The Joe Rogan Experience - May 16, 2024


Joe Rogan Experience #2151 - Rizwan Virk


Episode Stats

Length

2 hours and 37 minutes

Words per Minute

174.19374

Word Count

27,511

Sentence Count

1,700

Misogynist Sentences

3

Hate Speech Sentences

23


Summary

In this episode of the podcast, I sit down with computer scientist and UFO researcher Dr. Gary Nolan to talk about his theory that we are living in a computer simulation or massively multiplayer video game, but where did that computer game come from and how did we get there? We also talk about the Galileo Project and the Soul Foundation, two academic UFO research groups that are trying to figure out what's really going on in the universe. We also discuss the role of non-player AI in video games and the role AI in the video game industry, and what it means to be an AI in a video game and how it can be used in simulation theory. If you like conspiracy theories, this episode is for you. This episode is brought to you by Cracked and the Planetary Society. The Planetary Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public about all things related to UFOs, extraterrestrial life, and extraterrestrial intelligence. Our mission is to inform, entertain, and inspire people to pursue their passion for all things extraterrestrial. We are dedicated to debunk the myths, the urban legends, and everything else that goes on in our world. Thank you for listening and supporting this podcast. Please don't forget to rate, review, subscribe and subscribe to our other shows on Apple Podcasts, The Anthropology, and wherever else you get your listening choices are available. Please share the podcast with your friends, and spread the word to your friends and family about this podcast! and let us know what you think of this episode! Timestamps, share it on social media! Cheers, Timestories, and don't miss out on this one! - we'll be looking out for more episodes like this one :) - Tom Bell, Timeless, Tom Bells, and much more! . Timelessness, Tom Bell , and much love, Cheers! (AstroFabulous! , :D) ( ) Thank You, Jon Toth Jon Taffer, Jamie, , Diana Pasoka & Gary Nolan Jim, Sriramode . . , etc., etc., etc. , & much more. (Thank you, Jon, ) , Jen, etc, etc., and more ... Thanks Jon Taffy, & so much more


