing it and what i mean by realizing is is i'm trying to see how what you're saying how can i model it such that i see it completely obvious that's how i know i've internalized a theory. And I don't see anyone who criticizes you as

Starting point is 01:42:45 attempting that. That's correct. And basically, they claim that it's so abstract and abstruse that they can't visualize it and that it's impossible to visualize. That's the usual line. I visualize

Starting point is 01:43:04 all of it. It's not hard for me. But, you know, for some reason, I think it's intellectual laziness. I think it's the idea that they don't want to become involved with something that might prove them wrong, mistaken about something. There are a number of psychological factors that go into it. But these two guys you mentioned, Wolfram and Weinstein, they may have somewhat the same problem. Although they're in a better position than I am, because they've got lots of money and they've got

Starting point is 01:43:33 university degrees. I have neither of those things. Well, Chris, if I can do something about getting you more notoriety, I will, man. If I can uncancel you, I do plan on having you on again at some once i've i'm going to go through your theories more which will take some months because i don't have only your theory now i've only been studying yours for the past couple weeks but now

Starting point is 01:43:56 i have to move on to someone's the best one right right we're going to talk about that we're going to talk about that at the end because i i i get to that question right now. What I'm wondering is, I want to make sure that what I'm doing is honest and open and for the good. And I wouldn't make a claim that I'm trying to do that because that would, to me, mean that I'm trying to be good, which means I'm good. And I don't know if I am. I'm a bit hesitant to say that. But I'll say I'm trying to try to be good. Let's say that. You haven't done anything especially bad yet in my sight. Thank you. However, here's where it gets bad. You mentioned that your theory is the only one of God that is correct. And then what I'm wondering is, does that mean when I'm interviewing other people on their ideas of God and so on, it's incorrect? Which means I'm promulgating evil in some way and promulgating incoherence. Only if they claim they've got a true theory of everything that's totally comprehensive.

Starting point is 01:44:59 Otherwise, the possibility exists that their theories or their viewpoints can be interpreted in such a theory, in a true theory of everything. You see? For example, these other guys that you mentioned, you know, and you asked me questions about other thinkers. If to the extent that their ideas can be interpreted in mind, of course they're not correct. But my idea is called a super tautology. It cannot be broken. Okay. The conditions for intelligibility are realized by it, which means that if you try to come up with a counter example, it will be unintelligible and inadmissible. My theory cannot be broken.

Starting point is 01:45:38 So, you know, although these other guys don't, I'm the only person with a super tautology, but all of these people have valuable insights. I don't think you've ever interviewed a dummy. These people actually see things. They've got insights. As long as those insights can be interpreted in the CTMU super tautology, that's okay. Another way for people to understand what you've just said is that think of set theory as the basis by which physics comes up with their theories. And that's not exactly true.

Starting point is 01:46:10 They don't axiomatize from set theory onward. No, it's empirical induction. Think of it like that. a meta-language, a super-totological language, such that other theories are interpretable, almost like with physics, whatever the equation is that governs the grand unification. Let's imagine it's just a single equation. Well, that's based in axiomatic set theory. Okay, then you can take it a step back and say, what would a theory of everything at all have to look like?

Starting point is 01:46:41 In all of its... In its outline, it's probably the best way to look at that. The important thing is that it be comprehensive and not exclude anything that's true. Alright? Nobody can present a complete theory of everything that explains every

Starting point is 01:46:55 detail of the universe right up front. The universe doesn't work that way. It is not deterministic. So there is no such theory. What you need is you need the outline, the very generic form in which anything that is true that actually occurs in the universe or is relevant to the universe can be expressed. If you've got that, then you've got a TOE. I'm the only person that has a TOE with that description. So even though it's not yet a unified field theory in the sense

Starting point is 01:47:23 that most physicists would make, unifying general relativity and gauge theory and quantum mechanics, although it comes pretty close, actually. Once I start getting into it, if I were to give all the detail, it does come close in some respects to something like that, but that's not the way I present it. I'm presenting it as a super tautology, as the logical form of a theory of everything that cannot be broken.

Starting point is 01:47:50 Can't get out. There is no escape. Nobody gets over. I'm actually writing a book, maybe it's just for myself for now, on theories of everything. I have a chapter on yours, so as I've been studying for yours i'm writing

Starting point is 01:48:05 it that's partly how i understand it at one point i'll send it to you thank you i would love to take a look at your show yeah for sure it'll be maybe six pages long so i have to condense what is about 300 pages down to five as well as what i'm trying to do is relate different theories of everything and the reason i'm doing that is you yourself, you notice, I'm sure you've gone through this, where you start to make connections between what you say, let's take an example, what you conceive of as God, and then other religions

Starting point is 01:48:33 that normally would be thought of as contradictory, that not two of these could be correct because they make opposite propositions. But you see, well, actually there is a way in which there's an overlap, and that's probably what they're referring to is this overarching. Exactly.

Starting point is 01:48:49 There are ways, if you have a general framework that is super tautological and you know it's a fact, all you have to do is worry about interpreting these different religions so that they're consistent within this framework. So that's why I call it a meta-religion. Take all of these other religions, you know, that are usually at each other's throats, because they don't know how to interpret their doctrines and what they pull out of scriptural documents. They don't know how to interpret that, so they end up imagining these conflicts. Those conflicts usually don't have to exist. If you have an overall framework in which

Starting point is 01:49:24 the scripture and doctrine could be interpreted, they can be avoided. Why is it that intellect is associated with atheism? Now, you may disagree, but what I mean is in academia, there's obviously an association with intellect there. That's a danger zone phenomenon. Just assume that proposition is correct. You know what I'm referring to. Why is it that most smart people now think that it's smart or it's intellectual to eschew God? They're dummies. They think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. That's the problem.

Starting point is 01:49:57 The geniuses throughout history, if you want to look at the real geniuses throughout history, most of them believed in God. Most of them admitted that there was a higher power, that there had to be a higher power. The people who occupy universities, I'd say your average Harvard instructor, Harvard is a very good university, of course, I'd say your average Harvard instructor might go 135, 140 max in terms of IQ. That's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God, especially when you've got people like Isaac Newton, IQ, that's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God, especially when you've got people like Isaac Newton, okay, that you're looking at, you know, people like, people like, there are just thousands of them, great geniuses that have believed in God.

Starting point is 01:50:37 Counter would be obviously that if we go back far enough in time, let's say 100 years in the prior, 250 years in prior, almost everyone believed in God, both what you call dummy, quote unquote, and intellectual. So to say that the higher end of the IQ spectrum believed in God previous to 250 years ago, well, almost everyone did. So then we have to look at modern thinkers. Now, you're obviously someone who's extremely bright as an understatement. Is there a correlation between those on the extreme end of the IQ spectrum who believe in God, but then those who are of higher intelligence that don't? So almost like a Dunning-Kruger, where the middle doesn't believe. You're that smart aleck teenager.

Starting point is 01:51:18 But then if you gain a bit more insight, there's this false quote. I'm sure you've heard it. It says something like, the first sip of science makes you an atheist, but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer more insight. There's this false quote, I'm sure you've heard it, that says something like the first zip of science makes you an atheist, but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer in God. It's a false quote attributed to, I think, Schrodinger or Heisenberg. It's false, but regardless. It's true. Even if it's false, it's actually

Starting point is 01:51:35 there's something to it. You've got to have depth. The intelligence has to have a lot of penetration, and you've got to get the big picture before you understand that there must be a God out there, right? And a lot of people don't have that. You mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, all right? People imagining that they're much smarter and more competent than they are. Okay, it's usually associated with stupid people. You know, stupid people tend to have Dunning-Kruger, right? But there is a higher IQ version of that. It's called the danger zone effect.

Starting point is 01:52:02 We've been talking about it for years. People who range in IQ between, you know, like 130 and 150, you would ordinarily think, well, it's extremely high IQ, almost up to genius range. So these people must actually have something going for them. Well, basically, it works against them because they're right so often compared to the ordinary person. They almost always turn out to be smarter. This gives them the idea that they're intellectually infallible. They start to lose sight of their own intellectual limitations and believe that they're really what they've cracked themselves up to be. And they become insufferable at this point. This is the danger zone phenomenon. People tend to exhibit this when they're within a certain

Starting point is 01:52:48 IQ range that we call the danger zone. Like I said, it's like a two standard deviation range. Right around where I said it was. Maybe I said 130. Maybe it's like 120 to 150.

Starting point is 01:53:04 Whatever. What understand. Whatever. What you're saying is that some people, because they're so smart, and let's just say it's two standard deviations, they're above their peer group when they grow up, and then they think they're the smartest in the room, so then they extrapolate that and say, I'm the smartest in the world at 150. Exactly.

Starting point is 01:53:22 They were smartest in the room, but they were in a small room. Then they get out there in the real world where there are people smarter, and suddenly it's like they were scalded. Okay, oh, I must still be the smartest person. So they start belittling and denigrating people who are smarter than them. And this describes a lot of people who are regarded as very intelligent, especially in academia. They regard each other as intelligent.

Starting point is 01:53:43 It's kind of a club. Well, anybody who's not in our club has no intelligence whatsoever. This is what they believe. It's what they calm themselves into believing. It's not true, but they come to believe in it. It's their reason. It gives them a license to exclude and belittle people who are actually smarter than they are.

Starting point is 01:54:06 Speaking on intellect, I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Jay Gould. He has some criticisms of the concept of IQ. And I took a... Non-overlapping magisteria. Meaning? Meaning, basically, he thought that science and religion were non-overlapping magisteria and that one had nothing to say about the other. He's a complete dualist and his ideas, his conceptions of IQ are totally hogwash.

Starting point is 01:54:34 I mean, the guy was, he was obviously a smart guy, but he had certain, maybe he was a danger zone person who decided that all those people who scored better than he did on IQ tests must be really a bunch of nincompoops compared to him. And that's where he got his ideas from. But he seemed to be largely motivated by ego. I got the impression that Stephen Jay Gould was a guy who thought very highly of himself and his own perspective, but couldn't really justify it. In other words, I saw him as a danger zone kind of person. Right?

Starting point is 01:55:07 That's largely where a lot of this stuff you know, and it's not that IQ is all that special. IQ is by no means the whole of intelligence. People like Gould are right about that, but it is, it does correlate with intelligence to a certain extent. It's an aspect of intelligence.

Starting point is 01:55:24 So you can't just totally, you know, totally dismiss it and say, well, you know, this person, despite the fact that he's got a measured IQ of 65, is just as smart as this guy with the 150 IQ over here. You can't make a statement like that, but that's what these people want to do. Everybody's equal, you know, even intellectually equal. They don't really believe that because they believe they're super smart but when it comes to you you can't be any smarter it's ridiculous what i wonder people who dislike the concept of iq mainly they dislike it because it has connotations with respect to race and then they think eugenics is going to come out from conversations about it or they're not happy with their iq or they're afraid to find out their own iq because it may be lower than they think and they actually unconsciously attribute

Starting point is 01:56:10 plenty to it so they there's this great quote which is we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for but don't obtain it's from aesop's fables i put that in this movie that i was directing called better left uns. It's about you've heard of the radical left. I'm sure you've you're familiar with them. So it's about what makes extremism. It's obvious what extremism is on the right when it comes to ethno-nationalism and so on.

Starting point is 01:56:36 It's easy to identify. But it's not easy to identify what extremism is on the left because it's couched in terms of diversity and compassion and so on. So I made a film about that. Usually these days though it's also couched in terms of diversity and compassion and so on. So I made a film about that. Usually these days, though, it's also couched in terms of Marxism, which is a very flawed philosophy.

Starting point is 01:56:53 It just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. So it's getting easier to identify the people on the extreme left. What I would like is for someone who doesn't think the concept of IQ is important at all to say, okay, well, I give them a pool of people. Here's a pool that has people who are measured IQ 80 to 90. And then people who have 150 to 160. Okay, are you telling me if you're running a company, you would choose equally from them? Okay, then take the 80s. Take the take the 90s. I don't think that they actually would do so. I don't think when they actually would do so i don't think when push comes to shove they would put their money where their mouth is unless they're practicing

Starting point is 01:57:31 some form of affirmative action or have to abide by some kind of racial quota system all right then all bets are off i mean i remember when i was in new york uh you know and i needed money in new york the rents were pretty high, so I was constantly looking for a better job. The civil service exam, at the time that I was in New York, which was during the 1980s, 1990s, they spotted racial minorities,

Starting point is 01:57:57 certain racial minorities, 30 points on that test. In other words, someone like could go in and score 100, but if you belong to one of these privileged minorities, you could score a 70 and get the job. Right. And that's because of a basically affirmative action of racial quota system. Right. It's obviously not very good for our society because you've got a lot of people that really can't handle the jobs that they're given. And because of that, society deteriorates.

Starting point is 01:58:26 I mean, I feel for people that are denied work, for example, because they have a low IQ. But, you know, that's not, that is not a reason to destroy a society. You can't pretend that you're being compassionate and pretend, oh, we can't hurt anybody else's feelings, and then ask them to do things to be, you know, doctors, airline pilots, physicists. You can't expect them to perform functions like that because you feel compassionate toward them or because you don't want to hurt their feelings. Right? I mean, there has to be a point at which reality cuts in. So that's what we have to remember.

Starting point is 01:59:03 It's not that these people are bad people or that they're not as good as other people. They certainly can be as good as other people. But some people are capable or better at certain things than others. And IQ is a good measure for some of those things. So employers should know, there should be, you know, employers should be able to give, put a certain amount of weight on IQ. They don't because the academic system, Academia Incorporated, has more or less shoved IQ off the stage and replaced it with having a college degree. So now what they're looking at is, does this person have a college degree? If he has a college degree, he's smart.