Transcript

00:00:08.000 By the way, Diana Pasoka says hi.
00:00:14.000 Oh, cool.
00:00:15.000 You know her?
00:00:15.000 Yeah, I know her pretty well, actually.
00:00:17.000 Boy, her theories are very, very, very interesting.
00:00:21.000 Yeah.
00:00:22.000 She's a strange person to talk to, because you start, like...
00:00:25.000 You start really considering some of the things she's saying.
00:00:27.000 It's just all the UFO stuff.
00:00:29.000 I go back and forth on the UFO stuff from it being complete bullshit to like maybe there's something there.
00:00:35.000 Right.
00:00:35.000 I fluctuate throughout the day.
00:00:37.000 Yeah.
00:00:38.000 Well, we can talk about that.
00:00:39.000 You know, I'm peripherally involved with it.
00:00:41.000 Jamie, you're making noise over there.
00:00:43.000 Shake mic off.
00:00:44.000 Yeah.
00:00:45.000 You're peripherally involved with?
00:00:46.000 With the Galileo Project at Harvard and the Soul Foundation at Stanford, which are like the two academic UFO research groups that are out there.
00:00:55.000 Avi Loeb is running the one at Harvard and Gary Nolan is running the one.
00:00:58.000 You had Gary on your show, right?
00:00:59.000 I have not, but I've been in communication with him.
00:01:02.000 I've talked to him quite a bit.
00:01:03.000 Yeah.
00:01:03.000 I'm very fascinated by his work.
00:01:05.000 I'm happy to talk about UFO stuff where it overlaps with simulation theory.
00:01:09.000 So how did you get involved in this whole theory in the first place?
00:01:13.000 Explain to people your position, if you don't mind, on simulation theory.
00:01:19.000 What do you think is going on?
00:01:21.000 Yeah, well, so first question, how did I get involved in this, right?
00:01:24.000 So, you know, I was a video game developer in Silicon Valley, and then I became an investor in the video game industry in my background in computer science.
00:01:33.000 And what happened was after I sold my last video game company back in 2016, so we're talking like, you know, seven years ago now, Eight years ago now.
00:01:43.000 And I put on a virtual reality headset and started playing a VR ping pong game.
00:01:48.000 Now these headsets were even bigger than they are now and they were wired.
00:01:51.000 So there's no mistaking you're in virtual reality.
00:01:54.000 But what happened was that the ping pong game was so realistic That for a moment my brain forgot that this wasn't a real game of table tennis.
00:02:03.000 So much so that I tried to put the paddle down on the table and I tried to lean against the table, but of course there was no table.
00:02:09.000 So the controller fell to the floor and I almost fell over.
00:02:13.000 I had to do one of these double takes like, oh wait, I'm just in VR. So I started to think about how long would it take us to build something like the Matrix, something that's so immersive that you would forget That you were inside a video game.
00:02:28.000 And so that led me to this idea of the simulation point, which is a kind of technological singularity.
00:02:33.000 But then I started to research things like quantum physics and some of the mysteries around, you know, the observer effect and quantum mechanics.
00:02:41.000 And then I started to look at all the world's religions and I realized that they're all kind of saying the same thing, which is that there is no physical universe.
00:02:49.000 And so that led me to the conclusion that we are most likely inside some kind of a computer simulation or a massively multiplayer video game, depending on how you look at it.
00:03:01.000 But where did that computer game, where did that simulation come from if we were inside of it?
00:03:10.000 Well, that's the big question, right?
00:03:13.000 And there's two versions of simulation theory.
00:03:16.000 And I teach a class on this at Arizona State University.
00:03:19.000 It's probably the first college-level class about simulation theory, and it kind of pulls in science fiction, religion, philosophy, and technology.
00:03:25.000 But one of the key distinctions I tell my students to make is it's not talked about a lot with simulation theory.
00:03:31.000 Is what I call the NPC versus the RPG versions of simulation theory.
00:03:37.000 So NPC, as you probably know, means non-player characters within video games.
00:03:42.000 So those are the AIs in the video game.
00:03:45.000 You know, the bartenders, the people you're beating up, the opponents, all of that stuff.
00:03:49.000 But basically they're just code and they're AI. Then there's the RPG version, which is that we are actually doing a role-playing game, right?
00:03:57.000 So you exist outside the game.
00:04:00.000 And then you have a character or avatar inside the game.
00:04:02.000 So it's just like what we would consider an MMORPG today, except with more sophisticated technology.
00:04:09.000 And so in that case, you get a little bit of a different answer than if you talk about an NPC-only type of simulation, right?
00:04:18.000 Because that's just running on a computer and we're all AI in that case.
00:04:21.000 Now, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
00:04:24.000 In a video game like Fortnite or whatever, World of Warcraft, you have NPCs and you have PCs or player characters.
00:04:31.000 So you've got both of those things going on.
00:04:33.000 And so depending on how you look at it, you might come to different answers about who's outside the simulation, which would answer the question of who made the simulation.
00:04:46.000 Yeah.
00:04:47.000 So in the first case, you basically say that if we can get to the point where we can build these simulations, what I call the simulation point.
00:04:58.000 So I call that a kind of technological singularity.
00:05:01.000 Now, we've heard the term singularity mostly because of like AI and super intelligent AI, right?
00:05:08.000 And, you know, AI is going to take over the world.
00:05:10.000 But the guy who defined the term was actually a computer scientist who became a science fiction writer named Werner Winge.
00:05:16.000 In fact, he just passed away like a month ago or something.
00:05:19.000 He was a real pioneer in like science fiction and the cyberpunk kind of subgenre or so.
00:05:25.000 And so he said the singularity happens when technology increases exponentially to the point where everything will be different for humans after that point.
00:05:34.000 Now, he gave like four different ways we could reach the singularity.
00:05:37.000 Most of us talk about only one, which is AI starts to become super intelligent.
00:05:42.000 It grows exponentially and everything will be different.
00:05:45.000 But I think this idea of the simulation point where we can create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, and I lay out like 10 stages in my book of all the technology we would need, including brain-computer interfaces like in the Matrix, right?
00:05:59.000 Or Neuralink.
00:06:00.000 Or Neuralink, right.
00:06:01.000 We're getting there, right?
00:06:02.000 Yeah, we're very close.
00:06:03.000 We're at the beginning of that whole phase.
00:06:05.000 And so that's stage eight, stage seven and stage eight on the way to the simulation point.
00:06:10.000 And, you know, being able to read, but also then being able to write memories as well.
00:06:15.000 So the definition of the simulation point is being able to create a virtual reality that is indistinguishable from physical reality with AI characters that are indistinguishable from biological characters.
00:06:27.000 So, you know, you wouldn't be able to tell you're talking to an NPC, basically.
00:06:31.000 We're getting closer to that already, right?
00:06:33.000 Yes.
00:06:33.000 Yeah, I mean, there's, like, companies out there doing smart NPCs now inside video games.
00:06:39.000 Right, but what would be the difference between looking at what is possible in the future and making either a hypothesis or suggesting that that has already taken place?
00:06:54.000 Right, so that's kind of the leap, right, that you need to make, which is to say that if we can do it, now let's imagine a civilization that was a million years ahead of us, a thousand years ahead of us, even 200 years ahead of us, right, but certainly a thousand years ahead of us.
00:07:09.000 So where will computers be in a thousand years?
00:07:11.000 They would already have created these types of simulations, right?
00:07:14.000 Because if we can do it, now, 50 years ago, we didn't know if we could do it.
00:07:18.000 We didn't know if computers could get to that point.
00:07:21.000 Today, we're pretty sure we can get there.
00:07:23.000 In fact, I'd say that I'm 70% sure that we will get to the simulation point, which means I think there's a 70% chance we're living inside a simulation.
00:07:33.000 And so the point is, if they already got there, they created a whole bunch of simulations.
00:07:39.000 And you can't tell the difference whether you're in the real world or a simulated world.
00:07:45.000 So there's 99 of these, there's one of these, but you can't tell the difference.
00:07:50.000 So which one are you more likely in?
00:07:53.000 Just statistically speaking now, we're not even projecting the technology forward.
00:07:57.000 We're just saying it's more likely you're in one of the 99 than the one because there's so many more of these.
00:08:04.000 Sort of.
00:08:05.000 If you can't tell the difference.
00:08:06.000 If you can't tell the difference.
00:08:08.000 But there's so many things you have to think about, right?
00:08:12.000 There's so many things you have to take into consideration.
00:08:14.000 One of them is we don't have a straight linear line from the moment that we're born to the moment that we exist in currently.
00:08:26.000 The reason being is that we go to sleep every night.
00:08:29.000 Right.
00:08:29.000 It's a weird thing.
00:08:31.000 We shut off every night, and we wake up intermittently, and you go back to bed, maybe you have to pee, maybe you're thirsty, you go back to bed, and then you wake up again.
00:08:43.000 But when you wake up, you are just waking up.
00:08:45.000 Like, when I woke up this morning, I don't know if this is the life I've always lived.
00:08:51.000 Right.
00:08:51.000 I'm assuming it is, because I have all these detailed memories of the past.
00:08:57.000 I see my dog.
00:08:58.000 He reacts the exact same way he always does.
00:09:01.000 I see my wife.
00:09:03.000 I see my kids.
00:09:04.000 I see my house.
00:09:05.000 It's the same house that I remember.
00:09:07.000 But I'm not sure.
00:09:09.000 I just woke up.
00:09:11.000 Right.
00:09:11.000 I'm a little foggy already.
00:09:13.000 It just exists in your memory.
00:09:14.000 It just exists in your memory.
00:09:16.000 This might be the first day of my life.
00:09:19.000 Right.
00:09:19.000 If, suppose that you can implant false memories, right?
00:09:23.000 Right.
00:09:23.000 So this was a popular topic for Philip K. Dick, right?
00:09:26.000 Yes.
00:09:26.000 Movies like Total Recall, even in Blade Runner.
00:09:29.000 You know, I interviewed his wife while I was researching my book.
00:09:33.000 He was a wild boy.
00:09:34.000 He was an interesting guy, right?
00:09:36.000 Yeah.
00:09:36.000 And he said some interesting things.
00:09:38.000 In fact, all the way back in 1977, in Metz, France, at a sci-fi convention, he said, there's a pretty famous quote.
00:09:45.000 He said, we are living in a computer-programmed reality, and the only clue we have to it is if some variable is changed, some alteration occurs in our reality.
00:09:57.000 And that's become kind of a famous quote in the simulation world.
00:10:01.000 But if you listen to the rest of the quote, he says, well, we would basically rerun the same events and we would change some variables.
00:10:09.000 And we would have a sense of deja vu.
00:10:11.000 Like, maybe we've already done this.
00:10:12.000 Maybe I've talked to you before in a different run of the simulation.
00:10:18.000 And this idea, like after I wrote my first book on this topic, Simulation Hypothesis, This idea wouldn't leave me that, well, if you can run one simulation, you can certainly run it multiple times.
00:10:31.000 In fact, that's what we would do.
00:10:32.000 If we were running a simulation of the weather, we wouldn't just run it once.
00:10:36.000 We would run it multiple times, and if we were doing a simulation of whatever, right?
00:10:40.000 Pandemic, anything, name it.
00:10:41.000 We would change the variables, and we would go forward.
00:10:44.000 And so, you know, when I interviewed Tessa, you know, Phil K. Dick's last wife, she said that he came to believe this was really happening, right?
00:10:54.000 That someone was altering with our reality and they would change a few variables and rerun the simulation forward.
00:11:02.000 So now we're getting pretty deep in the rabbit hole.
00:11:04.000 So this is the topic of my second book, which is called The Simulated Multiverse.
00:11:07.000 This idea that each of these timelines could be like a different run of the simulation itself.
00:11:15.000 Hmm.
00:11:16.000 So that gets a little weird at that point, right?
00:11:19.000 Because now we're saying that time isn't the same thing.
00:11:24.000 Right?
00:11:24.000 That we think it is.
00:11:25.000 So with the simulation hypothesis, we're saying that space doesn't really exist.
00:11:30.000 It basically gets rendered for us like a video game.
00:11:35.000 And then with this second idea, we're saying that time doesn't really exist because what you remember could have been either implanted memories or it could be a specific run of the simulation.
00:11:47.000 So if you run it again, maybe things are slightly different the second time you run it.
00:11:54.000 So Philip K. Dick came to believe that his novel, The Man in the High Castle, which was turned into a pretty cool series.
00:12:01.000 I don't know if you've seen it.
00:12:03.000 It was on Amazon a few years ago.
00:12:05.000 But in the novel and in the series, Germany and Japan One World War II. And so you see in America that's been divided.
00:12:15.000 Like the East Coast is run by the Germans.