Starting point is 01:59:47 And if he doesn't, he's a dummy. He's one of those high school dropouts, you know. Forget about him because he's a bum. All right? That is a disservice to the world, that kind of thing. Because anybody at this point can get a college education, right? It doesn't make any sense. Sometimes I think that, you know, I have't make any, sometimes, you know, sometimes

Starting point is 02:00:05 I think that, you know, I have a dog who, if I, you know, if I paid the money and put this dog in a class, the dog would end up with a degree, right? I mean, he can't write or spell his own name, but then again, it seems to me that some of the people who are graduating from college these days can't do that either. So you see where it's getting. It's not very good. We need to properly use our intellectual resources. And that means we pay a little bit of attention to who's good at what kind of task. I see from both sides, because there is, like you mentioned, there is, it's a correlation. IQ is a correlation, which is important. It's one of the highest correlates with success in terms of money, in terms of even happiness and health. Well, up to a certain point. Okay. That doesn't extend into the genius or super genius range, but it goes up to a certain level. It also correlates

Starting point is 02:00:56 very highly with academic success, which of course correlates with material success. But it does not correlate with morality. for example there's something called the there's a psychometric i think it's a dark triad is the only is the closest to amoralistic behavior it's not correlated with iq you may think well the smarter you are the more you can take advantage of people and you'd actually be more harmful to society it turns out there's zero correlation which is great because that means that the smarter you are, it doesn't make you a good person. And people tend to associate intellect with moral worth or with even human worth. I'm not sure if you do that. I see that as a dangerous game. And I also understand that if one belongs to a like i understand the controversy with iq and race

Starting point is 02:01:46 because if you belong to a race that has been demonstrated to have a low iq or supposedly demonstrated to have a low iq that's debilitating to be part of that group it's it's not a fun feeling to go around that's because you're identifying with the group you know everybody has a right to be taken you you know, as an individual. If you have a high IQ, I don't care what color you are, what race you belong to, you deserve to be recognized for that. But if you feel that, well, but I'm not really me. I'm a member of this group. Okay.

Starting point is 02:02:16 And because this group has a low mean IQ, because it has that statistic, that statistic must apply to me. No, that's not true. Never was true. Okay. But the whole identity politics thing that we've fallen into leads people to take that attitude. And once again, it's counterproductive and we have to stop it. I mean, we've got to break out. That's one of my questions was with regard to IQ and race or just IQ in general. If you're told that you have a low IQ, let's imagine that you're an individual who has taken an IQ test. So forget that you're inferring by membership of a group, and you have an IQ of 100 or 90 or whatever it may be. How do you avoid crushing someone's spirits

Starting point is 02:02:58 by that data point? Well, you just tell them the truth about intelligence. There's a lot more to intelligence than just IQ. I mean, we have examples. You take Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ of approximately 125, which sure isn't high enough to be a genius physicist in the estimate of most people,

Starting point is 02:03:24 but it was high enough for him. Intelligence is, it comes from another place. IQ is being able to focus all of your mental energy on specifically well-defined tasks within a certain time period. Okay, that's what it is. Intelligence need not be focused that way. Intelligence is something that can be spread out over much larger areas of space and time people that produce works of genius don't necessarily have to produce a work of genius every time they take an iq test

Starting point is 02:03:54 okay so intelligence is much more than iq and this is something that i think if people understood this and i'll try to help them understand this, if they understood it, they wouldn't feel so bad about, you know, some kid who scores, you know, better on an IQ test than they do. They wouldn't even necessarily feel bad about belonging to a group that has a low mean IQ. You see? I mean, people are, there are differences, you know, between people. We're all good at certain things. We're all bad at certain things. Okay. And everybody's different. As long as we learn to accommodate those differences, but also allowing for the way those differences affect our performance at certain tasks in real life, when we can do that, we'll be much better. Sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself.

Starting point is 02:04:43 sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself imagine that morality could also be placed on a spectrum much like IQ is would you take a decrement to your IQ for an increment in morality I call it moral intelligence I actually conflate the two you mentioned the dark tetrad the chronological tetrad of sociopathy of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism. Okay, now a lot of the elite have those. They have that dark tetrad too.

Starting point is 02:05:12 They've also got, a lot of them have danger zone intelligence, and I'm not entirely convinced that there might not be a little bit of a correlation in that range between those two things, right? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. This looks like the Blair Witch Project. Do you have another...

Starting point is 02:05:31 What? Who thinks this looks like the Blair Witch Project? What? Do you have a more powerful light? Well, this is a more powerful light. It's got several adjustments. I have a light. Jeannie, could you put this on, please? a more powerful light. It's got several adjustments. I have a light. Jeannie, could you put this on, please?

Starting point is 02:05:48 Just one more light. One more light. People need to see your beautiful face, man. Hold on. No, no, no. I don't have a beautiful face. Your hairline, the rival's mine. As a matter of fact, I would like less of my face.

Starting point is 02:05:59 You'd like darkness. What? We have this or that or that. No, that looks awful. That looks awful. Okay. Do you want me to try opening the garage door? Missouri is big on pugs.

Starting point is 02:06:12 What? Do you want me to try opening the door to see if that helps with the backlight? I don't think it will, honey. It's fine. Don't worry about it. Let her know it's fine. Also, can you thank her for me? Because she's extremely assiduous.

Starting point is 02:06:24 She puts so much energy and effort into speaking with you. Kurt wants to thank you, honey, for your punctilious attention to all of the details. She's a sweetheart. She told me that you're a pussycat and to not be afraid of you when I first emailed her. When I'm in a good mood.

Starting point is 02:06:43 Because from what I've seen, you were probably being interviewed by people who either you didn't like or they conveyed that they didn't like you. And so you were in a more disagreeable mood. With me, you're not. I'm happy. The Errol Morris video? I don't remember.

Starting point is 02:07:01 Are you talking about the... No, I don't know which one. I don't know which one, but I'm just saying that I thought that you'd be a combative person. She's assured me you weren't, and I'm happy that you're not. No, I'm actually a very easy-to-get-along-with person, although

Starting point is 02:07:17 I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book in which I was one of the people. It was called Outliers, and he attributed to me zero social intelligence. So that may be where a lot of people get that impression. I'm actually rather easy to get along with. But, you know, I was a bar bouncer for 25 years. My background, even before that, was such that I don't suffer fools gladly.

Starting point is 02:07:44 So if someone wants to be an idiot, it rapidly changes my mood. And perhaps I'm not so easy to get along with. What? You don't have the ass-kissing gene. I don't. There's no ass-kissing gene inside of me. I mean, I love to be nice to people and make people feel good, but once it becomes evident to me that someone expects to get his ass kissed, then there's a problem. Is there a personal story about that that stands out to you, like you have one in mind? Well, there's all kinds. It lasted from when I was about five years old to when I was well out of high school.

Starting point is 02:08:25 of high school, having to constantly... We came from a disciplinarian household, shall we say, where physical abuse was the norm to a certain extent. That got me going along a certain trajectory. And then we were usually the poorest folks in town, the poorest family in town, which caused us to get into fights with other kids. So, you know, I had to learn how to fight at a young age, and I didn't necessarily want to be bothered with that. But it's just the way things went for us, so that's what I had to do. And then, you know, when I went to get a, you know, I started working, working for the Forest Service, working construction, things like that. Ultimately, I figured out that it was, there was a better way to make a living.

Starting point is 02:09:13 Paid almost as much, but wasn't so grinding. And I could actually think about my work and things that I was interested in while I was doing it. It was bar bouncing. It was bar bouncing. I worked in about 50 nightclubs over the course of 25 years or so in the greater New York area. And, you know, it's probably the best-known bar bouncer in New York for a long time. And so, you know, physical altercation was more or less a way of life. And you meet a lot of people, and, you know, but some of them are not especially easy to get along with especially when they get drunk so you know there's altercations arise and you're that

Starting point is 02:09:55 i'm sure that affects your personality once you recognize that somebody is a bad drunk. Whether or not he's had anything to drink, you react to him in a certain way. I'm improving. I'm not likely to punch anybody these days. How did you choose your wife? How did you know she was the one? Well, she was actually a member of the super high IQ community, such as it was back in the 1980s and 90s. And so I met her through one of those groups. And we, you know, gradually, you know, we corresponded a little bit.

Starting point is 02:10:38 And things just grew from there. So I got myself a very intelligent woman. Beautiful, too. so I got myself a very intelligent woman beautiful too was there something about her that stood out to you compared to the other women of the high IQ range I've always been attracted to uh intelligent women to me intelligence is sexy it makes a woman makes a woman more of a woman you know not that you know a woman who who is you know not so know, not that, you know, a woman who, who is, you know, not so intelligent, can't be sexy. I mean, that's far from the case, but it's always something to which I was attracted in a female. So that's one of the reasons that, uh, that I held out for,

Starting point is 02:11:16 for her. I mean, I was single for most of my life up until I was about, uh, nearly 50 years old. What are your vices? What do you do that's disillusive, that you think you shouldn't, but you gain some satisfaction from it, and you engage with it anyway? My temper gets a little bit short sometimes. That's always something that I'm trying to improve. I have a

Starting point is 02:11:45 weakness for certain kinds of snacks or candies like liquid shaman I just can't stop eating it you know I literally have to hide it from myself after a certain point because you know I just eat bag after bag I'm the same way man yeah I know it

Starting point is 02:12:02 may not look like it but trust me I'm 200 pounds greater than i am i'm serious my wife i pig out like you wouldn't i expand my it hurts and i'm like okay that's the that's the beginning let me keep eating and then i have to fast for a day or two days so alternate between extreme i don't know if it's great for my liver i talked to my doctor about it she said your liver seems to be fine, but I go. Yeah. But it's just that it takes sometimes days to let your digestive system catch up to everything that you put in your mouth. You know, that's, that's, uh, you know, if you just keep on eating, I find myself getting in

Starting point is 02:12:37 trouble. If I just keep on stuffing myself for a week or two at a time, then, you know, I got to stop eating almost entirely for the same amount of time before I'm back to normal. I see the workout, the weights behind you. I see the gym set. Oh, anytime, if you ever make it to this area, definitely you're welcome to enjoy the gym as much as you want to. I like working out. It helps keep you young. I mean, after a certain point, you've got to have resistance exercise or your muscles deteriorate. You start losing muscle mass. That's something that, fortunately, I haven't lost any muscle mass at all. I'm probably as strong as an athletic 20-year-old.

Starting point is 02:13:16 I do military press with over 200 pounds for reps, which is very good for someone of my age. I'm 69. Good job, man. So you don't work out because you want to keep your IQ. You work out for other reasons. The IQ, too. Believe you me, there are a lot of reasons to work out. You just keep yourself young.

Starting point is 02:13:41 You keep your mind sharp. You keep up your motivation. Your level of testosterone doesn't decrease, so you maintain the amount of mental aggression you need to attack difficult problems. These things are important to me, so I work at it. Okay, I wanted to get your thoughts on some other thinkers. I facetiously call it Fio Maki, which is like the battle of the gods. And the reason is that these are intellectual giants. And I'm not sure about you, but for me, I glean plenty from seeing these giants disagree with one another.

Starting point is 02:14:17 It's as if I pick up nuggets from the damage of their fight from the fallout. So what are your thoughts on new atheists like Sam Harris? So new atheism in general. You don't have to attack Sam Harris, although you're more than welcome to. I don't. Look, there was a, you know, back in the,

Starting point is 02:14:34 they started publicizing me. I had a chance to get heavily publicized. I was asked to appear on TV shows as early as the late 1980s. I refused. So I simply didn't want to be involved. Then in the late 1990s. I refused. I simply didn't want to be involved. Then in the late 1990s, around 1998, when I started getting publicized. And after that,

Starting point is 02:14:51 I got a few media appearances of one sort or another. But then I started, because I mentioned during some of these appearances that there was a mathematical way to prove the existence of God, I began getting trolled by atheists. And for a while I was on a few sites that were supposedly religious sites that were dominated by by Christians, people calling themselves

Starting point is 02:15:20 Christians, and noticed that, you know, they weren't protecting me from these atheistic trolls. These atheistic trolls were saying an awful lot of bad things, and there were some that actually attacked me personally. Name-brand atheists who were nothing at the time, but have since become, you know, the signatures of the new atheist movement. I'm not going to mention their names because that would be publicizing them, but they were nasty, and I didn't get along with them at all. And then, as I was trying to nevertheless get purchased for my theory, I found myself getting canceled. And there were several people, among them, Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and who the hell is him? Not Chris Hitchens, but one of them. Sam Harris?

Starting point is 02:16:14 I don't know if it was Sam Harris or not, but they came up with this new policy of how to deal with people who believe in God. Theists. You canceled them. They must be canceled. Refuse to talk to them. Right? Refuse to give them any sort of respect whatsoever, and pretty soon nobody will pay attention to them at all. And so this is what they pulled on me and my theory, and they pretty much managed to stop me dead for a long time. I'm not happy about it and I don't like those people. I think they're intellectually dishonest. Look at the scumbags, really. Although I'm not saying that they're stupid people. Dennett, I mean, his theory is easy to pick apart. Ritchie Dawkins, there's nothing there. I mean, they're,

Starting point is 02:17:02 you know, they're intelligent in a way, but on the other hand, they're not really. They don't have much penetration. They can't understand the inconsistencies in their own work. I just don't respect them very much. I mean, I've been on a couple of sites. They're just awful, you know, the things they say about you, the things that they do. They apparently have no moral grounding. They don't believe in God, so they don't believe there's any sort of moral identity in the universe that can make them act or behave in any particular way that others find acceptable. So all bets are off.

Starting point is 02:17:38 They think they can do whatever they want, say whatever they want about you, and get away with it. And that's what they have done repeatedly. They've been deplatformed. People will say things and I will politely refute them, politely but succinctly, very tersely refute them. And eventually I get deplatformed because the people running the platforms are also atheistic. And these people don't hesitate to cancel you. They're just a very poor excuse. You can't run intellectual commerce under the watchful eyes of such people who are canceling you. You know, all you have to do is mention the G word and they've got a problem with you. And so this is where we've gotten to today. And as far as I'm concerned, that policy of theirs where they simply refuse to converse with you, that is intellectual cowardice.