00:12:17.000 The West Coast is run by the Japanese.
00:12:19.000 And you see this kind of fascist type world.
00:12:22.000 And so, you know, he later came to believe that this actually happened.
00:12:28.000 And somehow the simulators reran it again.
00:12:31.000 And the current timeline is one that was allowed to go forward.
00:12:35.000 Further forward than where that one might have ended.
00:12:38.000 And so he says that at some point, all these memories came flooding back to him of this other timeline.
00:12:45.000 He called it, he used this Greek word, it's called an anamnesis, which means a loss of forgetfulness, right?
00:12:53.000 So he said, we might be able to remember these other runs of the simulation.
00:13:00.000 So anyway, that gets us into, you know, this whole idea of, is the past what we think it is, right?
00:13:06.000 That's, I think, the question you were asking, right?
00:13:09.000 Because you're like, if I just remember XYZ, is that what actually happened?
00:13:15.000 Or is it just a representation of the past?
00:13:20.000 In the present.
00:13:21.000 Yeah.
00:13:21.000 And so when I started looking into the quantum physics side of it, I found something really weird.
00:13:26.000 We can talk about the observer effect, but this was like even weirder than that.
00:13:30.000 And it was something proposed by John Wheeler, who was at Princeton with Einstein, and he was a bit younger than, you know, Niels Bohr and Einstein and all these kind of forefathers of quantum mechanics.
00:13:43.000 And he came up with several things that I was talking about, but one of them is the delayed choice experiment.
00:13:50.000 Or the cosmic delayed choice experiment, which puts into doubt this idea of the past.
00:13:56.000 And since we're talking about the past, let's go into this now, if you don't mind.
00:14:00.000 Okay.
00:14:00.000 So imagine there's something like a quasar, and that's a billion light years away from us, right?
00:14:07.000 And the light is coming from that quasar to here, so it's going to take...
00:14:11.000 A billion years to get here because it's a billion light years away.
00:14:14.000 And then suppose there's something in the middle, like a black hole that's in the middle, or a galaxy, something that's very gravitationally big.
00:14:23.000 And so suppose the light has to go to the left or to the right of that object.
00:14:28.000 And suppose that object is like a million light years away from us.
00:14:31.000 So it's a lot closer, but it's still a million light years away.
00:14:35.000 So the decision about when the light goes to the left or to the right Would have to be made when?
00:14:44.000 It would have to be made in the past, about a million years ago, because it takes light from that, let's say it's a black hole.
00:14:51.000 It's a million light years away, so it takes a million years for the light to reach Earth.
00:14:54.000 And we can measure whether it went to the left or to the right.
00:14:59.000 Well, it turns out that decision is in the past, as we think of it.
00:15:03.000 But what the delayed choice experiment tells us is that that decision is made now when we measure that light.
00:15:12.000 When the little telescopes...
00:15:13.000 Suppose we have two telescopes.
00:15:14.000 One picks up on the left, one picks up on the right.
00:15:17.000 And it's when we do the measurement.
00:15:19.000 And until we do that measurement, both of those possibilities still exist.
00:15:25.000 So we have these two possible pasts.
00:15:28.000 A million years ago, right?
00:15:29.000 The light went to the left or to the right.
00:15:31.000 But which one happened isn't decided until the measurement is done today.
00:15:37.000 So this is like Schrodinger's cat on steroids, right?
00:15:40.000 I'm not sure I totally understand this.
00:15:42.000 Okay.
00:15:42.000 Why is the decision made when you measure it?
00:15:46.000 Well, that's what the experiment, you know, kind of showed with quantum mechanics.
00:15:50.000 Just like, okay, let's start with Schrodinger's cat because it's a simpler version.
00:15:54.000 So Schrodinger's cat is this experiment where there's a cat in a box, theoretical experiment.
00:15:59.000 Nobody's killing any cats.
00:16:00.000 And there's some poison in there, and there's some radioactive material that has a 50% chance of setting off the poison, and a 50% chance that it won't, let's say after an hour or so.
00:16:13.000 And so after an hour, the chances that the cat is dead or alive is 50%, right?
00:16:20.000 Because it's a 50% chance.
00:16:21.000 But what the observer effect and what quantum mechanics is telling us is that both of those possibilities exist.
00:16:29.000 The cat is both alive and dead until somebody looks at that box, right?
00:16:35.000 The observer in this case.
00:16:37.000 And so until then, the cat is in the state of superposition.
00:16:42.000 And this is what makes quantum mechanics so weird, right?
00:16:45.000 This is why, you know, Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner, said, nobody understands quantum mechanics.
00:16:51.000 And Niels Bohr said, if you're not shocked by this, then you haven't understood it, okay?
00:16:55.000 Because to us, the cat has to be alive or it has to be dead.
00:16:58.000 And we don't know until we see.
00:17:00.000 We don't know until we see, but it's only one, and common sense tells us it's one of those, right?
00:17:04.000 But quantum mechanics, through the double slit experiment and the observer effect, says both of those possibilities exist in the present until the time when someone looks and someone measures that result.
00:17:19.000 So then we say the superposition, which is two states, comes down to one state.
00:17:24.000 So the cat is both alive and dead.
00:17:26.000 And then when somebody measures it, it's either alive or dead, and we're in one of those states.
00:17:32.000 Right.
00:17:33.000 I kind of understand what you're saying, but isn't it really just that we don't know until we open the box?
00:17:39.000 And it's not that the cat is both alive and dead.
00:17:42.000 The cat is either alive or dead.
00:17:44.000 We just haven't figured it out yet until we open the box.
00:17:47.000 That's what it would seem like, right?
00:17:49.000 Right.
00:17:49.000 That would be like common sense.
00:17:50.000 Logical.
00:17:51.000 Point of view, right?
00:17:52.000 But what all the physicists have been telling us now for almost 100 years, right, going back to the 1920s when quantum mechanics first started to get formalized, is that that's not actually the case.
00:18:05.000 That what happens is you have this probability wave.
00:18:08.000 And that there are different probabilities of the cat being alive or dead.
00:18:13.000 Now, of course, they weren't talking about cats.
00:18:15.000 The cat is maybe too simplistic.
00:18:17.000 It's like a placeholder.
00:18:19.000 You know what I'm saying?
00:18:21.000 Yeah.
00:18:21.000 It's a way for somebody to think about this at a high level.
00:18:25.000 So Schrodinger, who was one of the founders of quantum mechanics through his wave equation, he basically came up with this because he thought the whole idea was ridiculous.
00:18:34.000 He's like, look, you can't have a cat that's both alive and dead, right?
00:18:37.000 Right.
00:18:38.000 So this is a ridiculous experiment, except it's become the way in which we explain this weird effect about quantum mechanics.
00:18:46.000 And the weird effect of quantum mechanics is things can be both moving and still at the same time, which is superposition, right?
00:18:53.000 Right.
00:18:53.000 Or they can be in two different states, which could be moving and still, could be alive or dead, or they're really talking about particles.
00:19:01.000 So then it could be like left rotated or right rotated.
00:19:04.000 So you've got all these properties, but they can be in different states.
00:19:10.000 And this is the basis for quantum computing, by the way.
00:19:12.000 You've probably heard about new quantum computers.
00:19:15.000 I have, but I totally don't understand it.
00:19:18.000 So it's the same thing as Schrodinger's cat, where we have a bit of information, right?
00:19:22.000 So what are the values that a bit can have?
00:19:24.000 It's like zero or one.
00:19:27.000 That's it.
00:19:28.000 That's like the basic unit of information.
00:19:30.000 And the bit can only have one of those values.
00:19:32.000 Like on my iPhone or my laptop, if you look down all the way down into hardware, you can look at the registers.
00:19:39.000 Like when I was at MIT, we actually built a computer in class from scratch.
00:19:44.000 You'll see there's some voltage that says this is a 1 or this is a 0. Right?
00:19:48.000 That's it.
00:19:49.000 All the computing, everything we're doing with video streaming, like all that stuff, comes down to having a bit that can be either a zero or a one.
00:19:56.000 It has to be one or the other.
00:19:57.000 It can't be both.
00:19:58.000 Right.
00:19:59.000 So, quantum computing has these things called qubits.
00:20:03.000 Okay?
00:20:04.000 Q-U-B-I-T-S. Qubits.
00:20:06.000 Which, a qubit is like Schrodinger's cat.
00:20:09.000 It It doesn't just have a value of a 1 or a 0. It is in superposition.
00:20:15.000 Superposition means a superset of all the positions that are possible.
00:20:19.000 So how many possibilities are there in a bit 2, right?
00:20:22.000 0 and 1. So a qubit is a superposition of a bit, which means it has both values, 0 and 1, until someone measures that bit.
00:20:34.000 Theoretically, that's what allows quantum computers to solve problems that grow exponentially, that are really big.
00:20:42.000 We're still in the early stages, but if you think of an exponential growth problem like cracking encryption, It can be done by a regular computer.
00:20:51.000 You can set up your laptop to crack.
00:20:53.000 It'll take like a thousand years or something, right?
00:20:56.000 Because you have to go through every single possible value.
00:21:00.000 So if you have 64 bits, that's like 2 to the 64 values, which is Which is huge.
00:21:06.000 In fact, there's an old story about the Indian king and the wise man who played chess that illustrates the story of how big that number gets when you have exponential growth.
00:21:15.000 So there was a king who liked to play chess and no one wanted to play chess with him anymore because he kept winning.
00:21:20.000 And finally, there's this wise man.
00:21:21.000 He's like, please play chess with me.
00:21:22.000 And the wise man says, okay, I'll play chess with you.
00:21:25.000 If I win, for the first square on the chessboard, you give me one grain of rice.
00:21:30.000 And then the second square in the chessboard, you double that, two grains of rice.
00:21:34.000 And you double that to four grains of rice and six grains of rice.
00:21:38.000 So we're doubling in each square, right?
00:21:40.000 King's like, okay, sure.
00:21:42.000 You know, no big deal.
00:21:42.000 There's just a bunch of rice, right?
00:21:44.000 And so it turns out when the wise man won, by the time you get to two to the 64, because there's 64 squares on the chessboard, that basically it was more rice than would fit in all of India, right?
00:21:57.000 That's an exponential problem.
00:21:59.000 It just grows so fast.
00:22:01.000 And the reason it grows is there are too many possibilities, right?
00:22:05.000 But now this new thing called a qubit is coming along.
00:22:08.000 And the qubit has both possibilities at the same time.
00:22:12.000 So if you have 64 bits and you take all the possible values of those 64 bits, you've got the same number of possibilities as the grains of rice we talked about.
00:22:23.000 It's 2 to the 64. It's a very big number.
00:22:26.000 It's 18 quintillion, right, is the number.
00:22:29.000 There's a game called No Man's Sky.
00:22:31.000 I don't know if you ever played it.
00:22:32.000 No.
00:22:33.000 So it became famous because it was one of the first games to have an almost infinite number of planets.
00:22:39.000 Oh, is this the game where it just creates a universe?
00:22:42.000 Yeah.
00:22:43.000 It's kind of boring, I heard.
00:22:44.000 Yeah, it was kind of boring at first.
00:22:46.000 I mean, I haven't played it in a while.
00:22:47.000 I just kind of looked at it.
00:22:48.000 But it procedurally generates everything for you.
00:22:51.000 Because there's no way a team of...
00:22:53.000 Like, I was in the video game industry, right?
00:22:55.000 There's no way a team could create 18 quintillion worlds.
00:22:58.000 And it turns out that's exactly the number of worlds they have in that game.
00:23:02.000 Because that is, what, 64 bits.
00:23:04.000 That's the biggest number you can get if you use 64 bits, right?
00:23:09.000 Right.
00:23:10.000 Okay, so come back to exponential growth.
00:23:13.000 It's just too big.
00:23:15.000 And so with a quantum computer, theoretically, and these are pretty new right now, right?
00:23:20.000 Amazon has one.
00:23:21.000 Microsoft has one.
00:23:23.000 IBM has one that you can actually program online.
00:23:25.000 Google has their own.
00:23:27.000 Everyone's trying to figure out how to make these qubits stable and work.
00:23:31.000 But the basic idea, and I don't know what number we're up to for a while, it was like you could only have four bits qubits.
00:23:36.000 Kind of like going back to the old...
00:23:39.000 When we were young, the Apple II or whatever came out.
00:23:44.000 Before that, there were these small 8-bit processor-based kits that people would assemble.
00:23:51.000 They just couldn't have a lot of data because they just couldn't keep track of that many bits.
00:23:55.000 That's where quantum computers are today.
00:23:57.000 But the idea is if you can have 64 qubits, you can instantaneously solve...
00:24:03.000 A problem that is exponential because you can explore all of those at the same time and then when you measure the result.
00:24:13.000 Now, nobody knows exactly how this works, but the two explanations...
00:24:18.000 Coming back to Schrodinger's cat, we say there's two possibilities, right?