Starting point is 02:18:38 You know, I mean, you take people like Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dent, easily crushed by someone like me. I mean, they wouldn't last a minute. But, you know, they still won't talk. It's a reason, it's an excuse for them to flee. Oh, well, he believes in God, you know, what a dunce. So he's beneath our dignity. We won't, you know, cast any of our, shed any of our glory on him. So this entitles us to run away. And they hide in the shadows, you know. You'll see them, I mean, they get out there in public, but not where they can really be dealt with by anybody who's smarter than they are. And that's not a very tall order at all. There are plenty of people smarter than they are. Speaking of hiding in the shadows, you look like

Starting point is 02:19:15 Russell Crowe. Is there another light? I want to prevent you from making the same mistake that people do toward you. So, for example, they'll make ad hominins. Now, I don't think Daniel Dennett or Dawkins have a low IQ. I think they're extremely intelligent people. They may not have as high an IQ as you. Have you ever been personally insulted by them or their friends? Because until you have been, you know, you haven't walked in my shoes.

Starting point is 02:19:44 Don't worry, man. I'm on your side, and I'll defend you. Well, you know, you haven't walked in my shoes. Don't worry, man. I'm on your side and I'll defend you. Well, that's good. Thank you. I'm just saying that I think your animosity toward them is from being attacked. And if they were kinder to you, I don't think that you would denigrate their intelligence. It's been going on for 20 years. Certainly, I would have been willing, you know, if they had just said, oh, well, you know, let's get together and I'll have a conversation. These people don't give an inch. They're haters.

Starting point is 02:20:10 Okay. They hate God. Richie Dawkins, if you listen to what he says, it becomes very evident that he doesn't really have an argument against God. He just hates God. Okay. And this has been going on for 20 years in my case, and I've had it with the guy. So he's misled a lot of people. And this is something that you can go to hell for. Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me, and he's got another thing coming. I mean, I'll just pluck his wings like those of a fly. Let's speak about the concept of hell.

Starting point is 02:20:46 Can you define it? Can you tell us how it's necessary? That would be where Richie Dawkins is going. I'm just joking. Yeah, so let's talk about the concept of hell. What is it? So some religions say that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations of Christianity is that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations is that it does exist, or there a purgatory, a place of purgatory and or.

Starting point is 02:21:09 And then there's that hell is a place where you'll be tortured for a finite amount of time and then you'll be brought back. And then there's some where it's an infinite amount of time. What is your idea of hell derived from the CTMU? Hell is simply the process of ceasing to exist, of being telecly unbound, and having your identity destroyed, because it is unacceptable to God. See, God in the CTMU is something called a stratified identity, and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity, the level that we all share with each other. We're all united in God, but God is good, and he must exclude evil in order

Starting point is 02:21:47 to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does. So if you deny God, and you cut your, basically you're cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you, and can no longer accept you into himself, because he's totally consistent. God is totally, completely self-consistent and will not tolerate his denial. It's just not something that God can afford to tolerate, because something that is perfect cannot tolerate, cannot absorb or assimilate imperfection into himself. He can tolerate it for a while. But then after a while, he's got to exclude it. All right, so this is what hell is.

Starting point is 02:22:32 Basically, your own highest level of identity is telling you, you can no longer exist because you're no longer in touch with me. You've cut your own identity in half. You've severed it. It's called the soul, the human soul. That's what these levels of stratified identity are. They're your soul, and once you interdict that, once you sever it, okay, you're cut off from God. That way, your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you anymore. It can't see you.

Starting point is 02:23:06 So when you die and you beg on the deathbed, please take me back in, God can't hear you anymore. It can't see you. So when you die and you beg on the deathbed, please take me back in. God can't hear you anymore. That's a terrible thing, and I don't wish it on anybody. But if people understand this, and they understand the stratified identity, and they understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now, because that's a very unpleasant experience, everybody wants to cling to their identity in the end. It's hellish. People create their own hell by rejecting their own highest level of identity. There's this phrase, I don't know where I got it from, but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside.

Starting point is 02:23:47 That's correct. Well, that's a very good, very apposite quote. Is it a place of torture? Is it a place of torment? Is it a place of infinite heat? Well, you feel tortured and tormented, that's for sure. And if your conception of hell is a place where there's a great deal of heat, then you're going to feel that too. So you bring with it your own ideas of

Starting point is 02:24:11 what hell is? That's correct. Where else would they come from? For someone like Dawkins, who doesn't believe in the concept of hell either, would he then experience nothingness? Okay, well, you're right. I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell, all right? Because he rejects, he will create his own kind of hell, and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him, okay? He's no longer a big shot at Oxford

Starting point is 02:24:46 University. He can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God. Nobody wants to listen to him anymore. That's what will happen to Richie. That's his hell. And then finally, in the end, he'll just be melted down to nothingness. And the teleisys of which he consists will be redistributed to the rest of the universe. You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect, and no one that I've met is perfect, so does that mean that none of us are going to heaven? None of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded telesis?

Starting point is 02:25:25 The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time. Things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. All right? So it's an oxymoron to think

Starting point is 02:25:44 that God holds this against you. We all have to adapt. We all have to do what it takes to survive, and God doesn't hate us for that. All right? He doesn't, that doesn't, that isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of his, of ultimate reality and his own highest level of identity, which is God. It's wanting to undo, to unbind reality, to say the name of reality backwards. That's what evil is. And that's what you get punished for. And that's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing.

Starting point is 02:26:21 There's someone like Peterson who would come out and say that, Sam Harris, you say that you're an atheist, but you say that with your words, but you don't act like that with your body. Because you treat people with humanity, you are concerned with the world living and not dying, flourishing. Do you agree with Peterson saying that you can say that you're atheistic, not act it, and thus does someone get saved even though they profess atheism? Yes. Basically, the problem, however, is that once you've professed atheism, now you've got to get God's attention again. Once you've severed your soul, once you've put a cut in your soul and you've actually cut God off, now you've got to heal that severance before God can see you again. It takes a long time. It's not going to happen.

Starting point is 02:27:14 Oh, well, I've changed my mind. I've decided not to hate God anymore. That's not good enough. It needs to go on for a long, long time. And you've really got to try and you've got to cry like a babe in the woods until god finally hears you again okay so it's not easy these people are hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that hey honey is there a is there a light over there you know one of those lights those food lights over there shut on that clamp. I want to see how that influences the... This thing is getting in my hands.

Starting point is 02:27:50 What I'm getting at is almost the opposite of not all those who cry Lord, Lord will be saved. So on the one end, even if you claim to be a Christian or you claim to believe in God, that's not enough. You have to also act it. And on the other end, one can say that even if one says that they're against God, but one acts kindly, one acts lovingly, then does that mean that they still can be saved? Peterson would say, now he doesn't talk about heaven or hell, but he would say that you believe in God with your body. You don't with your mind. But the ultimate test is your actions.

Starting point is 02:28:22 And what I'm wondering is... By their deeds shall you move right right right so then does that mean to pick on sam harris whom i may be interviewing at some point so sam if you watch this well this is just for fun to pick on sam harris would you say that he in your model will be going to heaven or hell assuming that that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions, but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth. Unfortunately, your relationship with God cannot be faint. When somebody is doing good acts, it could be only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts. They want the moral approval of other human beings.

Starting point is 02:29:06 That's not good enough. Okay. There actually has to be the acceptance of your own highest level of identity. By the way, we have a rainstorm going on here. Now, can you still hear me? Completely fine. Can't hear a thing of the storm. Okay, good. Pardon me, Kurt. Go ahead. Let's take a quote from someone who criticized you. You said, if someone denies the existence of God, then God will exclude them from reality. And then this person said, well, okay, how does Langan explain the continued existence of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins? Well, they have a physical body they're basically cohering to their physical body and that's what's providing

Starting point is 02:29:47 them with a continued identity they've reduced themselves however to be a physical there's not much left of them they've actually cut off their highest level of identity and that will affect them when they are retracted from the mortal planet when they no longer have a body here that holds them together

Starting point is 02:30:01 then that's it for them if God could not have been otherwise like with your model there are these meta laws that holds them together, then that's it for you. If God could not have been otherwise, like with your model, there are these meta-laws that govern the universe. So it sounds to me like there is a bound to God. God is his own boundary. He has his own origin and his own boundary. And both of those things are distributed.

Starting point is 02:30:26 This is part of the logical structure of the CP. Okay, both of those things are distributed everywhere because God is self-composed. It consists of himself everywhere. He is unbounded. Therefore, reality itself is unbounded in every part. That's why we have free will among other things. One of the properties of the entire world. Who is or was Jesus? Jesus? We cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that was written about him in the Bible. But we know what Jesus is now. Jesus is the ideal of human perfection. Someone who is willing to lay down everything and sacrifice himself for mankind. All right, that's what Jesus is.

Starting point is 02:31:16 He was the image of human perfection. It is through a Jesus-shaped gateway that we can approach God. All right, we have to become perfect in order to unify with the perfection of God. So that's the way Jesus functions in the Christian religion and the way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our great through and far between, if you know what I mean. In Buddhism, of course, Buddhism has another central figure who is buddha gautama buddha siddhartha he's basically another kind of cat entirely he didn't talk much about god right you can infer sort of infer a conscious higher reality from some of the things that Buddha said, but he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God.

Starting point is 02:32:07 He was also a rich individual that was born into privilege and then went around traveling and meditating and ministering to the masses and so forth. But in several ways, he doesn't quite measure up to the image of Jesus. Jesus was born poor. He didn't start out with any advantages at all. He lived like a normal man, like an ordinary human being, absorbing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at every turn,

Starting point is 02:32:37 which is what we have to do. That's what we're expected to do. Therefore, Jesus is an exemplar for us. Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar for us. Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from reality and have a meditative existence and, you know, never mention God. So there's a little bit of a difference between the two. Now, in the CTMU, we don't discriminate against Buddha because he lacks Jesus-like characteristics. Instead, we recognize him for his strengths, what he was, which is considerable.

Starting point is 02:33:16 Buddha is not a lightweight in terms of religious figures. So he doesn't suffer at all for his non-resemblance to Jesus. But if we want the ideal of human perfection, that's Jesus. Let's get to some other intellectuals. Like I mentioned, for me, I love hearing academics

Starting point is 02:33:36 speak about other academics or intellectuals speak. For example, if Russell commented on Aristotle, it illuminates not only how Russell thinks, but it gives me a new perspective on Aristotle at the same time. So I'm going to bring up a few different giants, intellectual giants, even though you may not consider them to be so, and we'll see what you

Starting point is 02:33:54 think of them. Have you heard of Klee Irwin? Yes. Are you presenting Klee as an intellectual giant? Yes. I'm wondering what you think of Klee Irwin's theories. Klee Irwin has theories on quantum gravity. I'm unsure if you've taken a look, and as well as consciousness. What do you think about them? Well, Klee seems like a smart person. I don't want to say anything

Starting point is 02:34:17 bad about Klee, but I will say that Klee has a lot of ideas that are very CTMU-like. And the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before Klee did. And I actually had to force Klee to cite me in his most recent film. It was an NFL paper, Reality of Self-Simulation Hypothesis. Anyway, Klee has a theory.

Starting point is 02:34:47 It's got a number of ingredients, some of which are questionable, some of which aren't. It's based on Garrett Lisey's E8 theory. Right. It's a certain symmetry group that he used. But there are other aspects that are straight, pure CTMU. Okay. And I will simply not mention. There are other aspects that are straight, pure CTMU. And I was simply not mentioned. Now, I understand sometimes people don't know any better.

Starting point is 02:35:16 But at one time, I was on every major news network in the country. There are probably relatively few people who are above a certain age who never heard of me. A lot of them have forgotten that they heard of me, but nevertheless, I was still there. I think that a reasonable literature search should turn up something about the CTME if you undertake it. If you're actually doing your job and looking for other ideas that are comparable to yours, you're probably going to bump into it. So Cleve's theory is, to the extent that it resembles the CTMU, it's great. Okay? Other parts of it are

Starting point is 02:35:51 questionable, but here's the key part is, Klee is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self-simulation hypothesis and a reasonable TOE, theory of everything. He's missing certain key ingredients that are built into CTME structure. His theory is not a super tautology. It has to be a super tautology in order to be a true theory of everything. He mentions language in his theory and coding. He mentions a lot of things that I introduced with the CTM, which was the first language-like theory of reality. He mentions a lot of things, but then they're kind of haphazardly glued together, and it looks like he kind of made a snowball out of them and threw it up in the air to see what would happen and uh let me if if he ever realizes

Starting point is 02:36:51 this there he is going to realize that he has a ctmu clone that doesn't just differ from the ctmu but is the ctmu in different language okay Okay, that is where Klee is headed. I don't want to detract from Klee. I think he probably thinks he's doing a good job. I do know that forcing him to cite me was not easy. I had a long string of correspondence. It originally happened, he introduced his paper, his new paper, and he put it up on RxE, I guess.

Starting point is 02:37:23 It was an email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known people. And he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his reality self-simulation hypothesis. And I'm like, what the hell? What is this? Because these people know me, they know who I am.

Starting point is 02:37:43 So I said, you know, wait a minute. I know, I've been talking about reality of self-simulation for years. You know, you're going to have to cite me. I've looked at your paper. I don't see you mentioning me here. You know, you've got some of the same ideas in there. Went back, you know, quoted a lot of self-simulation quotes from me. The problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he was responsible. It wasn't. And in my estimation, in some ways he's got it right, but in some ways he's lossing it out. Okay, and I don't want people confusing his idea of what a reality of self-simulation would look like from what it really looks like, which is the way I describe it

Starting point is 02:38:25 and have been describing for the last two or three decades. So, I guess the final analysis is, Lee seems to be, you know, on the right track, but he's got some problems. What about

Starting point is 02:38:42 Josje Bak and his ideas of consciousness? Josje Bach, like Daniel Dennett, is a physicalist. You cannot explain consciousness with physics or in a computational system. The CTMU makes use of a concept called proto-computation, which is even more general than quantum computation. I mean, there's a universal Turing machine, there's a quantum Turing machine. The CTMU actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a proto-computer, except that it's the entire CTMU.