00:24:25.000 So with 64 qubits, there's two to the 64 possibilities, if they're all in superposition.
00:24:30.000 They have all the possible values of it.
00:24:34.000 And so, basically, when you measure that, It brings it back.
00:24:40.000 And so physicists call this the collapse of the probability wave.
00:24:44.000 So there's a probability of all these possibilities, and then it comes down to one.
00:24:48.000 And that's sort of the best, one of the accepted ways that people think this whole thing works.
00:24:55.000 But nobody totally knows.
00:24:57.000 So another guy who was John Wheeler's grad student at Princeton came up with another idea.
00:25:04.000 And we've heard about this idea from the superhero movies, right?
00:25:07.000 And this is the multiverse idea, right?
00:25:09.000 Yeah.
00:25:10.000 And so, basically, he said that if you've got Schrodinger's cat, what happens is you're splitting the universe into two different universes.
00:25:17.000 In one of them, the cat is alive.
00:25:20.000 And in another one, the cat is dead.
00:25:23.000 So that's the multiverse idea, is that when we measure it, we only see one of those two because we're in this universe.
00:25:30.000 But if we happen to be in this other universe, the cat would have been dead.
00:25:35.000 The cat is alive here.
00:25:36.000 And so that creates a whole series of possibilities, which are being used now in superhero stories all the time.
00:25:44.000 You've got your different versions of Batman, your different versions of Superman.
00:25:48.000 Spider-Man, yeah.
00:25:49.000 Yeah, the famous Spider-Man meme where you have the Spider-Men all kind of pointing at each other.
00:25:55.000 And they have the different actors.
00:25:57.000 So that idea has started to catch on now.
00:26:00.000 It's what I like to call, it's past the 10-year-old test.
00:26:04.000 And the 10-year-old test is when a scientific idea gets out there so much that even 10-year-olds can kind of understand it because of superhero movies.
00:26:14.000 Like in the 1930s...
00:26:17.000 When they were trying to explain Superman, like how does Superman get his powers?
00:26:22.000 You say, oh, he came from another planet.
00:26:23.000 He came from a planet called Krypton, right?
00:26:25.000 So even a 10-year-old in the 1930s could have understood that.
00:26:28.000 But in the 1730s, like you couldn't say that.
00:26:32.000 No one would know what the heck you're talking about, right?
00:26:34.000 And so that idea kind of diffused through society.
00:26:37.000 And so that's happening now with the multiverse idea too.
00:26:41.000 It's kind of diffusing through society in this way, through popular culture and media narratives and stuff.
00:26:49.000 So that's the other explanation for how all this quantum weirdness works, which is it's the multiverse.
00:26:56.000 And so people said, how can a quantum computer Theoretically solve a problem that would take thousands of years for a regular computer to solve.
00:27:05.000 And one explanation, a guy named David Deutsch out at Oxford says, well, because it's looking at all the possible values of the bits, there's that many different universes, right?
00:27:15.000 And it's computing in all of those universes instantaneously.
00:27:19.000 And then it's bringing back the value that you want at the end.
00:27:23.000 And that becomes your answer.
00:27:27.000 So I think we've gone a little bit away from the original question.
00:27:32.000 It seems like that's inevitable with this subject.
00:27:36.000 Yeah, this subject does tend to take you down, you know, many, many different rabbit holes.
00:27:41.000 Yeah.
00:27:41.000 And I think your original question was about memory.
00:27:45.000 Right?
00:27:46.000 And how do we know that the memory...
00:27:48.000 So, the reason I went down this rabbit hole on the quantum physics stuff and the multiverse, which by the way, that's the subject of...
00:27:55.000 I wrote a whole second book on simulation theory just for that, which is the simulated multiverse, because the reason scientists like this multiverse idea is that mathematically you can figure out how the equations work in all these different worlds,
00:28:11.000 you know?
00:28:12.000 Whereas with the first idea, which is the Copenhagen interpretation, you have all these possibilities, you have a probability wave, and then suddenly you're down to one.
00:28:22.000 And nobody can explain that mathematically.
00:28:24.000 Nobody can say, how does the collapse occur?
00:28:27.000 Like there's no little equation you can pop into.
00:28:30.000 And so that's why it's called the observer effect and it's considered a big mystery.
00:28:35.000 Like is it the act of observation?
00:28:37.000 Is it the act of measurement?
00:28:38.000 So all these physicists are debating with each other, right?
00:28:41.000 So they don't like the Copenhagen interpretation because it seems to rely on consciousness or some kind of an observer.
00:28:47.000 And scientists kind of hate that, right?
00:28:48.000 They hate to talk about consciousness being real.
00:28:50.000 And we'll get into the whole religious aspects of the simulation hypothesis in a little bit.
00:28:56.000 So they're like, well, this one's nice because the mathematics all work, the multiverse idea.
00:29:01.000 But the problem with the multiverse idea is that it's not what scientists like to call parsimonious, which means that what's happening is there's a new universe splitting off, like, all the time, right?
00:29:13.000 Every time there's a quantum—and we're talking about quantum decisions, right?
00:29:16.000 We're not really talking about big things like cats.
00:29:18.000 We're talking about little decisions that occur within a nanosecond, right?
00:29:22.000 Right.
00:29:22.000 And so every time there's a decision, you're splitting off to a new physical decision.
00:29:28.000 So think about, now we're talking exponential growth, but on steroids, right?
00:29:33.000 Because it's just infinite.
00:29:34.000 It just keeps going, right?
00:29:36.000 And that's kind of a weird concept, that there would be so many physical universes being created.
00:29:43.000 And so, you know, where I came out on this subject is, well, guess what?
00:29:47.000 Simulation hypothesis.
00:29:50.000 It gives you a way to look at both of these, a framework that makes it make sense, right?
00:29:56.000 I mean, this is what people say when they look at quantum mechanics.
00:29:58.000 They say, make it make sense, right?
00:30:01.000 Because the cat should be alive or dead.
00:30:02.000 How can it be both, right?
00:30:04.000 And so when you think of information and you think of the simulation idea, the core of it is that the world Is not physical, okay?
00:30:14.000 This table seems pretty physical, right?
00:30:17.000 Right.
00:30:18.000 But if you go and you look inside, it's mostly empty space, something like 90 some percent, maybe 99 percent.
00:30:25.000 And then you go to the atoms and you look inside those and it's mostly empty space, right?
00:30:31.000 And there's these electron clouds and stuff, but except for the nucleus, it's mostly empty space.
00:30:36.000 And the problem is like these Russian dolls, If you keep looking inside, they keep looking for this thing called physical matter.
00:30:44.000 And they can't find it.
00:30:45.000 Like, it's not really there.
00:30:46.000 It's like you go to the very smallest of the Russian dolls.
00:30:50.000 And the only thing they can find is information.
00:30:54.000 And so John Wheeler, who I talked about earlier, you know, he plays an outsized role in at least my explorations of simulation theory.
00:31:03.000 He came up with a phrase.
00:31:05.000 And his phrase was, it from bit.
00:31:09.000 So if there's something that's an it, physical object like this cup or this table, that if you just keep looking down, you have a microscope that just keeps going down.
00:31:19.000 He goes, in the end, the only thing you find are particles.
00:31:24.000 But what the heck are particles?
00:31:25.000 He said, well, the only thing that particles really are is a series of answers to yes, no questions.
00:31:33.000 So it's like, does the particle spin up?
00:31:35.000 Does it spin down?
00:31:36.000 It's got like, you know, various different polarities and things.
00:31:40.000 But so he said, in the end, the only thing you have are bits of information, because that's a bit, right?
00:31:46.000 Every single decision is a bit, yes or no, one or zero.
00:31:50.000 That's like the fundamental unit of computation.
00:31:53.000 And that's how we, you know, like I said, stream video, everything else.
00:31:56.000 And so he said, everything that's in it, Is actually from bits of information.
00:32:02.000 And there's a whole new kind of field within physics, which is called digital physics.
00:32:10.000 So in the past, you know, physics was about physical objects moving around.
00:32:15.000 And so digital physics is about information, like what happens to information in the universe.
00:32:22.000 Does it get destroyed in a black hole?
00:32:24.000 Does it get created?
00:32:25.000 So you have, instead of conservation of momentum and, you know, conservation of energy, you have conservation of information.
00:32:32.000 So it's like a different way of looking at the physical world.
00:32:37.000 You look at it as a computation.
00:32:40.000 Rather than looking at it as physical objects moving around like in classical physics.
00:32:44.000 Right.
00:32:45.000 Yeah.
00:32:45.000 The problem is like we do live in a physical world as far as we can tell.
00:32:52.000 But then if you measure the actual things in the physical world then you get to this weirdness.
00:33:02.000 Exactly.
00:33:02.000 You get to this weirdness down at the bottom level.
00:33:04.000 The very core of it all, like what is going on as far as we can measure.
00:33:10.000 Right.
00:33:11.000 And there's a limit.
00:33:12.000 Like we can only measure up to the smallest unit, which is called like the Planck.
00:33:17.000 But as we go deeper we get less answers and it gets more weird.
00:33:20.000 It gets more weird and it starts to look less like the physical world exists and more like it's a bunch of information that gets rendered as we observe the world or as groups of people observe the world.
00:33:36.000 Have you ever taken this back as far as you can and like try to figure out like what created this?
00:33:42.000 Or what possibilities could have created this?
00:33:45.000 Or was there ever a physical world?
00:33:47.000 Well, that's a good question.
00:33:49.000 So where I ended up with this was looking at how the world gets rendered as you observe it.
00:33:54.000 Like, for me, my background is, as I said, a computer scientist and a video game designer and developer, is that that's pretty much how we render video games, right?
00:34:04.000 So if you and I are in the...
00:34:06.000 Our avatars are in the same field or the same room, about to shoot each other in a video game, We're not really in the same room, are we?
00:34:14.000 Right.
00:34:34.000 You could be first person point of view or you could be kind of hovering over your character like many video games do that these days.
00:34:41.000 Like kind of a third person or second person point of view.
00:34:44.000 But the only pixels you need to render on my computer are the ones that my avatar can see.
00:34:50.000 And the only ones you need to render on your computer are the ones your avatar can see.
00:34:54.000 And those get cached on the server.
00:34:56.000 And so they get sent out.
00:34:58.000 And so it's an optimization technique.
00:35:00.000 There's no way in the 1980s, like when I was growing up, we had the Apple II computers or whatever.
00:35:07.000 There's no way you could render a full 3D world or a full 3D game like we play today.
00:35:14.000 And so what happened was we learned not only did the computers get faster, but...
00:35:18.000 We learn optimization techniques.
00:35:20.000 So everything in computer science comes down to optimization, usually.
00:35:25.000 Like, physicists are happy just saying, yeah, it's infinite, but without really wondering what the heck that means.
00:35:29.000 But with computer science, you only have limited resources, typically.
00:35:33.000 And so you need to figure out how to compute something with those limited resources.
00:35:37.000 And so video game rendering, to me, is a case of optimizing so that it looks like there's a shared physical world, But there really isn't, because it's being rendered on each of our own computer.
00:35:51.000 But the rule is, only render that which you can see.
00:35:55.000 Now, when I started to look at this weirdness in quantum mechanics, which is saying, render only that which is observed.
00:36:02.000 Or measured, depending on how you look at it.
00:36:03.000 But even if you measure it, somebody's got to look at that measurement before you know it was actually measured.
00:36:08.000 So it's the same kind of thing going on.
00:36:11.000 In my opinion, quantum mechanics ends up being an optimization technique for rendering of the physical world from the information.
00:36:22.000 That lives below.
00:36:23.000 So that's kind of the one big implication of simulation theory that I think is very important.
00:36:30.000 And actually, the idea of the universe's information is not that controversial.
00:36:35.000 So I was in London this summer over at the Cambridge University, spending a little bit of time doing some AI research, and I ran into this Nobel Prize winner physicist from like the 70s.
00:36:45.000 And so we were talking simulation theory, of course.
00:36:48.000 And I said, well, one of the key assumptions here is that the world Is information.
00:36:53.000 And he said, yeah, that's not controversial in physics at all anymore.
00:36:57.000 Like it might have been once upon a time.
00:37:00.000 But then the second part, the second assumption that comes up in simulation theory is that the world is rendered like a video game and that the world is a hoax.
00:37:10.000 It's some kind of a hoax.
00:37:11.000 Like it's not really real, right?
00:37:13.000 That's the other assumption that physicists don't necessarily agree with.
00:37:17.000 But that's the other part of simulation theory.
00:37:20.000 What's the argument against it?
00:37:22.000 Against simulation theory?
00:37:23.000 Against that it doesn't physically exist.
00:37:27.000 If they disagree.
00:37:29.000 Well, they don't disagree necessarily that it doesn't physically exist.
00:37:32.000 They just disagree that how is it that this thing that is information gets rendered for us, right?
00:37:39.000 It's like we're talking different languages for them, right?
00:37:42.000 Even though quantum mechanics is telling us all this weird stuff, they're still, I think, often taking classical view, classical mechanical view of the world of physical objects moving around and that's all it is, right?
00:37:56.000 So, you know, there's arguments that people make against the idea that we live in a simulation.
00:38:02.000 And the first is, you know, the same argument that, you know, there was a famous guy named Bishop Berkeley, the city of Berkeley is named after him.
00:38:10.000 I think it was George Berkeley or something.
00:38:12.000 He was a bishop in the UK. And he came up with this idea of idealism, this philosophical idea that the world doesn't really exist.
00:38:20.000 It's only in the mind.
00:38:21.000 And there was this other guy, I think it was Johnson, who said, how do you refute that?
00:38:27.000 And he kicks a rock and he goes, that's how I refute it.
00:38:29.000 See, it's physical.
00:38:30.000 It's there.
00:38:31.000 And so that's the first common sense way people try to refute the idea.
00:38:35.000 But of course, that's not what the physicists are saying.
00:38:38.000 The physicists are the ones telling us that the world doesn't really exist, that it consists of information and space-time gets constructed out of that information.
00:38:47.000 So that's like one of the biggest, I think, issues.
00:38:52.000 Another way that people try to push back on the idea of simulation theory is they say, well, it's not really falsifiable, right?
00:39:01.000 So I can't design an experiment that proves we are not in a simulation.
00:39:09.000 So this touches on the boundary issues of science.
00:39:13.000 Where does science end?
00:39:15.000 And where does philosophy begin?
00:39:18.000 Where does metaphysics begin?
00:39:19.000 Where does religion begin?
00:39:22.000 And those lines are actually fuzzier than you might think.
00:39:25.000 Because there's been a debate over that for a long time now, for hundreds of years, about what is scientific and what isn't.
00:39:33.000 And things like UFOs and paranormal phenomena and all this stuff gets kind of pushed out But so one definition that a guy named Popper came up with was if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific, right?
00:39:49.000 Meaning if you can't prove that it's false.
00:39:50.000 The problem with that is there are lots of things that we can't prove that they're false.
00:39:57.000 But we can find some evidence that these things actually happen or that these things exist.
00:40:04.000 Like a couple hundred years ago, there were stories of rocks falling from the sky.
00:40:08.000 And all the scientists like in Paris said, oh, that's just bullshit, right?
00:40:12.000 That's just a bunch of peasants out in the countryside.
00:40:15.000 We know there's no rocks falling from the sky.
00:40:18.000 Why?
00:40:18.000 Because we know there's no rocks in the sky, our science tells us.
00:40:22.000 There's no rocks up there, so how the hell could they be falling from the sky?
00:40:25.000 So that's kind of not really a falsifiable thing.
00:40:29.000 How can you prove there's no rocks in the sky?
00:40:32.000 You really can't.
00:40:33.000 But you can prove, and eventually they did because they got a whole...
00:40:38.000 There was some huge meteor storm outside of Paris and some guys went out to investigate and there were thousands of witnesses that saw this thing.
00:40:47.000 And then eventually they looked at some of the artifacts, some of the physical evidence, and then eventually they changed their model, their cosmological model about the universe.
00:40:56.000 And so I think it's the same thing with simulation theory.
00:40:59.000 Even though you can't prove...
00:41:01.000 We're not in a simulation because the simulation could be so good, you know, like the Matrix was pretty convincing at first, right?
00:41:10.000 But the simulation could be so good that you can't necessarily tell.
00:41:14.000 But at the same time, you can design experiments which might indicate to you that there's something going on like this video game rendering idea.
00:41:24.000 And there are folks out there trying to run experiments to try to show that this is really what's happening with quantum mechanics, is that like a video game, this whole world is being rendered for us.
00:41:39.000 Information being rendered just like a video game.
00:41:41.000 And the effect that consciousness has on this world.
00:41:46.000 So consciousness is the thing that we're using to measure.
00:41:52.000 Or the thing that we're using to interact with whatever possibilities exist.
00:42:00.000 Right.
00:42:01.000 And so that in the RPG version, right, this is why I like to make the distinction between the RPG version and the NPC version.
00:42:09.000 So in the RPG version, we are plugged in, right, like Neo in the back of the head or with a virtual reality headset or some technology yet to be developed, right?
00:42:19.000 And so when you play a video game, it's not enough that the pixels are there.
00:42:25.000 I mean, you basically are watching that game as the player.
00:42:30.000 And when you're not watching, what happens?
00:42:33.000 You just turn it off, right?
00:42:34.000 You turn off your computer, what happens?
00:42:37.000 Well, there's still the information going on on the server.
00:42:39.000 Maybe other people are playing, right?
00:42:41.000 But it doesn't need to render it at that point.
00:42:43.000 It's just the server can keep track of where everything is.
00:42:45.000 It's what we did when we created video games.
00:42:47.000 We would, you know, send down information.
00:42:50.000 And in fact, you can then turn around and do something very interesting.
00:42:55.000 Like, if you're a level 30 player, And I'm a level 2 player.
00:43:01.000 Our avatars could be standing right next to each other.
00:43:04.000 One could see the dragon and one might not be able to see the dragon because maybe we don't have that ability in the game.
00:43:10.000 We're not at a high enough level.
00:43:11.000 But the server logic is deciding that.
00:43:13.000 So consciousness then becomes the player in that model of simulation theory.
00:43:20.000 And it renders the world for us.
00:43:22.000 And it turns out...
00:43:24.000 That is very similar to what the world's religions have been telling us, right?
00:43:30.000 Not just one or two of the world's religions.
00:43:32.000 Like, when I wrote my book, The Simulation Hypothesis, I gave it a subtitle of why AI, quantum physics, and Eastern mystics agree we're in a video game.
00:43:41.000 And I was thinking primarily of the Eastern mystics, like, you know, in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions and the yogis.
00:43:49.000 And they talk about the term maya.
00:43:51.000 Most people have probably heard that term and karma and all these different terms.
00:43:55.000 But maya means illusion.
00:43:58.000 That's how it gets translated.
00:44:00.000 It's like an ancient Sanskrit word.
00:44:02.000 And so these mystics are telling us that the world isn't really real.
00:44:08.000 It's a kind of illusion.
00:44:10.000 But if you really look at the definition of that word maya, It means something more like a carefully crafted illusion.
00:44:19.000 It's almost like if you go to a magic show, You know the guy's not really sawing that woman in half, okay?
00:44:27.000 But you kind of agree to suspend your disbelief because that's what makes the whole thing fun, right?
00:44:34.000 Watching a magic show or watching special effects.
00:44:36.000 You know Blade Runner 2049, the car is not really flying.
00:44:40.000 Those are just CGI, right?
00:44:41.000 But we agree to that to a certain extent as we go into that world and we become immersed in that world.
00:44:49.000 And so what the mystics in the Eastern traditions have been telling us is that we agree to basically go into this illusory world in order to have these experiences.
00:45:01.000 Sometimes people say, well, what's the purpose of the simulation?
00:45:04.000 And I say, well, why do you play video games?
00:45:13.000 Right.
00:45:14.000 Right.
00:45:30.000 Right, right.
00:45:31.000 Exactly.
00:45:32.000 So that's one of the reasons.
00:45:34.000 But there are consequences within the game, right?
00:45:37.000 And for the characters in the game, for the NPCs that you're killing, those are all real consequences within the game.
00:45:43.000 But when you look at it from outside the game, So the Eastern mystics have been telling us this and it turns out in the Judeo-Christian Islamic traditions, the Abrahamic religions, they've also been telling us this, that the world is Maya and they use metaphors back then.
00:46:02.000 So all these religions came about a couple thousand years ago and so they had to use metaphors.
00:46:08.000 That were understood by the people back then, right?
00:46:12.000 And so they used whatever – the metaphor of the dream was a key metaphor, that the world is like a dream.
00:46:19.000 Or that the soul puts on the body like a set of clothes and that when you die, you take off these clothes.
00:46:30.000 And then you're back to the soul, whatever that happens to be.
00:46:33.000 They don't really define what that is.
00:46:35.000 In fact, they use the exact same metaphor like in the Bhagavad Gita.
00:46:38.000 They use this clothing metaphor.
00:46:40.000 And then Rumi, who's become popular in the West and was an Islamic Sufi, you know, a poet but also a mystic, he used the exact same phrase, right?
00:46:52.000 He said, you put on the body, you put like a series of clothes.
00:46:56.000 And so they use that metaphor to try to describe something Which is the second part of the idea of the simulation hypothesis.
00:47:03.000 The first idea was the world is information that gets rendered and the second part is the world is some kind of a hoax that we are a part of for whatever reason.
00:47:13.000 And so in the traditions, over time, they've tried to update these metaphors.
00:47:20.000 And they've tried to use new technology to describe the metaphors because that's how we can, as modern people, we can understand it.
00:47:27.000 So about 100 years ago, there was a guy named Swami Yogananda.
00:47:30.000 He came over from India.
00:47:31.000 He was like one of the first Indian yogi swamis to really live in the U.S. And he wrote a book called Autobiography of a Yogi.
00:47:37.000 I don't know if you ever read it.
00:47:39.000 Yes, I read it.
00:47:39.000 Oh, you read it?
00:47:40.000 Oh, great.
00:47:40.000 Yeah, in the 60s, it was like the book, one of those books that everybody passed around.
00:47:44.000 Yeah.
00:47:45.000 And Steve Jobs, you know, it was his favorite book.
00:47:47.000 At his funeral, he gave everybody, or his memorial service, he gave everybody a little brown box.
00:47:52.000 They went home and opened the box and they found a copy of Autobiography of a Yogi in there.
00:47:57.000 But so, Yogananda came over about 100 years ago and he tried to update this old metaphor.
00:48:03.000 And what was new technology back in the 1920s?
00:48:06.000 It was movies, movie projectors.
00:48:09.000 He said, the world is like a movie projector, right?
00:48:13.000 You're playing these parts, the actors are playing the parts on the screen, and things are happening to them, but really the actors aren't necessarily dying, it's the characters that are suffering, you know, within the game, within the movie itself.
00:48:28.000 And so he used that metaphor As a way to try to explain this ancient religious idea that's at the core of every single religion, which is that the world as we see it is not really real and there's a real world beyond this world.
00:48:44.000 And so he updated the metaphor to use movie projectors.
00:48:50.000 We've all been in movie theaters.
00:48:51.000 If you look away from the screen, you can kind of see the flickering of the light.
00:48:56.000 Right?
00:48:57.000 And you can kind of see everybody's so engrossed in it that they're not looking around.
00:49:00.000 They don't know what's going on other than, you know, maybe having some popcorn or something.
00:49:04.000 And so today, I think we need to update those metaphors.
00:49:09.000 Particularly for a younger generation who spent as much of their time in things like Fortnite or Roblox when they were younger, as avatars.
00:49:17.000 If we use the metaphor of a massively multiplayer online game, and I think Yogananda, if you were alive today, in fact, my latest book, which I wrote after the simulation books, because it was the 75th anniversary of Autobiography of a Yogi a couple years ago,
00:49:33.000 and HarperCollins India asked me to write this book about What can you learn from Autobiography of a Yogi?
00:49:39.000 And there's all these weird stories in there of like some guy materializing a palace in the Himalayas out of nowhere.
00:49:45.000 You've got levitating saints.
00:49:47.000 You've got guys bilocating, disappearing, all kinds of crazy shit going on.
00:49:52.000 And I said, well, you sure you want me to write this book?
00:49:54.000 I'm an entrepreneur and a computer scientist.
00:49:57.000 They said, yeah, because we want you to use your technology metaphors like the simulation.
00:50:02.000 I thought this is...
00:50:03.000 To explain this stuff.
00:50:04.000 And so if Yogananda were alive today, and I wrote this in my new book called Wisdom of a Yogi, what he would say is, it's like a movie, but we're the actors, and we're also the audience, and we have a script, and we're kind of playing the script, but we can change the script if we want.