Starting point is 02:39:15 All of that structure has to go into this quantization. Okay? And then the universe is self-similar on that basis. Every part of it mirrors the whole. Okay, so you can't, I mean, it's a metaphysical system. You cannot explain consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need. Okay, your consciousness is coherent. You are a unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts. You feel the unity of your consciousness.

Starting point is 02:39:46 That's what I mean by coherence. A machine is not coherent. It doesn't have that coherence. All right, you've got to figure out some way of getting that coherence in there, and that's a tall order. Okay, Joshua Bach doesn't have it. Daniel Dennett never had that. I mean, there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned.

Starting point is 02:40:04 These guys, they have some good ideas. I mean, I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done. Everybody has remarkable insights. Dennett writes well, I mean, but he writes like a philosopher, which is almost opaquely at times. You read some of his stuff, and people think I'm opaque. I think I'm a marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennett sometimes. He talks around things like a lot of philosophers do. I mean, that's a skill that they develop in academia. Joshua Bach is better than that. He actually tries, makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennett ever did. But still, you know,

Starting point is 02:40:43 still, he's not really getting to the root of what consciousness is in my opinion. And even if they're wrong, they're extremely inventive, both Josche Bach and Daniel Dennett. I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points. I'm not trying to, you know, these are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that they are trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem, and their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused their solutions to go awry. Can we talk about this proto-computer, this proto-computation you mentioned? So there's Turing machines, or classical machines as we ordinarily think of them, and then there's quantum computation, and then you're saying there's an even more general notion where

Starting point is 02:41:28 different states of an infinite type are able to be used in the calculation simultaneously. I'm unsure, can you please explain that some more, because I haven't encountered that in your work? Well, it means that basically a proto-computer is generative, which neither a universal Turing machine nor a quantum Turing machine are. The universal Turing machine, that's Turing's original invention. Then you've got the quantum Turing machine, which I think was introduced by David Deutsch.

Starting point is 02:41:58 They both resemble each other in certain respects. They're different. The nature of the tape is different. The nature of the tape is different. The nature of the storage module is different. You know, the quantum Turing machine is more general and more powerful than the universal Turing machine. But what a theory of reality actually needs

Starting point is 02:42:17 is generativity. All right? In other words, at the same time as new states are created, okay, new medium has to be created to go with those states. The medium is constantly being generated. Spacetime is constantly being generated. These people imagine that the medium of reality is some kind of fixed array,

Starting point is 02:42:39 almost like a computer display, like the one I'm looking at right now and seeing your face in it. That's what they think reality is. They think it's kind of like a display screen with little pixels in it. Speaking once again about Klee Irwin, Klee Irwin thinks that he's actually stated that reality has little tetrahedral pixels in it. That meaning is discretized. It's discretized. And, it's discretized. And basically that doesn't work.

Starting point is 02:43:07 It doesn't work for a number of reasons, one of which is relativity. You don't have the proper kind of covariance and contravariance. It's very hard to make that work if you've got discretized pixels. Lorentz contractions and things like that would actually have to influence the number of pixels that are activated at any one time, and that causes inconsistencies. But apparently these people don't realize there are also certain inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. But this idea of a discretized screen, Dennett has the same damn thing. He's got, well, I'll withhold. Basically, Dennett talks about a Cartesian theater, as I recall.

Starting point is 02:43:52 And the Cartesian theater is something that he attempts to depart from. Nevertheless, he is a physicalist. And physicalists do have to have something like a discreetized, pixelated display, even if they describe it in terms of quantum mechanics, which is erroneous. You can't do it that way, really. Nevertheless, what reality actually needs is something that is generative and generates new space and time, even as new states of matter are generated. That's one of the implications of triality. The medium has to change along. It's even an implication of Einstein's equation. You've got a stress-energy tensor on one side, and then you've got the metric tensor on the other.

Starting point is 02:44:37 You see, the metric tensor being the medium and the stress-energy tensor being the matter distribution. Okay, those two things actually have to be in sync. They've got to be coupled in a certain way. And these people are just not doing it. They're not approaching it in the correct way. Einstein, by the way, I can make a pretty good argument that relativity makes no sense outside of the CTN at all. The entire scenario, the way things are done there,

Starting point is 02:45:05 the way things are coupled, the way space is coupled with time, for example, and then the way he couples objects with space-time in, Einstein's equation, these things actually don't work outside of the CTN. So we need that. We need that generativity. We need telesys to be factored from the top down into space and time.

Starting point is 02:45:27 And that's what neither of these other Turing machines, neither the UTM nor the QTM does. The CTMU does do this, however, and it uses the entire structure of the metaformal system to make that proto-computer. There are other models of discrete space. They wouldn't call it space-time. Space-time would emerge such as

Starting point is 02:45:49 spin-foam networks and loop quantum that still have the properties of being background-free and Lorentz invariant and so on. So what about those? Would you say that those are also doomed? You've got to have a representation. You've got to have a representation.

Starting point is 02:46:05 You've got to have an observer immersed in a medium of representation. And I don't see right now how you can salvage any of those viewpoints. I think that they all need to be interpreted in the CTME in order for their good points to actually be valid. I think that as it stands right now, excessive claims are being made for them. I don't think they live up to those claims. I think that if I were questioning any of these people, I don't think that they would be able to justify their claims. There's just no damn way that you can have a non-generative display.

Starting point is 02:46:45 Okay, so that's once again we're referring to the reality self-simulation, which can be likened to a computer. There is an analogy that's a little bit more involved than you might suspect, but nevertheless, you can separate the display from the processor. Okay, and these people are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature from the processor. Okay? And these people are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature of the processor. And usually what they're trying to do is confine everything to the display. Okay? And for various reasons this is not allowed. This cannot be... you can't pull that off. All these guys are trying to do it. Bless their hearts, you know, they've got a certain amount of good insight, but they're just not pulling it off. Let's get to the next one. How about Eric Weinstein's geometric unity?

Starting point is 02:47:31 What are your thoughts on that? Eric Weinstein. Okay, geometric unity. That's where he's got a triangle that has the Dirac equation, spinners, and spin one and a half matter particles on one vertex. On another vertex, he's got general relativity. And on the other vertex, he's got the standard model with SU3 times SU2 times SU1 gauge theory. Right? Okay. I think that Eric is actually,

Starting point is 02:48:06 he seems like a very bright guy. I remember when he had his, I think, isn't he the guy who had the mathematics encyclopedia up for a long time on the web? I think it was Eric Weinstein. Some guy named Eric Weinstein

Starting point is 02:48:17 had a math encyclopedia up on the web. And, you know, it was pretty impenetrable. I mean, if you didn't already know the math, you weren't going to get anything out of this encyclopedia. But nevertheless, it was good. But anyway, here's the strength of his approach, this geometric unity. Basically, he seems to be saying, it sort of occurs to me that what he's saying is, well, we're having a hard time putting together a TOE, you know, a purely analytic algebraic TOE.

Starting point is 02:48:46 So let's look at the geometry of these theories, of the Dirac equation and the standard model and general relativity. And let's see if we can put those geometries together. And if we can merge those geometries, then guess what? We're going to automatically just be able to match it with a global formal theory coupled with the geometry. And this is really kind of an innovative way to approach it. However, it's the way I've been approaching it for decades. The CTMU is the logico-geometric. It's a coupling of logic and geometry, but it's generative geometry, which is a fundamentally different kind than what I think Eric Weinstein is dealing with.

Starting point is 02:49:35 Stephen Wolfram's Theory of Everything, the Wolfram Project. What are your opinions on that? Have you taken a look? Stephen Wolfram, he's obviously a very bright guy. He knows a lot about mathematics. You know, he's kind of an adorable character. The way he, what he's done, what it seems to me

Starting point is 02:49:55 that he's done is he's tried to identify certain basic elements and rules of assembly and then like a bunch of ticker toys, he's trying to assemble those into the overall structure of reality. And I appreciate that, and it's entertaining to read Stephen's writing about it, and there's a lot of insight there, but it doesn't work.

Starting point is 02:50:20 Because if you're going to have a theory of everything, you need to start with everything. All right? You're not going to take a subset of everything and then put it together and get something which is reality, which is more than the sum of its parts. You're not going to do that. You've got to start with everything, which means you've got to start with cognition and perception in general. You've got to logically induce your theory from that. Okay? And that's the way to build a theory. But as far as Stephen's writing is concerned and the other aspects of what Stephen does, I think he's a very bright guy.

Starting point is 02:50:59 I get a big kick out of reading what he writes. But this is more or less right up front for me. The fact that he's going about it in the wrong way. He hasn't seen the big picture. He doesn't understand all of the criteria that have to be satisfied in order to have a TOE. That's where you've got to start. You've got to start with everything. Nothing can be excluded, either implicitly or explicitly. You've got to have everything. You've got to have everything condensed or encapsulated somehow in some kind of process.

Starting point is 02:51:31 And for us human beings, the process is cognition and perception. You start with those, and then you build your reality out of that. What about Donald Hoffman? Have you taken a look at his theories on consciousness and conscious agents interacting and so on? Yes, I think I watched a video with him and Deepak Chopra at one time. I found him interesting. He was saying that basically cognition is deceptive. It's a cognitive science, as I recall.

Starting point is 02:52:08 He's saying that some aspects of how we see the world is actually quite deceptive but adaptive. In other words, it helps us adapt and survive to the world if we actually don't see it correctly. He's got this idea of a kind of a graphic user interface that actually allows us to have cognition that is deceptive, but nevertheless adaptive. And basically what Donald needs is he needs an overall framework in which to insert his GUI, his graphic user interface. He needs the actual reality of self-simulation principle to make that work. He's a guy who is very much in need of the CTME. Of course, he's an academic, so he probably would insist that it come from another academic. But if that were to happen, it would be called plagiarism. So I doubt that he's ever going to get to the true heart of things, get really where he's

Starting point is 02:53:02 trying to go, simply because I'm not a member of the club to which he belongs and in which all of this stuff comes to light. Okay, how about David Bohm? So how your theory compares and contrasts with David Bohm's theories, which I would like you to explain in implicate order to me

Starting point is 02:53:20 because I haven't had the chance to look it up. And then there's someone named Henry Berkson, which is related to Bohm. Now now i'm not sure how they differ but you can elucidate me in the audience at the same time so i've heard berkson is a he's a great philosopher so he's one of the best and uh as a matter of fact some of what he had to say about manifolds i find quite interesting because it very closely parallels what has to be done in the what had to be done in the ctmu with creating the medium of reality um as far as david bohm is concerned his reputation precedes him there was a you know there was an early bomb and a late bomb the early bomb was bohmian mechanics and then later on he

Starting point is 02:54:01 came up with something called the holoovements, the holographic universe. I think he wrote a book on the holographic universe with Vassal Haile. Yeah, it's Vassal Haile. Anyway, he has this thing that he calls the Holomovement that basically takes an implicate order and kicks out an expedited. That is pure CTMU. Okay, this is, this is, that process is what the CTMU calls involution. It's one of, you know, just one aspect of the CTMU, but that aspect he actually captured very well with that follow movement implicate and expletive order thing that he's doing with later bone. As far as the earlier bony mechanics is concerned, that's a little bit, that's dicey.

Starting point is 02:54:51 Hard to make that look. Would the implicate order be associated with descriptive containment and then the explicit is topological containment or there's no relation? topological containment or there's no relation? Explicit order is the display, the terminal display, or the CTMU semi-language LO, and the other part is the CTMU semi-language LS, which corresponds to the processor instead of the display. That's the implicate form, okay? It's implicated, it's an implicate form there in the processor where things are actually getting non-locally combined and entangled and telons are working to actually determine overall causative patterns.

Starting point is 02:55:33 That's where that's occurring. It's all extremely, it's very, very interesting. Bohm actually matured as a thinker a very great deal in the course of his life. There are a couple of things I don't like. I think Bohm was a communist, wasn't he? Right, and that may be one of the reasons why Bohmian mechanics came out of favor, because it was as if you were supporting communism. Right. Communism is a very...

Starting point is 02:56:04 Marxism is a very bad theory of philosophy. It's got a lot of holes in it. It's just awful in certain respects. So when you see a brilliant thinker like David Bohm grabbing a hold of it and embracing it, this can't help his reputation. You see, and I think Bohm suffered a great deal because of that, but you can certainly understand why it happened. As far as Bohmian mechanics is concerned,

Starting point is 02:56:32 he's basically trying to concretize everything. He's got a pilot field. He's got the Springer equation, but he's also got this... The pilot field is actually guiding the particle to its destination. But what is guiding the pilot field itself? I mean, there are a number of philosophical questions that could be asked about Bohm's theory that reveal that it is indelibly associated with the terminal side of the reality of self-simulation.

Starting point is 02:57:01 So in other words, it's terminally confined in CTME terminology, which means there's not really any kind of complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've been told I need to learn more about Bohmian mechanics and Birks, and if I'm going to be investigating theories of everything. A lot of people really like Bohmian mechanics because of its strong points, and it does have strong points. But it won't really do in a theory of everything. The theory of everything relies on Bohmian mechanics. It's toast.

Starting point is 02:57:36 There's just not enough there to pull it off. As far as Bergson is concerned, it's like a fine philosopher. Okay, how about Douglas Hofstadetter's strange loop idea of consciousness you know girdle escher bach i'm sure you've heard of that book yes yeah i think i was probably in my early 20s when i got a copy of that book the uh the strange strange loops and the pushing and the popping and all that stuff. Quite an intriguing book. Very much in fashion for a long time. Sort of a precursor to the reality of self-simulation in some ways. But yeah, Hofstadter was definitely an intellect worthy of respect. People ask me who do I want to interview most. Douglas Hofstadter is up there, Penrose is up there, and even Eminem.