00:50:21.000 What does that sound like?
00:50:22.000 It sounds like a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, you know?
00:50:27.000 So I think that metaphor is a great way to try to explain this idea of the soul and the body within the religious traditions.
00:50:36.000 That's the RPG version of the simulation hypothesis.
00:50:42.000 How do you go through life with this information?
00:50:47.000 Does this information affect the way you feel about things on a day-to-day basis?
00:50:53.000 Like, if you have these theories and you have this concept in your mind of the true nature of the universe, of reality itself, how does that work with the physical carbon tissue?
00:51:10.000 How do you deal with that?
00:51:15.000 Well, so the way that I like to think of it and, you know, originally I was just kind of putting these concepts...
00:51:21.000 You seem very happy.
00:51:22.000 Like this seems like something that would freak people out to the point where they would kind of get like so much existential angst and it's so bizarre that it would be hard to just like be present.
00:51:35.000 But you seem very present.
00:51:38.000 Right, because it gets back to how you think about...
00:51:41.000 If it's an NPC game, it would freak people out, right?
00:51:45.000 Right.
00:51:45.000 This is like the materialist kind of view of the world.
00:51:48.000 Right, right.
00:51:48.000 Which is, while the computer's on, you're here.
00:51:51.000 Computer gets shut off.
00:51:53.000 Excuse me.
00:51:53.000 Everybody's gone.
00:51:54.000 But in the RPG version, It's a little bit different, right?
00:52:27.000 And it's like you're choosing to play this game in this illusory world and I believe that this is similar to what happens to us when we come into this world, if in the RPG version, that we end up choosing a character with a set of parents and a set of strengths and weaknesses and more than that,
00:52:49.000 like a storyline.
00:52:51.000 Things that we might want to do.
00:52:53.000 And we're free when we play the game.
00:52:55.000 We're free to make different choices if we want within the game.
00:52:59.000 But you've got kind of these challenges or quests.
00:53:03.000 What makes a video game interesting or fun?
00:53:06.000 So there's a guy who was the founder of Atari.
00:53:09.000 I don't know if you ever met him, Nolan Bushnell.
00:53:11.000 But he was pretty much the grandfather of the video game industry.
00:53:15.000 You know, he created Pong, you know, back in the day and then created Atari.
00:53:19.000 And he said there was a rule for how to make a game interesting.
00:53:23.000 He said, make it easy to play.
00:53:25.000 Right.
00:53:34.000 Right.
00:53:35.000 Right.
00:53:44.000 You can view the whole world, particularly your life and your story, as a series of quests and challenges, things that come up for you that you may or may not be able to achieve the first time around.
00:54:00.000 Because we have difficulty levels, don't we, in games?
00:54:04.000 Some people have an easier...
00:54:05.000 They want to play the game where life's easy.
00:54:08.000 Other people want to play the game where life is really tough.
00:54:12.000 Like actors, when do they win Academy Awards?
00:54:14.000 Tough roles.
00:54:16.000 Exactly.
00:54:16.000 Tough roles.
00:54:17.000 The ones that really suffer, typically.
00:54:22.000 Swami Yogananda and a lot of the Eastern mystics will say that Suffering is the nature of this world, right?
00:54:29.000 That's why we're here is to experience this.
00:54:32.000 But even in the Western traditions, there's a similar idea.
00:54:36.000 So I started to look up, you know, different traditions in Islam.
00:54:41.000 In the Quran, there's like a whole series of verses, and they say, we have set up this world as a pastime, as a game for you, as a sport.
00:54:51.000 This world is really, they use this Arabic word, al-garuri, which means an A delusion, but it means like an enjoyable delusion sort of.
00:55:01.000 Enjoyable in quotes because it depends on what you enjoy, right?
00:55:05.000 Like getting in and playing a really tough role may be what you enjoy, but that's not fun for the character to go through all that crap that they have to go through.
00:55:14.000 And so I think we can view the world as a series of quests and challenges.
00:55:19.000 Now, the next question is, well, what's the nature of the game, right?
00:55:23.000 I don't believe the game is Grand Theft Auto.
00:55:25.000 That's not the type of game we're playing.
00:55:27.000 So I think we can turn to people that have died, near-death experiencers.
00:55:33.000 I don't know if you had any on your show.
00:55:34.000 You may have over the years.
00:55:37.000 But there was a guy named Daniel Brinkley who wrote a book called Saved by the Light back in the 90s.
00:55:44.000 He got struck by lightning.
00:55:45.000 And this is how I first heard about this thing, which is called the life review.
00:55:50.000 And a lot of near-death experiencers, they report these series of stages of things that happen to them, like they're floating above their body.
00:55:58.000 They go through a tunnel of light.
00:56:00.000 We've heard all of this.
00:56:02.000 The most important part for me in these stories, and you haven't met thousands of people, right?
00:56:07.000 You can just go out on YouTube and listen to any of these near-death experiencers.
00:56:11.000 But what Danyan called this thing called the life review was he called it a holographic panoramic review of your life.
00:56:19.000 And what that means, and other near-death experiencers reported this, maybe about 20% of them, that you go through every single moment that you ever lived In like this virtual reality, you know, three-dimensional panorama,
00:56:35.000 but you see it from the point of view of everybody else, right?
00:56:40.000 So if you were mean to someone, if you stabbed someone, or in Danyan's case, he was in special forces in Vietnam and he actually killed people.
00:56:49.000 He said he had to experience what it was like to, you know, get the bullet.
00:56:54.000 And then more than that, experience what happened after that guy died, his wife, you know, the guy who died, his wife and children, what kind of suffering they experienced.
00:57:03.000 So it's like you're reviewing, like after a football game, right?
00:57:06.000 Or after a match.
00:57:07.000 You might sit there and review on the screen what happened.
00:57:10.000 Right.
00:57:13.000 Fully immersive.
00:57:14.000 The best VR you could ever have.
00:57:16.000 It's like you're reliving the moment.
00:57:19.000 So a couple years ago, I was involved with a startup in Silicon Valley, and we took a game like League of Legends.
00:57:26.000 You've probably heard of League of Legends, like the most popular, at least it was, esports game, right?
00:57:31.000 And you've got all these guys on a field, but pretty much you play on a 2D screen.
00:57:35.000 So we made it so you could replay the game, but you would put on a virtual reality headset, and it would seem like you were on the field in League of Legends, and you could replay from any point of view.
00:57:50.000 Same with Counter-Strike Global Offensive was the one that I was thinking of, because in that game, it's a first-person shooter, so you're like shooting people.
00:58:00.000 And so, literally, you could go back and replay that game from the point of view of the person you shot.
00:58:06.000 And so, when I was experiencing this, it was reminding me of all these things these near-death experiencers have been telling us about this life review.
00:58:17.000 And as an engineer and computer scientist, my question is always, well, how does that work?
00:58:24.000 I mean, if you could replay every single moment in your life, even the moments when you weren't there, including, like, what happened to this guy's wife and what happened to their children, somebody has to record all that stuff, right?
00:58:36.000 Because how are you going to replay it if it's not being recorded?
00:58:39.000 So, you know, perhaps, you know, this whole game is being recorded just like we do, in fact, on YouTube, you know, the most popular content, other than the Joe Rogan experience, is video games content.
00:58:52.000 It's like...
00:58:53.000 I remember my nephew, when he was like three years old, before he was even going to school, he would say to his father, my brother, I want to watch Star Wars.
00:59:01.000 My brother was like, you want to watch the movie?
00:59:04.000 No, I want to watch that man and that woman play the Star Wars game on YouTube.
00:59:08.000 It was like he was just watching them replay a recording of the video game on YouTube.
00:59:14.000 And so this life review thing, which is at the crux of near-death experiences, I think gives us a clue and an interesting clue, which ties back to your question to me, which is how do you go, you know, how do you live with this stuff?
00:59:28.000 And I say, well, what if all of this is being recorded and you're making choices and you're going to have to review it afterwards?
00:59:36.000 Like the concept of when you die.
00:59:39.000 Exactly.
00:59:40.000 St. Peter reviews your life.
00:59:42.000 That's right.
00:59:43.000 So in the Christian traditions, you have St. Peter, you have the Book of Life, right?
00:59:47.000 Which, you know, theoretically, depending on who you ask, the recording angel has written down, you know, whether you get into heaven or not by reviewing your life.
00:59:55.000 Well, it turns out in the Islamic traditions, they get much more explicit about what that is.
01:00:01.000 They call it the Scroll of Deeds.
01:00:03.000 Okay.
01:00:03.000 Now, of course, remember, 2,000 years ago, they had to call it something people would understand.
01:00:07.000 The scroll of deeds, there's two angels.
01:00:10.000 And you've probably seen, like, you know, in the movies, in the animated movies, they'll have, like, the angel and the devil.
01:00:15.000 That comes out of the Islamic traditions, right?
01:00:18.000 And so there's these two angels.
01:00:20.000 They're called the Kirim and Kitabin.
01:00:22.000 And they're sitting down and writing down—one's writing down all your good deeds and one's writing down all your bad deeds.
01:00:27.000 And what it says in the tradition—and, you know, when I delve into these different traditions, it's not so much to say, okay, this religion is right and that one isn't, but to say what's in common across all these religions.
01:00:40.000 Because that part is probably right.
01:00:42.000 If these guys are coming to that independently, all the other stuff maybe, you know, I won't criticize for you believing the other stuff, that's up to you.
01:00:50.000 But that stuff is probably at the core of this thing called life and what happens after life.
01:00:56.000 And so what it says in Islamic traditions is your book will be laid open for you after you die.
01:01:03.000 And you will be the reckoner, right?
01:01:05.000 So we think of Judgment Day and we think of all this stuff.
01:01:08.000 But what it's actually saying—now, that's a metaphor.
01:01:11.000 It doesn't mean there's, like, angels with a feather pen writing down.
01:01:15.000 But in Chinese, you know, this is what happened this day or in Arabic.
01:01:19.000 The only thing that makes sense is you would basically just record the entire 3D scene and you would play it back for yourself, which is exactly what near-death experiencers describe when they talk about the life review.
01:01:31.000 It's like this.
01:01:32.000 They're sitting there, there's a screen, and then suddenly they get pulled into the screen and they replay all of this stuff.
01:01:38.000 There's usually an angel or they might call him God or they might say it's Jesus or they might say it's a being of light.
01:01:43.000 Different experiencers say different things.
01:01:45.000 But they say that guy doesn't judge you.
01:01:48.000 You're looking at it saying, oh crap, you know, I was going to try to be a better person to my wife this time around and I wasn't, you know, and I did this or I did that or my kids or, you know.
01:02:00.000 And they tell us that the moments that matter Are the small moments in how you treat other people.
01:02:06.000 That's the thing you're most proud of or you're like, damn, I treated that person in grade school.
01:02:11.000 We all made fun of her and I should have been her friend.
01:02:14.000 Those are the things that really matter.
01:02:18.000 So if that's the game, you always think, what's the objective of the game?
01:02:23.000 Then I think it gives us a very different perspective.
01:02:27.000 And a way to think about life.
01:02:29.000 So that's one, you know, kind of big answer for me.
01:02:33.000 The other is we go through lots of difficulties in life, right?
01:02:38.000 We go through financial difficulties, go through health difficulties, right?
01:02:42.000 And these can seem, you know, pretty tough.
01:02:45.000 But if we just think of them as a quest with a difficulty level, right, that's higher than That we might have to get through.
01:02:53.000 There might be some purpose to that, and that ties to the idea of karma, particularly within the Eastern traditions, right?
01:03:02.000 Where if you think of karma as a...
01:03:03.000 Most people think of karma as, hey, you shot me.
01:03:05.000 I'm going to shoot you in this life, right?
01:03:08.000 That's a very simplistic view of karma.
01:03:10.000 What karma is actually about is about your thoughts, your desires, and your actions, which then create situations in the future Whether in this life or future life.
01:03:23.000 So, of course, in the Eastern traditions you have the reincarnation idea, which you don't necessarily have in the Western traditions.
01:03:30.000 But that karma is about basically a list of information that follows you around from life to life, right?
01:03:39.000 So you might have a different body in the next life, but that information is still there.
01:03:44.000 Where does it live?
01:03:44.000 You know, I'm from Silicon Valley.
01:03:46.000 I like to say it's in the cloud, right?
01:03:48.000 That's where we store all our information.
01:03:50.000 Yeah.
01:03:50.000 It's in the database in the cloud.
01:03:52.000 Which is also a bizarre thought because it's not a cloud.
01:03:55.000 Yeah, it's not really a cloud.
01:03:56.000 Why are we even saying that?
01:03:58.000 Why is that so ubiquitous, that term?
01:04:00.000 I know.
01:04:00.000 It's such a stupid term.
01:04:02.000 The first time I heard it, I was scratching my head.
01:04:05.000 What does that even mean?
01:04:07.000 It's such a stupid way to describe something that's really complex and you could actually trace where it is.
01:04:13.000 Right, exactly.
01:04:15.000 And so I like to think of it as the reason we call it the cloud is because you don't know exactly where the server is.
01:04:23.000 It could be one of a million servers somewhere out there.
01:04:26.000 Amazon has a huge warehouse, which is AWS and all the servers are running there.
01:04:31.000 So you don't, in the past, like I used to do software before the cloud, you would set up your own servers or you'd have your own data center and everything.
01:04:39.000 You would say, this is how many 386s we have.
01:04:41.000 This is how many.
01:04:42.000 Now it's like, it's just out there somewhere, right?
01:04:44.000 I don't know where the heck it is.
01:04:46.000 It's out there.
01:04:47.000 And so I like to think of the cloud as, in a video game, we have the rendered world, right?
01:04:52.000 So you're watching the video game.
01:04:53.000 You can see the greenery and everything, but you also got all that other information there, right?
01:04:58.000 Right.
01:04:58.000 Like you got the HUD, the heads-up display, you got your inventory, you got your level, you know, you got all this stuff.
01:05:05.000 You got your list of quests.
01:05:06.000 And so where is that information?
01:05:08.000 It's not in the physical world.
01:05:09.000 Right.
01:05:10.000 But it's there somewhere.
01:05:11.000 It's on a server somewhere, right?
01:05:12.000 Right.
01:05:13.000 And so I like to think of Karma as a kind of database of quests What happens is this database just keeps getting bigger and bigger as we create more desires and situations and actions and things that we do with people.
01:05:35.000 And then sometimes you have karma to resolve with somebody, right?
01:05:38.000 There's the whole The old idea of you meet somebody, you feel like you've known them for a while, right?
01:05:44.000 You're irresistibly drawn to someone and you don't know why to have some particular experience, whatever that experience is.
01:05:50.000 And so, you know, within certain traditions, they view that as perhaps when you were planning it, it's like a...
01:05:56.000 I like to think of it as like a raid or a guild in a video game, right?
01:06:00.000 You say, okay, here's some other people.
01:06:02.000 We're going to do this together, you know, later on in some point while we're playing the game.
01:06:07.000 We're going to have this particular experience of being business partners or lovers or enemies or whatever the case, you know, whatever the situation is.
01:06:16.000 But this idea that these experiences You know, could be there for a reason, you know, when we have tough experiences, is I think something that can be comforting.
01:06:26.000 I know it was for me, like when I went through certain health crises, for example, that, you know, we are here to experience some of these things.
01:06:36.000 And so if you look at karma more deeply, there's a story from Autobiography of a Yogi that sounds unbelievable to people that I think is worth maybe just, you know, telling the story because people read that book and they say, did this guy just make this shit up, right?
01:06:52.000 Did this stuff really happen, right?
01:06:53.000 Or is this from the Arabian night?
01:06:55.000 So there's a story of this guy named Babaji who supposedly lived for hundreds of years in the Himalayas and supposedly still there.
01:07:02.000 Okay, so that's pretty weird to begin with.
01:07:04.000 But there's a story of Yogananda's guru's guru, a guy named Lahiri, who went up into the mountains and meets this Babaji, right?
01:07:13.000 And Babaji says, Lahiri, you have found me.
01:07:16.000 Finally, I've summoned you to me.
01:07:18.000 I've been watching you your whole life, and now I'm going to reinitiate you.
01:07:21.000 Don't you remember you used to sit in this cave and you used to meditate with me, and there's your blanket?
01:07:26.000 And Lahiri's like, I don't remember any of this stuff, right?
01:07:28.000 He was like 30 years old.
01:07:30.000 He's like, you know, I just got called out here for some government, you know, position.
01:07:35.000 And he says, well, we need to initiate you in this yogic technique and maybe you'll remember then.
01:07:40.000 And so he initiates him and he starts to remember all this stuff.
01:07:44.000 And then he says, okay, we're going to initiate you over there.
01:07:47.000 And here he looks and there's this...
01:07:49.000 Golden Palace that came out of nowhere, you know, right in the middle of the Himalayas.
01:07:55.000 And he says, we're going to initiate you in this palace, and it just came from nowhere, right?
01:07:59.000 So Yogananda is talking about the dream nature of the world and how yogis can manipulate it.
01:08:06.000 But then Lahiri says, well, one, how did you create this out of nothing?
01:08:09.000 But two, why in this golden palace?
01:08:11.000 And so this kind of immortal figure in the story says...
01:08:16.000 Well, in a previous life, you expressed an interest, a real strong desire to live in a palace in a future life.
01:08:25.000 And so I've created this dream palace for you.
01:08:28.000 It's not really real, but you're seeing it.
01:08:31.000 In order to resolve that karma so that you don't have to go live a whole life in a palace.
01:08:36.000 Like that karma is done now.
01:08:37.000 Take that off the database.
01:08:39.000 So I use that to kind of show that sometimes we put things into the database of karma based upon our strong desires and that becomes part of our script in life, you know?
01:08:49.000 Like how did I know I wanted to be a computer programmer?
01:08:52.000 I don't know.
01:08:54.000 Why do some people want to become podcasters or fighters or comedians?
01:08:59.000 It's like we have these things inside of us that sometimes feel they're like something we're just drawn to.
01:09:06.000 It's just something we're meant to do.
01:09:07.000 Now, Malcolm Gladwell wrote that book, I think it's called Outliers, where he says if you spend 10,000 hours doing something, you become an expert.
01:09:15.000 My question is more, What drives somebody to spend 10,000 hours doing this versus that?
01:09:23.000 I have friends who are rock climbers.
01:09:24.000 They've probably spent 10,000 hours climbing rocks.
01:09:27.000 I don't have any desire to spend 10,000 hours.
01:09:31.000 But I probably spent 10,000 hours programming when I was younger.
01:09:34.000 It was just something I was naturally drawn to, I was good at.
01:09:37.000 And I feel like these are part of the quests or achievements that we have in life.
01:09:44.000 And I think the most interesting people that I've ever met have gone through quests Rarely do I find interesting people that haven't experienced something difficult Yeah.
01:09:54.000 I mean, in fact, it was partly for me going through some difficulty that got me to write this book finally because I've been thinking about it for years.
01:10:02.000 So I ended up – I was kind of at the height of my entrepreneurial career, had sold my video game company, the Japanese – to a Japanese company.
01:10:09.000 I was at MIT running a startup program called Play Labs for video game companies.
01:10:15.000 And then I ended up having heart issues and I ended up having to get heart surgery, which – I mean, if anybody's seen that, you can see it's, you know, pretty much the biggest cut, one of the biggest cuts you can make.
01:10:28.000 And they kept saying, oh yeah, a few months, you'll be fine, right?
01:10:31.000 And what happened was after the heart surgery, I couldn't do anything for a while.
01:10:35.000 I had this long recovery.
01:10:37.000 It was probably the most difficult period.
01:10:40.000 In my life.
01:10:41.000 And during that time, I would start to get better, and I would try to jump back in the business world, right?
01:10:46.000 Back into Silicon Valley.
01:10:47.000 I was going to raise this big VC fund and do all this stuff, and my health would deteriorate again.
01:10:54.000 From the pressure, the stress?
01:10:56.000 You know, it's a good question, right?
01:10:58.000 Just the amount of energy that you need to do these things?
01:11:00.000 Yeah.
01:11:00.000 Your body didn't use that energy to recover?
01:11:03.000 It could be that, right?
01:11:04.000 But what I found was that I did have enough energy.
01:11:08.000 Because every time I tried to do that, I'd end up back in the hospital for another procedure, right?
01:11:12.000 It's no fun having hard procedures, let me tell you.
01:11:15.000 But when I did have enough energy...
01:11:18.000 To do this other thing that I'd been wanting to do my whole life, which was to write more books.
01:11:23.000 And so I had just enough energy to go to Starbucks and work for an hour or two on the simulation hypothesis, which for me was a way to bring together all the threads.
01:11:35.000 I've been a computer scientist.
01:11:36.000 I've been a video game designer.
01:11:38.000 I spent a lot of time investigating different mystical traditions, shamanic stuff, you know, without drugs, you know, more of the shamanic journey.
01:11:48.000 And I spent time with people who were investigating UFOs and religious people and academics who are complete materialists and don't believe in any of this stuff.
01:11:55.000 And it was a way to bring this all together.
01:11:57.000 And suddenly I found I had more energy.
01:12:00.000 When I did that, right?
01:12:02.000 Every time I tried to do something else, my health would start to deteriorate again.
01:12:05.000 And so eventually I got the message.
01:12:06.000 So for the next couple of years, I just focused on writing, right?
01:12:10.000 And that led to this book, The Simulation hypothesis.
01:12:12.000 And I feel like it was...
01:12:15.000 Part of my life plan, if you had asked me in high school, what are you going to do with your life?
01:12:19.000 I would have said, I'm going to be a computer programmer, an entrepreneur, sell my company and become a writer.
01:12:26.000 But I always thought I was going to do that, become a writer in my 20s.
01:12:31.000 When this happened, I was already 48, so I had already like...
01:12:35.000 I was still in Silicon Valley, right?
01:12:37.000 Still playing the game.
01:12:39.000 Trying to build the next billion dollar company, which is what everybody tries to do.
01:12:43.000 The next unicorn, they call it, in Silicon Valley.
01:12:46.000 And it was like I got this message that there was another Part of the story that I was neglecting.
01:12:51.000 I had written some books, but it was like a hobby.
01:12:54.000 I was doing it on the side.
01:12:56.000 And then when I focused on it, suddenly it was like I got the message pretty clearly during that time.
01:13:05.000 This is sort of a mystical experience.
01:13:07.000 I was going in and out of consciousness a lot while I was recovering.
01:13:10.000 And I would just get the message.
01:13:12.000 You know, you're supposed to be writing.
01:13:14.000 You're supposed to be writing.
01:13:15.000 What the heck are you doing still out there trying to make money?
01:13:18.000 That wasn't what we agreed to.
01:13:19.000 This is what you were supposed to do, right?
01:13:21.000 And when I did that, things just flowed much more easily, you know, and the book went on to be quite successful and I was able to write another book.
01:13:31.000 Then, as my health recovered, I realized there was another thing that I'd always wanted to do, which was be a professor in academia, and that's kind of what I'm doing now.
01:13:39.000 So I went back for a PhD after many years, and now I'm teaching classes on the simulation hypothesis, doing research on AI. So it was like these things that I kind of wanted to do before and I never got to, but they were optional parts of the story.
01:13:54.000 And we still have the ability to make choices.
01:13:57.000 But sometimes a quest hits us or a situation hits us with a lot of difficulty and maybe there's a bigger purpose to that.
01:14:06.000 Maybe it has something to do with how we set up our character in the game and the choices that we're making.
01:14:15.000 And so now we're getting into the personal philosophy side of simulation, which I think is quite valid.
01:14:21.000 That's probably the biggest questions I get asked are, are we in a simulation?
01:14:25.000 What's the percentage?
01:14:27.000 And then what would it matter?
01:14:29.000 Right.
01:14:30.000 If we're in a simulation or not.
01:14:32.000 And I think it can be a positive experience.
01:14:37.000 And for, I think, people who grew up in the modern world with modern technology, it gives us a way to say, you know what, maybe what all those religions were saying wasn't bullshit, right?
01:14:46.000 It wasn't just stories that people made up, but they just didn't have the language to express something that a lot of people who have had near-death experiences, they use the word ineffable, right?
01:14:57.000 Which means unable to be put into words.
01:15:01.000 And so they can't really tell you what's out there, but they use these metaphors to try to describe it.
01:15:07.000 And so I think whether you view simulation theory as a hardcore physics thing, or you view it as a metaphor for...
01:15:15.000 What this world is all about and how we go through our lives.
01:15:19.000 I think there's value in looking at both of those angles.
01:15:24.000 And the metaphor side is what I think...
01:15:27.000 Actually, for me personally, and that was your question, how does this change the way that I view the world?