Starting point is 02:58:27 Roger Penrose is brilliant. Where do you see Douglas Hofstadter's theory lacking, and what do you like most about it? So what dislikes him and likes pros and cons? Well, you know, he relies a lot on computational principles, and I think he might be, you know, nevertheless, even though he's relying on a lot of advanced logic and you know powers of metal languages and levels of computation and so forth he shows no sign of being anything but a physicalist in the sense that it's all computational and computation is a mechanical process so it looks to me like it might be like his outlook may be basically mechanistic right um right which uh you know i can't agree with because that's not what reality is in cp and u now penrose seems to agree with you in saying that there are many paradoxes associated with thinking that consciousness comes from

Starting point is 02:59:20 something that's computational have you heard much about Penrose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction and so on with Hameroff? Yeah, yeah. Hameroff is on a lot of these, or at least was on a lot of these distributions that I find myself on occasionally. And, you know, there is something to it. I mean, you know, Hameroff identified

Starting point is 02:59:40 microtubules, cytoskeletons, as being a place where quantum coherence might actually be able to function in the brain. And there are other ways that quantum mechanics can serve itself in the neural processes as well. But, of course, he relies on Penrose for most of the physics and actually, you know, figuring out where it's all coming from. the physics and actually, you know, figuring out where it's all coming from. Penrose has this idea of a platonic realm or, you know, this platonic form of reality.

Starting point is 03:00:12 It's a tripartite form of reality. These mathematical truths that exist as, you know, these fully formed mathematical objects in the platonic realm. objects in the platonic realm and he you know he doesn't have the CTME or Roger Fenrose doesn't have a fully formed theory of reality but he's

Starting point is 03:00:37 just very hard not to appreciate because he's so brilliant I mean the guy can you know it's just his brilliance will almost floor you sometimes when you read some of the things that he writes. Mathematically, he's a brilliant mathematician, he's a brilliant physicist, and this idea of his that basically it's not just computation, that there is something that is undecidable

Starting point is 03:01:04 going on in human thought. But basically, you know what Goodell theory implies? He says there's no, you've got a system, you know, there's certain, you know, a system that actually is capable of transfinite induction and is truly interesting, can actually, there are truths that cannot be derived from any finite set of axioms in such a system. Okay, so basically what Penrose is saying, he's saying that human thought somehow generates undecidable theorems that are true on a metamathematical level

Starting point is 03:01:38 but cannot be derived from any theory. This is exactly what the CTNU says. I started publishing in the same year, I think. He came out with a book. I think his biggest theoretical statement was The Emperor's New Mind. Recognize that title? That's correct. Okay. That was 1989,

Starting point is 03:01:56 which is when I wrote The Resolution of Newton's Paradox. So we started publishing at about the same time. He got a hell of a lot farther than I did in that amount of time. Then again, he wasn't canceled. You know, teaching at about the same time. He got a hell of a lot farther than I did in that amount of time. Then again, he wasn't canceled. You know, teaching at Oxford, you know, does a very great deal for you when it comes to disseminating your work. How about Thomas Campbell and his My Big Toe?

Starting point is 03:02:18 Have you heard of that? I've heard of My Big Toe, but let me defer to you. You probably know more about it than I do. What does it say exactly? realm thomas campbell also says that that's the mechanism by which psychic phenomenon work that it occurs to you instantaneously we think that it has to travel some distance in the same way that it would have to travel in our space time and there's a finite speed he says know that this other realm where consciousness operates is well that sounds very he also has aum he calls it aum which you call unbounded talesis. He has Aum, unbounded absolute oneness, or absolute unbounded oneness.

Starting point is 03:03:12 Is that supposed to sound like Aum? No, I just, well, as far as I know, it's a coincidence. Anyway, he says that that's the fundamental constituents, this place of complete potential. Yes, that's that's that's cdmu consistent yes although he says this which i disagree he says that unrealized potential is trying to do is to create order and to decrease its entropy and i quibbled with him because i don't think that order and entropy are what people claim in common parlance, entropy and order and disorder are not actually... High entropy doesn't mean low order in the way that most people think.

Starting point is 03:03:50 And it's obvious because if you look at a coffee cup with some milk and you create some turbulence, that looks completely disordered. And then when you stir it, then it looks uniform, it looks ordered. But that actually has the highest entropy. You've seen those little machines where you turn the crank,

Starting point is 03:04:05 and these seemingly chaotic patterns are created between two differently colored gelatinous liquids. But then when you turn the crank in the other direction, it's restored to a complete state of separation. That sounds like Maxwell's demon. It's amazing to watch. That's Thomas Campbell's. It reminds me of yours, though.

Starting point is 03:04:27 Yours is more rigorous. Yeah. I mean, mine actually has structure, mathematical structure to it. But it sounds like he's coming up with some good ideas that are on the right track and can be successfully interpreted in a true theory of evidence. He also had out-of-body experiences, and he would suggest that people who are younger are more in tune, or more naturally in tune,

Starting point is 03:04:53 like you get out of tune as you get older, with this other realm. And so you can go, and what you think of as thought space is actually a real space, but it's another space. I wouldn't use the word dimension, but it's another realm, let's say, a primordial realm. Right, it's another terminal realm.

Starting point is 03:05:11 Like I say, that's always a possibility. You can create terminal realms that are not identical to physical reality and that may be related more or less tenuously to it, but aren't dependent. Okay, how about Noam Chomsky? What do you agree with him about and then disagree with him about? Well, you know, back when I was first developing the CTMU, Chomsky was one of the people, I had a correspondence with him, it was very brief, you know, maybe three or four emails.

Starting point is 03:05:40 And he didn't understand a word I said. Even though I was using his theory of generative grammar generative grammar hierarchy nevertheless actually making a metaphysic out of that was something that Noam couldn't wrap his mind around

Starting point is 03:05:56 I don't know whether it was because I was just explaining myself poorly or whatever but I Noam was a big nothing burger for me I couldn't, you know, even get a conversation started. It seemed to be, you know, he has a certain perspective on language and it's all about, you know, where does it come from? You know, how do we get it? And, you know, that's his focus. And when you try to, you know, broaden the focus,

Starting point is 03:06:29 broaden the focus. I think that sometimes Noam just doesn't pick up on it in what I'm saying. That's and he's a brilliant guy but you know that was my experience with him. The other guy was John Wheeler who pretty much loved the CTMU. Oh he wanted to meet with me, wanted to meet with me, he asked to meet with me at Princeton but I had a couple of jobs and I couldn't get away. So I just, it was a mistake. I should have given up the damn jobs and just gone to Sea Wheeler anyway, but that's not the way it worked out.

Starting point is 03:06:57 With regards to Chomsky not understanding your theories, I think that you overestimate the intelligence of the average person trying to understand your theories and or you're too close to it. And that leads to frustration on your part and the people trying to understand it because they feel like this. You think I overestimate their intelligence or underestimate? I think you overestimate by thinking that it's simple.

Starting point is 03:07:19 And the reason I say that is Eric Weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory. And the reason I say that is Eric Weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory. He doesn't seem to get that the way that he explains it is esoteric and I wouldn't call it opposite. It's almost like obscurantism, though he's not trying to be. And I'm not accusing you of that. Please don't take this as any slight. I'm just saying that I think you may be too close to it to understand the frustration of people who actually want, they're not trolls, some of them are, but they genuinely want to understand and they feel like it's impenetrable. The reason I say this is because it's hard for me

Starting point is 03:07:58 to understand too, and I actually have a contact on your site, speaking to him on a daily basis, so I'm lucky that I have some physics and math background. So it's easier for me than the average person. But I still had a difficult time with it. And what is the name of the person with whom you've been communicating? His name is Sam Thompson. Ah, yes. Sam is a mathematics student.

Starting point is 03:08:20 He's actually pretty smart. Yeah, I love Sam. Me and Sam have been speaking almost each day. I actually had to get him on WhatsApp so I could speak with my voice. He's a big, tall kid with red hair. I don't know if he's tall. I only spoke to him through webcam. But he's such a nervous person, but he's a sweetheart,

Starting point is 03:08:36 and he's extremely insightful, and he understands your theories almost inside and out. He's a mathematician. He's smart. Okay, we'll get on to the next one. Jordan Peterson, where do you agree, disagree? So it could be with either his biblical interpretations, his psychological book called Maps of Meaning, Order vs. Chaos, and so on. Well, you know, Jordan is a, I think he's managed to do some good. I think that a lot of people get a lot of insight out of Jordan.

Starting point is 03:09:05 And so I think that he's, you know, he's actually doing some good things. But as far as a TOE is concerned, he doesn't have one. He's not even in the running to have a TOE. As I recall, his position on the existence of God is, well, you know, I'm not going to say whether he exists or whether he doesn't, but I will say this, it would be better if we all believed he did. All right, which is kind of a cop-out. But I don't think that he has the kind of philosophical understanding

Starting point is 03:09:36 that would enable him to put together a basic theory that actually serves as a foundation for morality, for example. And Jordan is really kind of a moral philosopher, so he needs that kind of foundation. I don't think he has it. He probably knows who I am. I mean, he's a psychologist, right? He's a Canadian, he's a North American psychologist. He has certainly heard of me, but I've never heard from him. As a matter of fact, I think there was some guy, some agent, who was trying to set up a meeting between Jordan

Starting point is 03:10:10 and me, but Jordan never responded or something or mixed it or something. I don't know. But anyway, he had a chance to meet with me, but did not. Remember we were going through this exercise of stating a seemingly complicated

Starting point is 03:10:26 sentence with terminology that wasn't articulated to the audience and then articulating them specifically. So let's do that once more. Metacausation and other metaphysical criteria require the standard physical conception of space-time be superseded by a more advanced metaphysical conceptualization that is a logical geometric dual to the linguistic structure of the trialic identity okay so before i move on to the next sentence metacalzation let's define that metacalzation is it's basically the the there's another dimension of time called metatime that leads from the display to the processor of the reality of self-simulation. And that is what we mean by metatime. And causation is pre-real, pre-causation that occurs in the processing section of the reality of self-simulation. In other words,

Starting point is 03:11:21 metacausation is really what causes things to happen. Okay, it's the real processing that is going on in causality. And by the way, that can be mathematically demonstrated. Causality doesn't have much to it. The reason is the structure of the manifold of the ordinary fixed real manifold that physics uses, or even the complex manifold, or any ectomorphic manifold. That doesn't do the trick. You just said that it goes from the screen to the process. That's metatime. It does not go from the process to the screen. Let me just put it like this.

Starting point is 03:11:56 Causation is distinct from the concept of origination. Right? You know, when something is originated, it's originated from scratch. Causation, there always has to be a prior cause. So you can go back in an infinite sequence. Origination means actually being able to originate something. That is what metacausation is. It's what ordinary people would call origination. And this happens in a specific way in the CTMU. There's something called a distributed origin, which exists everywhere in the non-terminal realm. And that is where metacarization occurs.

Starting point is 03:12:31 And how it occurs is through conspansion and telecrecursion. This sounds like free will is associated here somewhere. Yes, it certainly is. Because it's the starting of a loop. Well, it's a loop, but it's not a loop that is fully resolved by physical law. There are gaps and holes in the causation. That's why there's something called quantum uncertainty or quantum indeterminacy. The laws of physics are not sufficient to determine how a quantum wave function collapses. More is required. That's metacausation. There's a process called delic recursion that is actually a non-local feedback among the resources available in the semi-language

Starting point is 03:13:20 LO, which allows causation to occur. It actually refines causation and resolves the holes and gaps in physical causation, and this allows it to occur. Okay, then the next word is logical geometric dual. Okay, when I hear that, I can't help but think of stone duality, like some generalization of it. Basically, it's the same thing. It's intention-extension duality between predicates and sets. It's logico-geometric. It's right there in the name.

Starting point is 03:13:57 Logic is being coupled with geometry. They're dual to each other. Therefore, you've got a self-duality when you couple those two things in every quantum of reality. In other words, where you view reality in terms of identification events involving syntactors, this is what you get. You get logico-geometric duality between the sides, between the syntactic data type and the input data type that you're accepting from the external environment. Physical input and then internal processing with internal metal states that go into your behavior. Okay, the last word is triadic identity. So what's meant by that?

Starting point is 03:14:43 The identity of reality is trialic. The identity of reality, of course, we've been through that. That is called the global operator descriptor. Okay? It has syntactic structure. Okay? Give me that term again. Trialic identity.

Starting point is 03:15:01 Okay, it's trialic, which means that it serves as its own object, its own relation, relational structure, and its own operational structure. Okay, it is at once an object, a relation, and an operator. That's what triality is. Okay, it's as simple as that. You can also phrase

Starting point is 03:15:19 it as, you can also, triality can be looked at in a couple of other ways as well, as basically the coincidence of space, time, and object. All of those things are everywhere combined. It can also be looked at as the combination of language, universe, and model. All right? And that is implicit in the title of the CTMU. Cognitive theory is a language, okay?

Starting point is 03:15:44 Model is a model. and universe is a universe. Okay, so triality is inherent in the very title of the CTMU. Triality, another way to understand it, is that there's dualities which people can understand. There's two notions that are dual to one another. Now you're saying that there's three. Is it as simple as extending two to three? Oh yeah, all you have to do is put space and time together and now you've got two things. You've got one medium and one object

Starting point is 03:16:11 so your triality has become duality right there. There's no mystery about it. Basically you've got space, time, and object. Or object, relation, and operation. Or universe, model, and language. You've got those three things,

Starting point is 03:16:28 and those three things all have to be combined in every identity in reality. And every identity in reality is a coherent image of the global identity, which is a global operator descriptor. Okay, is that also related to hology, the concept of hology? Well, here's the thing.

Starting point is 03:16:53 In the generative universe, you've got syntax. You've got a universal distributed form that is in every syntactor. That means that every point of reality is automatically covered by the UDF or by syntax as it is created. In other words, the UDF or the universal syntax of reality is invariant with respect to rescaling. You can arbitrarily rescale reality because it's generative, because it's constantly being generated, because the universe is expanding, right? And syntax doesn't change under that conspansive rescaling operation. Let's get to

Starting point is 03:17:26 some audience questions and then we'll wrap up. We have an audience? There's no one here watching right now, but I've asked for questions. I posted your face before on my Theories of Everything community tab. I said, hey, I'm interviewing

Starting point is 03:17:43 Chris Langan in a few weeks. Let me know what questions you have for him oh okay okay so this person his name is Dav he actually translated your publication to French right to question here Dav says I made a French translation of your two publications CTMU and the introduction to CTMU I plan plan to release, I plan to continue. What's the best way to stay in touch with you on this matter? Well, obviously that would be, you know, through the mega foundation. What is, what is our email address at the mega foundation, honey? What's that?

Starting point is 03:18:26 Info at megacenter.org. Okay, so, Dav, you can email at info... Info at megacenter.org. Info at megacenter.org. Okay, Dav also has... Thank you, Dav. I appreciate your efforts in translation. Please do stay in touch. Dav has questions here.

Starting point is 03:18:44 He says, in the context of the afterlife processing processing the sum of information of an individual's consciousness, in your opinion, to what extent could the continuity or syntactic relationship between several iterations of existence be established? Could it be that there are pathways over several lifetimes for identifiable units of individual consciousness? So I assume what he's referring to is, do we carry with us our memories, but in the language of the CTM? Is that possible? Yes, but you've got to have something that encodes your memories and will actually instantiate them. You've got to have something like a brain that serves as an antenna for the

Starting point is 03:19:25 teller and actually realizes cognition that is determined by telec recursion. Okay, so yes, the answer to your question is yes, but basically it goes back to what I was saying about always having to have, aside from the teller, something approximating a terminal body that you use, which is, you know, while these religions talk about an afterlife and having a new body, a resurrection body, etc., you know, reincarnation, you always have some kind of terminal body for your italic aspect of your existence, for the purely meta-formal aspect of your existence to be instantiated in. Then you can have specific memories and things.

Starting point is 03:20:11 Otherwise, you are a syntactic entity, a group of impulses and desires and kinetises, instincts. You're all of those things. You're an id, but you don't necessarily have specific memories unless you create a site for them, and unless a site in which they can be coded. So that's why this duality between your soul and your body exists. I haven't gotten to any questions on consciousness, but in your theory, how is consciousness defined, and where does it fit in? Every quantum of the universe is conscious because it's a syntactor. A syntactor is a generalization of a computational acceptor. It's a proto-computational generalization of what in computation theory is called an acceptor. An acceptor is just a processing unit that accepts input from the external environment, applies a kind of syntactic filter in it to decide what gets through and in what form,

Starting point is 03:21:12 and then processes it and returns it to the environment. That's basically what it comes down to. And if you take a look at the structure of the syntactor, because it's performing that recognition function, it has to be conscious. Every quantum of the universe is conscious. But it's a generic form of consciousness that it inherits from the global operator descriptor. We have a more complex form of consciousness because we have more inherent complexity in our terminal embodiments and more self-modeling capacity because of that. We have a very complex brain that encodes all of our memories and thoughts and everything else and allows us to separate and resolve them. So that's how that works.

Starting point is 03:22:00 resolve them. Okay, so that's how that works. Dav also wants to know, have you heard of the work of Jonathan Mize, in particular Tractatus Logical Syndepionicus, which proposes an exploration of CTMU in the matter of Wittgenstein's... Well, I've never

Starting point is 03:22:18 met Jonathan, but I know who he is, and I know he's done some writing on the CTMU. He's an intelligent fellow, and he's actually written a book or two, and as far as I know, he's done some writing on the CTMU. He's an intelligent fellow, and he's actually written a book or two. And as far as I know, he's still a member of our groups, but it's like I said, I've never met him. We've had a few conferences. I would have liked Jonathan to come to a couple of them,

Starting point is 03:22:36 but he did send me a copy of his book. Dav again has another question. Okay, would you be willing to have a discussion with Kurt, so theories of everything with Kurt, with personalities like Bernardo Kastrup, Thomas Campbell, or Eric Weinstein? Yeah, I'm open to whatever you might have in mind. But there are a couple of people that are probably on your list of interviewees with whom I have had, you know, peripheral reactions or interactions in the past. And some of these people, as I recall, Bernardo Kastrup was pretty darn persnickety. He was on, I think he was on one of Jack Sarfatti's lists. And there was a kind of an antagonism going on there. And I made a couple of comments

Starting point is 03:23:23 and got a couple of what I regarded as pretty persnickety responses out of Bernardo. And I made a couple of comments and got a couple of what I regarded as pretty persnickety responses out of Bernardo. And I remember being slightly rubbed the wrong way by it. But, you know, that's water under the bridge, so sure. I participated in a discussion that Bernardo was in.

Starting point is 03:23:40 Didn't he start writing for Scientific American or something? That atheistic rag? I don't know. But I do know that he's a sweetheart, and I don't think... I think if he was picking a fight with you, then it's... I think you may be thinking of the wrong person. I don't think...

Starting point is 03:23:56 No, I'm not. No, I'm not. Okay, I'll look for a copy of the email if you want to see it. But anyway, when I say persnickety, I'm not saying that he was insulting or that he was especially nasty. I'm just saying that he was a little bit disagreeable. That's all. I see. Oh, well, that's what you want in an adversary.

Starting point is 03:24:14 I think it's because he had become embroiled in some kind of argument with Jack or somebody else in the distribution. somebody else in the distribution. Steven Nikolic asks, I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and operate equally regardless of substrate. That is, whether it's material or consciousness.

Starting point is 03:24:36 Essentially, idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. Okay, that's not a question. Read the first part of that comment. I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components. Information and logical what? Rule set. Oh, logical rule set. Okay.

Starting point is 03:24:54 Okay, so I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components, and they operate equally regardless of the substrate. So whether it's consciousness or material information a logical rule set our primary so then he's saying that even so he's saying essentially that idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy so what are your thoughts on that it's not a question i just want to hear what occurs to you well you know it is a false dichotomy in the sense that all of those things are coupled, you know, information and logic. There is no information without a logical rule set.

Starting point is 03:25:33 Language is the medium of information, and language has syntax, and that's a logical rule set, especially where your language includes the language of logic itself. So those two things are very closely coupled. You can't separate them dualistically and put one on one side and one on the other and say we've got a complete dichotomy here. In that sense, he's right about there being a false dichotomy. As far as reducing all of reality to just information and logical rule set, that omits a lot of structure that probably deserves mention, but it could just be that he didn't have the time to write it all down.

Starting point is 03:26:09 What would be an example of a structure that's not captured in information or a logical rule set? Well, you've got all kinds of... Read the CTNU papers. There are many, many pages of structure that are missing from that characterization. But one thing that can be said for it is that information mappings are also captured in these little quanta, these state transition events of syntactors, of syntactic operators and telecooperators. It can all be captured. So it's not really admitted. Okay. Kieran Dudley says,

Starting point is 03:26:51 great choice of guests. Number one. So he's referring to you. She or he is referring to you. Number one, in your opinion, which of the major philosophers came the closest to discovering and expressing the true nature of reality?

Starting point is 03:27:11 Came the closest? Okay. Well, there were a number of very, very good ones. I mean, if you look back, just so many. Pythagoras came up with something that looked a little bit like Syndiffianesis, and Aristotle followed up on that. And Leibniz also had, there was much to be said for what he did. Whitehead, with his process philosophy, also very good. Bergson had some good ideas. There are just a number of philosophers out there

Starting point is 03:27:45 that, you know, Plotinus had some good things going for him. Plato, of course. Just all kinds of them. I mean, Heraclitus. Ciaran Dudley, same person, number two. As you know, Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that they apply to all sufficiently

Starting point is 03:28:04 expressive formal systems, so why should one think Gödel's theoremseness theorems say that they apply to all sufficiently expressive formal systems. So why should one think Gödel's theorems don't apply to the CTMU? They do apply to the CTMU. That's why the CTMU is formulated the way it is. To get around, that's why it's generative. You can generate new axioms in the CTMU. You don't need to derive everything in the CTMU from some finite generate new axioms in the CTMU. You don't need to derive everything in the CTMU from some finite set of axioms. It's exactly what Goodell's theorem says. So there seems to be

Starting point is 03:28:33 a bit of misunderstanding about what the CTMU actually says. Can the generative grammar introduce an uncountably infinite amount of axioms? uncountably infinite amount of axioms? Yeah, it can introduce an infinite set of axioms, if that's what you're asking. And uncountably infinite is what I'm wondering. Anything in which the elements can be distinguished is countable. You can count them one by one.

Starting point is 03:29:00 Count, count, count. Okay? The fact of the matter is, real numbers are uncountable because you never have to complete one of them you never have to write out all the little decimal spaces if you want to be able to distinguish things they're countable okay just like you know counting you know peanuts okay one two three four five all right that's the that's the respect in which the countable uncountable distinction is actually mathematically valid and if you've got separate axioms that are distinguishable, obviously they are countable. And if you have an infinite, potentially infinite or unlimited number of them, then they are countably infinite. Timothy O'Brien asks, please ask him how Leibniz's monadology relates to the CTMU.

Starting point is 03:29:42 monadology relates to the CTMU? Well, monads are an old Greek concept that goes back quite a ways, and Leibniz had a good... There's actually some logical complexity to Leibniz's monadology that

Starting point is 03:30:03 I could actually write a paper about it. But let's just put it this way. It is, well, it's excellent philosophy. I'm actually, you know, Leibniz is one of the philosophers for which I have the most respect. Let's just say that. Ike Fredank says, Kurt, this may be a useful question what role do the requirements of the existence of difference relations play in the metaphorical reasoning of the ctmu the metaphysical requirements of difference relations did you say yep okay he has a bracket which says that would syndiffionesis, would be the metaphysical requirement of a difference relationship. That would be that the difference relationship be defined within a syndiffionic relation.

Starting point is 03:30:53 Okay? Which means that you need, you know, basically the CTNU to make sense of it. Stephen Oles has a great question that's more general. Are there any arenas where Chris feels dumb or average you know it all depends on it sometimes I roll out of bed feeling pretty stupid about nearly everything my mind is not always

Starting point is 03:31:19 functioning at peak efficiency so there are times when I feel pretty much incompetent no matter what I do, but there are times when all the mirrors are cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on. Then I sometimes feel as though I can pretty much handle anything. So it just varies with the time of day, I guess you'd have to say. Have you done any meditation or taken nootropics like phenylparacetam or paracetam

Starting point is 03:31:44 and seen any improvements? Is there anything that you can reveal? I don't really take nootropics. I drink coffee in the morning. I often switch to tea later on if I need some kind of stimulant. But as far as taking drugs of any kind, I tend to stay away from them wherever possible. So the answer would be, yeah, not that nootropics are all drugs. I mean, they're just nutraceuticals or whatever you want to call them. But I usually haven't, I haven't really experimented

Starting point is 03:32:19 with them. How about psychedelics? Well, you know, I spent time on an Indian reservation when I was a kid. It was the Wind River Reservation. And when we stayed there, it was usually in proximity to friends of the family, the Big Road family. There was a guy named Mark Big Road, and he was a shaman. Arapaho, I think. But he could have been Suwesh Shoshone, I don't rightly recall, but he was a shaman. And there would be, you know,

Starting point is 03:32:50 meetings, prayer meetings. The North American church, Yuipe, and one other kind of religion. But anyway, Mark's prayer meetings were such that you took, that the attendees took mescaline at these prayer meetings.

Starting point is 03:33:08 So, you know, I suppose that I probably got some of that, although certainly I don't, you know, I mean, I don't do drugs. Have I ever done drugs? Yeah, I've experimented a little bit with drugs, but I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to mess with drugs too much because it interferes with what's going on up here, and I don't like that. It's generally a feeling that bothers me in some respects. The psychedelics, I think that they have great potential for being beneficial, psychologically beneficial, if they're used in the right way under the right circumstances. However, it's easy for them to get out of control. You can have a psychotic break on psychedelics.

Starting point is 03:33:55 All right? This is something that you always have to be careful of. All right? There was a lot of this stuff going on. My family was involved in the counterculture, both in the beat generation, the beatniks. You know, that thing's when the whole thing started. The whole counterculture movement got started.

Starting point is 03:34:11 And then with the hippie generation, we were the ones who, actually, there was a teepee. It was a big deal. There was an Indian teepee erected in Berkeley by a guy named Charlie Hartman. Your stepfather coined the term beatnik, correct? That's correct, yes. He was complaining that someone from the New Yorker or New York Times stole it. Langan was a journalist, part-time journalist. He was also a stringer for AP and UPI.

Starting point is 03:34:35 But he worked for both the Examiner and the Chronicle in California, and Herb Cain worked for the Chronicle. Jack was running a bar called The Place in North Beach, and Herb used to come in there because that's where you could rub elbows with Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy and Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti and all the rest of these beats, these beat figures. And Herb liked to do that. He was a columnist. He was staying au courant. He was actually rubbing elbows with the right people.

Starting point is 03:35:08 And Jack told a joke about how in the something he said, Russia seems to be sending up satellites. Look, they've got Sputnik. All we seem to be able to produce is beatniks. Well, Herb heard that. It appeared like the next day in the Chronicle under Herb's byline. And I can remember my stepfather was furious. He was not the kind of guy culture in San Francisco. There was something called Blabbermouth Night. That was invented by Langan. There was a guy named Barney Google

Starting point is 03:35:53 who wanted to have a beer geyser coming out of Coit Tower. That was Langan. It was a genius of promotion, more or less. Getting back to psychedelics you were mentioning, I was wondering, personally, did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight, I was wondering, personally, did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight that you then took to the CTMU?

Starting point is 03:36:12 What I can remember from my days on the reservation are a feeling of great affinity for the planet. I thought it was alive. I could look at it and I could see it living. That's the thing that hit me, becoming aware of the life of the earth. They talk about the Gaia hypothesis

Starting point is 03:36:33 and they talk about Mother Earth and this thing and that thing. It hit me viscerally that the earth needed to be saved. Do you still carry that with you to this day? Yes. How do you feel about the environmental degradation, destruction that we do? I feel pretty poorly about it. I think that a lot of it's unnecessary. A lot of it is very poorly done. But on the other hand, people have to live. The earth is overpopulated. We should not have so many people on it. We're encountering all kinds of problems because of it already.

Starting point is 03:37:10 We're going to encounter many, many more if it continues. And we've got to start regulating our numbers and living coherently, living consistently with the environmental limitations of the planet. The planet is finite. The resources are finite, but human population is exponential. It's exponential. It's left. It's actually governed by a logistic equation. But when we get to the peak of that equation, okay, that can be influenced.

Starting point is 03:37:39 Now it's being pushed way ahead so that when we have a collapse, it's going to be a doozy. We need to get out of that right away. That being said, the way the elite, the oligarchs, the people who run the world, who have all the money and power, the way they're handling this problem, the way they seem to be handling it sometimes, is not the right way. not the right way. We've got to put this in front of the human race, and we've got to appeal to what is best in mankind, to make mankind voluntarily and responsibly limit their own reproduction. That's what we've got to do. We've got to think about future generations. We've got to watch about transmitting genetic diseases or disabilities to them. People say, oh, that's horrible because now you're talking about eugenics. Guess what? It's horrible to be born with a genetic disability. How can you sentence a child to that? We've got to do something about the reproductive situation. It is too easy for us to live too long on this planet at this point to be reproducing indiscriminately.

Starting point is 03:38:41 to be reproducing indiscriminately. I don't have any children. I probably have one of the world's highest IQs, yet I have no children because I couldn't afford any children. Then you've got these filthy rich elites that have all of this money and all of this power. Why are they doing that? It's idiocy. That is not the way to help humanity regulate its population.

Starting point is 03:39:01 It's evil. It has to stop. Okay, this person named Snored Grimstad is a huge fan of yours. It looks like this person has read plenty of your work. Do you have any views? I'm going to paraphrase this question. Basically, he or she wants to know if the ctmu can concretely help someone who's going through a psychological disorder like schizophrenia or depersonalization or he just mentions those two yes he certainly can as a matter of fact we're going to be setting up a program for uh for people that can actually help them do this. The whole idea of the stratified identity

Starting point is 03:39:45 and knowing the structure of reality as we do, we can make inroads in terms of psychological and sociological integration. And that is something that we're going to be concentrating on. We already have plans for. Does the concept of syndiffianesis necessarily connect to a self-distributing top-down model of reality? Okay, so there's that.

Starting point is 03:40:08 Does it necessarily? Yes. Everything necessarily connects to a top-down distributed model of reality, namely the CTMU, which is the structure of reality. Okay? No CTMU, no reality. And the universal relational structure of the CTMU is syndiffionesis. So the answer is yes. This question, is there a sense in which one still has to understand reality in an experiential sense, even after one understands the CTMU? Absolutely.

Starting point is 03:40:39 Absolutely. You've got to understand reality by actually living in it. That's what's so dangerous about the predicament we're in today. The people who are running the world are filthy rich people that live in bubbles. These people have never worked an honest day in their lives. They don't know what it's like to miss a meal. You understand we can't have the world run by people who don't understand it and who don't understand what it feels like to actually

Starting point is 03:41:05 live in it on the ground floor, absorbing its slings and arrows at all times. The people who are running the world are pampered, coddled elites that live in their own champagne-colored, rose-colored bubble of privilege. This has to stop. These people don't know what the world is. Not only don't they know what it is intellectually, they don't know what it's like to live it. And this is creating terrible, terrible problems for us. So what can we do as the general population besides understanding the CTMU? Let's just take that out of the bag as one of the potential solutions. What can we do to ameliorate this problem given to us by or inherited to us from the rich elite, as you put it? Well, we have to utilize something called, we have to engage in the political process to try to stop the elites from basically destroying our freedom, destroying freedom and human dignity and everything else that makes us human.

Starting point is 03:42:05 We've got to stop that by engaging in the political process. We have to exercise civil disobedience where necessary. Okay. And aside from that, if that fails, we have to go back to the Constitution. And the Constitution contains a certain amendment which says that we have to defend, we are entitled and have the duty to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If they're going to take human freedom and human dignity and invalidate the Constitution, they have no right to be here. If they want to go live someplace else, let them go live there.

Starting point is 03:42:50 Something that strikes me about your theory is it's derived logically. That made me wonder, in keeping with this question where he was asking, is there an experiential element to reality that's not captured in the CMTU? What I'm wondering is, do you consider the CTMU to be, or even yourself, to be rationalist? Or do you have problems with the rationalists? I have no problems with rationalists as long as they're competent, which a lot of them aren't. A lot of people criticize me because, well, you know, basically you're like those old medieval philosophers who used to, you know, pontificate on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. You're trying to derive everything from logic, but really the world is experiential.

Starting point is 03:43:35 It is the logic of experience. To derive the CTME, you start with experience. You start with Cogito and Essie. Okay, you start with Descartes and Berkeley. You take those, you take cognition and experience. That's extremely interesting. You logically induce the minimum model, the bare minimum that you need to make cognition and perception work. Then you form an identity incorporating that potential, and you have the CTMU if you do it right.

Starting point is 03:44:07 Okay? A true rationalist knows how to do that right. Okay? But there aren't very many of them. I love what you said. The logic of experience. I don't think I've heard that phrase before. Did you just come up with that on the spot, or have you heard that before?

Starting point is 03:44:21 First time I ever said that. I've never heard it. That's a wonderful phrase. What I'd like to know is how is science as it's currently formulated limited well it's limited by the lack of an understanding of what a metal language is back in the uh 19th century for example uh they thought there was something physical theory contained something called the luminiferous ether. And that was basically mapped into physical reality as a kind of a space-filling substance, or perhaps as space itself.

Starting point is 03:44:55 Then when Einstein came along with the theory of relativity, he changed physical theory so that luminiferous ether disappeared. It totally disappeared from the scene. So the truth value of luminiferous ether exists had to be changed from true in the 19th century to false in the 20th century. That involves the use of something called a meta-language where you attach truth values to physical attributions. Businesses did not understand and still do not understand the structure of the meta-language that they need to do things like that, and it's called metaphysics. In other words, businesses actually need metaphysics. They need a metaphysical meta-language to actually make

Starting point is 03:45:41 changes like this, to pass, to affix truth values to physical attributions, to change their theories, to correct their theories, and things like that. The amazing thing is they don't realize this. They still don't realize it. They don't realize that physics has actually absorbed metaphysics of necessity. It needs metaphysical functionality in order to do this. But most physicists think that metaphysics is some kind of woo or some kind of quackery. And it's just, what it is, is this logical ignorance. They're not trained properly in what a metal language is or what an object language is, or for that matter, how a universe relates to it. They don't know anything

Starting point is 03:46:22 about model theory, in other words. Some of them may have taken a course in model theory, but they don't really know anything about it. Because of that, the CTMU is an advanced meta-language for science. It's a metaphysical meta-language, and it's absolutely logically necessary. You can't get by without it. So this is what's the matter with science. It doesn't understand the language in terms of which its theories are formulated or how they relate to the physical universe. It's kind of a hit and miss thing where we're following the scientific method, where we're empirically inducing theories, and we're sort of affixing them or gluing them onto observations

Starting point is 03:47:00 in physical reality, but we don't know how or why that is happening. It's some kind of lucky break that we're getting, right? It's the unexpected efficiency of mathematics, of being able to actually use mathematical models on reality, right? They don't have a meta-language whose structure actually tells them why that's occurring. So this is bad news for science. It remains bad news, and I'm trying to help them fix it. Some other ways people would say that are on the more Eastern end, they may say that it doesn't incorporate enough experiential elements or that it's too mathematically defined. That's part of the problem, yes. They don't understand that there is actually a subjective

Starting point is 03:47:45 as well as an objective aspect to reality. They need a metal language to actually put those two things together. That's the coupling. Metal language provides the coupling for subjective and objective reality. And the lack of such a metal language means that they can't actually put those two things together. That's what we're trying to help fix with the CTMU. And we're getting a lot of bonuses. There are a lot of things that you can do with the CTMU.

Starting point is 03:48:10 For example, physicists are trying to explain dark energy. They're never going to do it until they have the CTMU. The CTMU offers the only viable explanation for dark energy. And there are other things, consciousness, there are all kinds of things that cannot be explained without this metal language, this metaphysical metal language, and the admission on the parts of scientists and physicists in particular, that metaphysics is already built into their discipline. How they could still be ignorant of it, I'm not quite sure. I recall you saying that the universe is not simply a sum of its parts. I'd like you to explain why.

Starting point is 03:48:48 Well, it's synergistic, basically. Okay, if you put things together, you're basically doing so, it's like bolting a machine together. You're putting the parts together, you're putting in the little screws, and they're all in the right place, and then you turn the crank and the machine works.

Starting point is 03:49:03 But if you take one of those little pieces out, well, the machine doesn't work anymore, okay? It just sort of falls apart, and there is no coherence to it, all right? When you think, you know, the things that are going on in your mind, they're all connected to each other. You notice there's no division. There's no one thing is, you know, missing or anything like that. It's all there. Everything is coherent, and machines don't function that way. Machines have a kind of mechanical coherence, but or anything like that. It's all there. Everything is coherent and machines don't function that way. Machines have a kind of mechanical coherence, but that's not sufficient.

Starting point is 03:49:30 So what we need is higher order coherence. That's what the CTMU also brings to bear as it has higher order quantum coherence, actually meta-quantum coherence. And this is something else that we need to make a viable theory of reality. Then, you know, this idea that everything is just happening at random, and it's just sort of all popping up at random, and things sort of emerge at random. This is nonsense. Total nonsense. You can't build a theory of reality that way. You're just trying to glue parts together, and you will never get more than their sum. And the sum of parts is just a pile of parts. That's it. Everything has to work together. As a matter of fact, it has to work synergistically, and that is more than the sum of the parts. Why can't it be somewhat simple? In Wolfram's theories,

Starting point is 03:50:17 he has, or in his classical theories, he had those cellular automaton with simple rules, adjacent neighbors signify whether you live or die and then seemingly complex behaviors emerge from that why can't it be like that emerge well let's let's let's have a definition let's have steven's definition of emergence and how it occurs steven doesn't have one nor does anybody else so if you have to have a theory of self-organization. It's one of the reasons I had to come up with it is because there are a lot of deficits and holes. For all of the inroads and advances that science has made, it's still full of holes. Okay, we've got to try to patch some of them.

Starting point is 03:50:59 What would you have done differently in the development of your theory? So, for example, you would have spent more time writing with a pen and a paper instead of going for walks. I'm speaking practically here. Or you would have taken more time off or taken less time off. Time off? I've never had a vacation in my life. You know, I don't quite know what time off means. I think about the CTMU every day. You know, I get up, I think about mistakes that I've made in the past. I'm constantly questioning myself. Did I screw this up? Did I screw that up? If so, what can I do to fix it? And I find, to be very honest with you, I find that I very seldom

Starting point is 03:51:38 made serious mistakes. It has happened, but I always catch them. Most of the time, I don't make mistakes. So what would you have done differently if you could advise yourself, let's say, 30 years younger? I had the CTMU in full form decades ago. Okay? Basically, if I had to advise myself of something, it would be how to present it and how to actually get people to pay attention to it. I'd advise myself to have actually tried to go to Princeton and meet with John Wheeler as I was invited to do,

Starting point is 03:52:19 for example. That could have changed everything. All right. But when you're raised like I am, you know, like I was, my family got kicked out of houses when we were kids. You know, we found ourselves in the street. And when I was in New York and I had these jobs and I, you know, I simply was afraid to lose it. Felt that I was going to be in the street again. So I didn't go and visit John Wheeler.

Starting point is 03:52:39 You know, people think, well, you know, that's ridiculous. There's always a job and there's always a source of money. Not for all of us there isn't. And the way I was raised, there wasn't. There wasn't anything. There was no one who was going to help you. No government agency was going to step in on your behalf. Nobody was going to give you a house when you needed one. Nobody was even going to give you food when you needed it. I don't know where people get the idea that we're all privileged and we all have all these privileges you know save it for somebody who actually got the privileges we didn't so I'm you know

Starting point is 03:53:10 anyway if I had if I had it to do all over again I would meet with John Wheeler there are people who are watching this who are developing their own theories and so it's almost like when I ask you what would you have done differently it's also couched in well what would you have done differently such that they can apply it so when you say speak to john wheeler that's so that's extremely specific at first they can't apply it second of all not everyone was invited so given that now what is your answer what would you have done differently what would you advise your 30 year younger self to do or not to do? Basically, I would be, you're kind of, okay, I've already succeeded in finding what I wanted to find. All right. So basically what I would try

Starting point is 03:53:54 to do is make sure that I was not distracted and taken off the track. All right. One thing that you must bear in mind if you are a young person who's trying to figure reality out is that you cannot serve God and mammon. God is reality, and reality is God. If you don't like God, you're sunk. You're not going to get a true theory of reality. You can learn a lot of math. You can learn how to kind of put things together and tack one mathematical theory onto another, but you're not really going to get to the identity of reality. And that's how we define the G-O-D, what I was telling you. Anyway, you can't serve the G-O-D and mammon. You want to be a big

Starting point is 03:54:32 shot? You want to go out and be a hedge fund manager? Go ahead and do it. But you can forget about your aspirations to reality theory. There are all kinds of people out there, elites, money bags of various kinds, who think, well, first of all, what I'm going to do is I'm going to get out there and I'm going to make a billion dollars. I'm going to make a lot of money. And then armed with that money, I'm going to save the world. No, you're not because you spent all your capital. It's hard to get money. It really does knock you out. You've got to have the right connections. You've got to have the lucky breaks. If you immerse yourself in that goose chase, if that's what you live for, by the time you get your money and you're sitting there and now you're a big billionaire and you're going

Starting point is 03:55:17 to do this and you're going to do that, there's nothing left. All you can do is put on a show. This has been proven time and time and time again. You point me out a billionaire who's actually got some kind of big insight or some big idea about the nature of reality, and that's nonsense. Anyway, go ahead, try it. You know of any billionaires that really have any good ideas about reality? Well, anyway, that's what I would remind myself of. Don't chase money. There is a cost for that. People sell their soul for it. And that has a very literal interpretation in the CTNU. You're actually subscribing to a telon that is designed to get you money. And that telon now controls your thoughts.

Starting point is 03:56:06 It's not going to let any distractions through by way of reality theory. You're not going to be able to keep those things in mind anymore because it's all about getting money, furthering the interests of the corporation, not running afoul of corporate culture. All of these things are going to occupy your attention, and you're not going to be the big genius that you thought you were going to be. You make up your mind. You're either going to be a genius, or you're going to be a moneybags. Now, most people, given that choice, will choose moneybags. But don't turn on the TV and see a billionaire who's

Starting point is 03:56:46 saving the world and think that that's going to lead to anything for you because it won't. If you sell your soul to mammon, you are not going to be the big reality theoretic genius that you thought you were. What if someone says, I want to be a philanthropist like Bill Gates?

Starting point is 03:57:06 So you think Bill's a philanthropist, do you? I spent a large amount of time. Okay, when I was a kid, you know, one would think, well, you know, why wasn't Lang, and if he's a big genius, why wasn't he involved in the computer revolution? And why wasn't Lang? And if he's a big genius, why wasn't he involved in the computer revolution? And why didn't why wasn't he Bill Gates? Well, it was very easy. You know, I can explain that. Basically, there was a there was one. There was a computer at Montana State University, and I think it was called the Sigma seven. It was I don't know if it was an IBM 360 or what the hell it was. But anyway, it was, you know, a marvel of the time, you know, in the 60s. Here in the mid-60s, they've actually got a computer up there that people can program.

Starting point is 03:57:56 So they offered to have a cooperative, you know, class, you know, in high school, you know, where they could let high school kids program this computer. I believe I mentioned that my family wasn't very popular at TUNE. Well, as it happened, when I went to this computer class to actually sign up and learn how to program using Fortran, to program this university computer, I was recognized by Mr. Chandler, who taught the course, as someone that he didn't particularly like. He said, well, he said, I count 31 students. I only have 30 textbooks. So I'll just hand them out. And then when I run out, well, then that person will have to double up with somebody else. I was the person who didn't get, he walks around

Starting point is 03:58:43 the classroom, you know, following this trajectory and I'm the person, the last person. And he looks down at me and says, well, I'm sorry, you'll have to double up with somebody else. But when you're the least popular kid in class, nobody wants to double up with you. I just got up and walked out of this class. All right. So this is what can happen. You get a couple of bad breaks. No. All right. Then, you know, I got, I eventually bought a computer, an Atari computer and started programming in BISP. Okay. But that was a problem because then Atari went out of business and I needed, you know, an IBM type, you know, Bill Gates computer. They were all $2,000. For me,

Starting point is 03:59:23 that was four months rent. I could not afford it. So by the time it got around to where I could afford to get all the equipment that I needed to be a big computer hotshot, it was too late. I'm not going to waste my time on it now. There are too many kids out there. They're apps this and apps and programs that, and I'm going to be in the next big shot. They have connections. Their families have money. I'm not Bill Gates, whose father was a millionaire and got his own little computer and was able to do it. He had everything handed to him and most of these people do. Show me the billionaire who's self-made and I'll show you a BS artist. There's simply no doubt

Starting point is 04:00:01 about it. Is there such a thing as philanthropy? Yes, of course there is. Unfortunately, most of these people, to be a philanthropist, you've not only got to have a lot of money, you've got to know to whom you should give that money. Who should be the object of your charity? Who would you say is a good philanthropist? I don't know of any. I mean, there are organizations that give grants, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, other people that give grants that someone like me should be eligible for.

Starting point is 04:00:35 Well, every time I have gone to fill out the application for one of these charitable organizations, the first thing on the, you fill out an application and they want to know what institution you're affiliated with, namely what university you're affiliated with. So if you're not a professional academic, you're just out. Okay. That's it. They ignore you. This is not philanthropy. This is a circle jerk. Okay. And it's an unbroken circle. Everybody links their arms and nobody gets in from the side. Okay. So that's what it is. And that is, that is what these philanthropists are all about. You know, the only people they will give to are people that come out of their own indoctrination

Starting point is 04:01:15 mills, right? That's, that's it. Nobody else is eligible for their charity. And basically what they're doing is they're just choosing the people, you know, that are going to tell them what they want to hear. And they're doing it in such a way that they get maximum credit for, that they look especially good. For example, the American Cancer Society, donate to the American Cancer Society and you look good for doing that. Bill Gates has done a lot of that kind of donating. But now we find out that Bill Gates has parlayed that into an amazing amount of control over the world health system. So it's not as though it was just charity, is it? Okay. Bill has now got himself, you know, has wangled a leading position in the, you know,

Starting point is 04:01:58 I mean, you know what this amounts. This entire vaccine thing was more or less previewed by Bill Gates. What was that? Event 201? Was that what it was called? I mean, this guy has known what was happening all along. It's as though it was planned, previewed, rehearsed in advance, and Bill Gates is right in the middle of that. Now, I can't point the finger at Bill and say he's definitely guilty.

Starting point is 04:02:25 He definitely did this. He definitely did that. But he's connected to too many people who are involved in this thing. All right. And you know, of course, about what happened with Bill in India and Africa, right, with his vaccine trials there, right? Of course you do. The last question is from me.

Starting point is 04:02:50 What advice do you have for me basically i'm on this mission to understand different theories of everything it's autodidactic for various reasons so it's similar to yourself in that manner and i'm making sure that i'm not closing my doors i'm trying to be open to non i used to be like as you would understand the standard academic who was materialistic and despised everything that even resembled mysticism. But now I'm opening myself up to what people would ordinarily call woo, like free will, consciousness, God, even UAPs. So what advice do you have for me as I go on this mission, other than, Kurt, just read the CTMU?

Starting point is 04:03:24 What advice do you have for me as I go on this mission, other than, Kurt, just read the CTMU? You've got to stick with it, and you can't become discouraged. Obviously, I'm going to tell you, you have to read the CTMU, and you have to try to grok it. You have to try to deeply understand it. Remain open-minded, but don't allow yourself to be unduly influenced by people just because they are persuasive. There are a lot of very persuasive people out there who will try to convince you that they have the correct perspective on reality, when in reality they do not. But a lot of people, you know, say, well, this person is so intelligent and they seem so confident. What they're telling me about reality, there's got to be something to it. It must be true.

Starting point is 04:04:07 And meanwhile, they're talking out of the other side of their mouths, disparaging, okay? You don't want to let that happen. Maintain a certain amount of skepticism regarding whatever anyone is telling you. I think that what I've succeeded in doing during this interview is actually answering questions and actually making sense of some of this for you. I don't know how successful I've been,

Starting point is 04:04:23 but at least I've tried, okay? There is, I don't know how successful I've been, but at least I've tried. Okay. There is, I don't know of anyone who can actually, you can actually push to ground. You can actually tree like this and get straight answers about the overall structure of reality from. As far as I know, I'm the only person like that. So just don't listen to anybody who disparages me or my work. That's my main piece of advice. And also, just stick with it, man. You need to know. Remember, when you study reality, when you're looking at the structure of reality, you're looking for the structure of your own ultimate identity.

Starting point is 04:04:58 That's what you get at the top. That's what it all boils down to in the end. If you correctly understand that, then you can be salvaged. The universal identity will keep you alive forever. All right? But you need to find it. You need to come to grips with it. And you need to keep on traveling up that ladder as far as you can get.

Starting point is 04:05:20 All right? Most people become discouraged. I'm tired of this. I'm so tired. I can't do this anymore. My mind just won't handle it. This is, well, it's death. For a person like you, someone who really needs to know, who really wants to look in, it's a lifelong thing, Kurt.

Starting point is 04:05:38 You've got to stick with it, no matter what. Thank you, man. You know, when i ask that question i'm actually also asking on behalf of the audience because many of them are on a similar journey of explicating toes that's the whole point of this channel so i from what i understand read the ctmu okay i have and i will continue to do so second don't listen to people who appear to have cogency or persuasive relevance but the criteria that you listed was if they disparage you so i'm going to ask you soon what is an alternate criteria not just that because some people have made no comment about you and also someone could just be simply mistaken so for the people who are listening who are also on a similar journey of self-exploration trying to

Starting point is 04:06:25 understand the universe which seems to be intimately tied to understanding oneself they're on this journey what other advice do you have for them besides reading the ctmu which i advise everyone who's listening or watching to do make an attempt to do so at least once per week which is a scintilla of time okay so there so there's CTMU, and then number two was to not listen to people who disparage you, even though they sound, even though they're captivating in some manner. Okay, besides disparaging you,

Starting point is 04:06:56 what else should people be on the lookout for? What advice do you have for people on a civil urge? Sometimes clues come from the most remarkable places. I find that when I'm trying to understand the structure of reality, things are given to me, are put in my proximity, that would be very easy to ignore or to miss. You must be attuned to them. You must be aware at all times of how reality may give you

Starting point is 04:07:26 clues about what you're looking for that is a piece of advice that I think is very important for everybody to understand, remain in a state of awareness, guard your awareness alright, you know life is very distracting it's easy to get distracted and just

Starting point is 04:07:44 you know, bumble from one mental state to another. Don't do that. Maintain, persevere, maintain focus, maintain awareness. Remember, reality is always trying to show you things. Let it show you things. Pay attention to it. All right. And I'm not just talking about paying attention to the spectacular things, whether things that interest you or guzzling a beer and watching a football? And I'm not just talking about paying attention to the spectacular things, whether things that interest you, or guzzling a beer and watching a football game. I'm not talking about that kind of awareness and perception.

Starting point is 04:08:11 I'm talking about subtlety. Yeah, give an example if you don't mind. Well, for example, in the morning when I wake up, I'm thinking about something. I might reach over and I might grab my pad,

Starting point is 04:08:33 iPad or whatever kind of pad it is. I might take it and look at it. There might be a page there and I might go to my email and without even pressing the email thing I'll see under the page I'll see a bunch of stories that are listed there by some mainstream outlet like Google or something. And then I'll look down the list of stories. And there's something that catches my eye. And I know there's something in there that I should pay attention to. So I click it. Invariably, I find that it's there.

Starting point is 04:08:59 It's a gut instinct I have. All right. I can tell when there's something there that I can use. I know when reality wants to show me something. And I can follow those little bread trails, those little trails or crumbs that leads for me with great accuracy. Okay? This is a special, this is a skill. You need to develop it.

Starting point is 04:09:22 Okay? And it's not something that everybody knows how to do right away, but it's definitely there. If you're looking for understanding, this is what you've got to do. This is your state of mind. You're like an antenna, and you are attuned to what reality is trying to show you. Okay? This is a whole different, it's a whole new way of life. Now, that being said, we're entering very troubling times.

Starting point is 04:09:48 And you've got to be willing to get in there, you know, roll up your sleeves and, you know, develop some mental and physical muscle and deal with the problems we have. All right, we've got some terrible problems, and they're very distracting too. It's going to be tearing our minds away from what reality is. But there's one thing you have to know about reality, and that is that existing in reality means that you're free. You're an individual. You cannot allow yourself to be enslaved. You can't allow yourself to be mechanized and programmed. And when someone attempts to do that to you, you must resist, no matter what the cost. You actually have to maintain your individuality. If you don't, they will control your cognition and you will never know the true nature of reality. So you must remain willing and able to actually get in and fight for what you are. Chris, man, thank you so much. You're very welcome, Kurt. It's been a pleasure.

Starting point is 04:10:52 I think that there should be enough there that you can get a good, I don't know, how long are most of your interviews when you get done? This one's going to be four hours. How long have we been sitting here? Four hours. Oh, wow. Okay. Four and a half. It doesn't seem like that long. Actually, you've made it very pleasurable. So I thank you for that. Man, Chris, honestly, I was nervous going into this, like I mentioned,

Starting point is 04:11:18 because firstly, I've been looking you up for a little while for at least a few weeks and I've known about you for years, though I haven't researched for years and I heard that you were a pussycat but at the same time for my from hearing that's from your wife and then I thought that you may be Combative irritable choleric, but from my experience with you, it's been such a pleasure man. Well, thank you so much good I'm glad that I haven't disappointed you in that respect. You did an excellent job. You are trying your best. I've seen snippets of a couple of your other interviews, and I think this was one of your very best ones.

Starting point is 04:11:54 So thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer these questions, and I hope you understand that there is a difference between me and some other interviewees in the sense that I don't dodge your questions. I try to answer them in a direct way, and I can usually do that with a great deal of integration. But where it appears to fall apart, when you listen to this tape, if there's anything you don't understand, please just ask. Get in touch with me, and I'll do my best to fill you in. Chris, have a great night. Eat some food.

Starting point is 04:12:23 Get some rest. Drink some beer. Whatever you've got to do, man. I sure will. Chris have a great night eat some food get some rest drink some beer whatever you gotta do man I sure will

Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Chris Langan on IQ, The Singularity, Free Will, Psychedelics, CTMU, and God

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.