01:15:32.000 It actually has changed the way that I view the world so that when I go through difficult situations, I kind of step back.
01:15:37.000 They don't bother me as much.
01:15:39.000 I mean, they still bother me physically, but they don't bother me as much in other ways.
01:15:43.000 So you view them as challenges in this thing that you're doing.
01:15:48.000 So instead of woe is me, oh my god, how is this happening to me, which is the way a lot of people interface with problems, you go, okay, this is the challenge that I'm presented with.
01:15:59.000 How do I overcome this challenge and what feels like the thing to do?
01:16:03.000 Right.
01:16:03.000 And why this challenge now?
01:16:06.000 Right.
01:16:06.000 Why this challenge now?
01:16:07.000 If there's a part of me that's outside watching this, like maybe when I go to sleep or wherever, whenever, why would it choose this particular challenge at this point in my life?
01:16:20.000 What is it that it's meant to impact and what is it that I need to learn?
01:16:26.000 But yeah, I view it as a challenge rather than You know, this is just a bad thing that's happened to me.
01:16:31.000 And that seems like the right way to play the game, if it's a game.
01:16:36.000 Yeah.
01:16:37.000 Not only does it seem like the right way, I think that is part of the purpose, right?
01:16:41.000 So get back to the idea of maya or illusion, right?
01:16:46.000 So it's like we are agreeing to forget, right?
01:16:51.000 The Greeks talked about the river of forgetfulness, lethe.
01:16:54.000 It's one of the five rivers.
01:16:56.000 When you incarnate, Plato talked about this, you cross the river and you forget everything outside of this physical world.
01:17:05.000 In the Chinese traditions, you have the same thing.
01:17:08.000 You have Meng Po, who's a goddess of forgetfulness, and she brews the tea of forgetfulness, and you drink it and you forget what was going on before.
01:17:20.000 Getting back to this idea of everything being an illusion, You kind of agree to forget, in my view and I think within this way of viewing the world as a video game, In order to enjoy, and I put enjoy in quotes because that doesn't necessarily mean it's all fun and games,
01:17:38.000 right?
01:17:38.000 Right.
01:17:39.000 Maybe experience is a better word to use.
01:17:43.000 Right.
01:17:43.000 To experience these things in life in a way that we forget.
01:17:47.000 But it's okay sometimes, I think, to step out and maybe we remember a little bit of the storyline or we recognize someone, right?
01:17:58.000 There was a hypnotherapist who wrote a book called Journey of Souls, Dr. Michael Newton.
01:18:06.000 I don't know if you ever have heard of it or read it.
01:18:08.000 So he started with regression hypnosis, taking people back to their childhood.
01:18:13.000 And every now and then they ended up somewhere before their childhood, meaning before they were born.
01:18:19.000 And so he had a bunch of patients, and he started to do this more and more, and they all kind of described a similar type of thing, like where they existed before they were born.
01:18:33.000 So these are sometimes called pre-birth memories now.
01:18:36.000 And they talk about this time when they were choosing What kind of a life they were going to have.
01:18:44.000 And they would see on a screen, like a screen, again, metaphors, like, you know, timelines and say, at this point, if you choose, you know, you choose to go to Austin or stay in Los Angeles or whatever, right?
01:18:57.000 That takes you on this path.
01:18:58.000 This takes you on that path.
01:19:00.000 That you see like this graph of possibilities out there for your life.
01:19:06.000 And then some of them described like having friends, like your friends list in a game.
01:19:12.000 And that they would say, okay, this is how you're going to recognize me in the game.
01:19:16.000 Because I'm going to have on this avatar.
01:19:18.000 I'm using the term avatar because I talk about video games.
01:19:21.000 They didn't necessarily use that.
01:19:22.000 But they said, this is how you're going to recognize me.
01:19:25.000 The first time you encounter me, I'm going to be...
01:19:27.000 On a red bicycle or something, right, in childhood, or I'm going to be wearing this dress at this, you know, at this dance or whatever the case is.
01:19:34.000 So they had these little clues for how they would recognize some of the people that they really wanted to have certain quests or experiences or achievements within the game, group quests, if you will, which is a little bit different than the kind of quest as the difficult experience we're talking about,
01:19:52.000 but they're all different kinds of quests, I would say.
01:19:54.000 And so I think we can take that as an interesting way.
01:20:00.000 Again, another metaphor for how we think about life is that perhaps we've had some of these things laid out for us, but we're still free to make our choices along the way.
01:20:11.000 And I think it gives us a richer experience of life as we go through the game.
01:20:19.000 Well, that's certainly the most beneficial way to interact with it.
01:20:24.000 To just think of this whole thing as a game and to think of this whole game as like this game will give you clues as to how to play it and you'll have experiences that you can engage with and you can say that you're enjoying them or that you're getting pleasure out of that or you're getting excitement out of that or you're getting some sort of fulfillment out of that.
01:20:49.000 But you still have to play the game.
01:20:51.000 So you're here.
01:20:53.000 Right.
01:20:54.000 You're here one way.
01:20:55.000 What are you going to do?
01:20:56.000 One way or the other, right?
01:20:57.000 How are you going to deal with it?
01:20:57.000 What's the beneficial way to go through this where you feel harmonious?
01:21:02.000 I know if I feel like I'm wasting time or I'm doing nothing, I have this feeling like, oh, what did you do with your day?
01:21:11.000 It's a terrible feeling.
01:21:13.000 Versus if I work and I get things done, at the end I'm like, ooh, I did it.
01:21:19.000 I feel good.
01:21:20.000 You know?
01:21:21.000 Like, okay, the universe, the game is telling me, you're on the right path.
01:21:25.000 That's the way to do it.
01:21:27.000 Right.
01:21:27.000 And I think that's the key is, you know, we all get different messages for when we're on the right path and when we're not.
01:21:36.000 And I think we sometimes sense that, right?
01:21:38.000 Sometimes things just kind of flow easily and other times they don't necessarily.
01:21:43.000 But yeah, I agree.
01:21:44.000 I think, you know, viewing the game in that way based on your own signals In your brain, in your body, that is telling you.
01:21:53.000 Your intuition.
01:21:53.000 Your intuition, right?
01:21:54.000 Right.
01:21:55.000 And there's different ways to think about that.
01:21:58.000 Some people have suggested, some physicists have suggested, that there are these possible futures And that they are sending back information from the future to the present.
01:22:12.000 Because time doesn't really exist the same way.
01:22:15.000 Again, when we get back into quantum mechanics, it starts to be weird.
01:22:18.000 But there's a guy named Fred Allen Wolf, who was one of these Berkeley physicists in that book.
01:22:24.000 How the hippies save physics.
01:22:25.000 I don't know if you've ever heard of that book, but it was an interesting book about how people in quantum mechanics stopped thinking about what the heck does this mean because it was too complicated back in the 60s.
01:22:34.000 And in the 70s, a group of hippie physicists, all PhD physicists in Berkeley, used to have this group and talk about what does this all mean.
01:22:43.000 One of the guys was Frit Joff Capra who wrote The Tao of Physics.
01:22:47.000 Another, I think, was Gary Zukav.
01:22:48.000 A bunch of these guys ended up looking at What does this all mean as opposed to just calculating, which is what physicists were doing at the time?
01:22:57.000 So one of these guys talks about these futures are sending us information, and sometimes what we get are clues, right?
01:23:04.000 Saying that, oh, this is a possibility.
01:23:06.000 Maybe I should choose this over that.
01:23:08.000 It's almost like the futures are sending back these messages to the past.
01:23:13.000 And I think of that as different runs of the game, right?
01:23:17.000 And it's possible there's a part of us That might be running the game forward as a simulation to try to see what might happen and then come back and then you make a choice based on this idea.
01:23:31.000 There was some guys who wrote a paper recently about dreams as a sort of way to simulate weird, bad experiences, traumatic experiences, maybe preparing you for things in life.
01:23:43.000 But when you start to think about the world as a simulation, Again, you can simulate more than once, right?
01:23:51.000 You can try out what might happen if you did X, what might happen if you do Y. Kind of like, you know, you watch the Lord of the Rings movies, right?
01:23:59.000 Probably.
01:24:00.000 If you look at what, you know, what they did was before, Peter Jackson, what they did was before they actually filmed the scene, they would create a pre-vis, pre-visualization, right?
01:24:11.000 Using like crude graphics and stuff.
01:24:13.000 And, you know, you can see they played out what it might look like before they got around and did the act because it's so expensive, right, in a movie to shoot a particular scene.
01:24:23.000 So they would do this pre-visualization.
01:24:24.000 And so, you know, perhaps there's a part of us that's watching the game that's doing this pre-visualization and sending us clues about what might happen if we do X or what might happen, you know, if we do Y. And so that takes us even back to what I was talking about earlier with Philip K. Dick,
01:24:45.000 right?
01:24:46.000 And his idea that the universe, what happens is we actually go and we change variables and we run it, and we might have...
01:24:56.000 We might have the sense that we're re-running the same scene, we're saying the same things, but something could be different.
01:25:03.000 Usually something is different when you run the simulation.
01:25:07.000 That's what got me into a whole other rabbit hole, which I covered my second book, which is The Mandela Effect.
01:25:12.000 I don't know if you've heard about The Mandela Effect.
01:25:15.000 I have, but I don't necessarily totally understand it.
01:25:19.000 Yeah.
01:25:20.000 Well, I kind of dismissed the whole thing earlier, you know.
01:25:23.000 And the Mandela effect is when a small group of people remember something happening differently in the past than what is the majority consensus opinion.
01:25:34.000 And it's about Mandela being dead, right?
01:25:36.000 Well, that was the first thing that kind of kicked off this blogger who actually coined the term.
01:25:42.000 I think her name was Fiona Broom.
01:25:43.000 Some people remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 80s.
01:25:48.000 But of course, he didn't die in prison.
01:25:51.000 You can look it up.
01:25:52.000 He got out of prison, became president of South Africa, won the Nobel Peace Prize and died in whatever it was, like more recently, like 2013 or something like that.
01:26:04.000 The people who remember this, they remember it with just like a whole bunch of specific details, right?
01:26:11.000 His wife, Winnie, spoke at the funeral.
01:26:14.000 There were certain US politicians or presidents there.
01:26:18.000 And so what happened was that was one Mandela effect, if you will.
01:26:23.000 And then there started to be all these other things happening.
01:26:26.000 That people remembered that were different.
01:26:29.000 And some of these were relatively minor things like the spelling of Froot Loops or...
01:26:33.000 Berenstain Bears.
01:26:34.000 That's the most famous one, right?
01:26:36.000 The Berenstain Bears, right?
01:26:37.000 Everybody...
01:26:38.000 In fact, here.
01:26:39.000 We can see it there, right?
01:26:41.000 If you ask people, most people remember it as the Berenstain Bears.
01:26:45.000 But when you look at it, it's actually the Berenstain Bears.
01:26:50.000 It's a relatively small change, but it's one that people are really confused about.
01:26:56.000 Then there's the movies, right?
01:26:58.000 The movie lines.
01:26:59.000 Like in Star Wars, did he say, Luke, I am your father.
01:27:04.000 Did Darth Vader actually say that, right?
01:27:06.000 And then there were entire episodes of Star Trek.
01:27:10.000 We're good to go.
01:27:32.000 Was it Kazam or Shazam?
01:27:34.000 It was all called Kazam, but there was actually a movie with Shaq called Shazam.
01:27:38.000 Anyway, there's a whole bunch of these movie-related ones, right?
01:27:41.000 And there's a bunch of these logo ones, like the Bernstein Bears.
01:27:46.000 But the more interesting ones come, I think, with events, like Mandela.
01:27:54.000 Do you remember Tiananmen Square?
01:27:56.000 What happened to that guy in front of the tank?
01:28:01.000 He stood in front of the tank and they removed him, right?
01:28:04.000 They didn't run him over.
01:28:06.000 Right.
01:28:06.000 That's what I remember too, right?
01:28:08.000 But there's a group of people who remember, you know, We're good to go.
01:28:33.000 Many years earlier than he actually died.
01:28:37.000 And they remember it vividly.
01:28:39.000 And so those events start to become interesting.
01:28:43.000 But the ones that I find really interesting are the ones where there's some interesting evidence like scripture.
01:28:51.000 So people take their scripture pretty seriously.
01:28:55.000 Like, do you know the line in Isaiah about the lion and the lamb?
01:28:59.000 I don't remember it.
01:29:00.000 Yeah, but you remember there was a line, right, about a lion and a lamb.
01:29:03.000 Well, it turns out there isn't, right?
01:29:05.000 It has something, the wolf shall lie with a lamb or something like that, right?
01:29:10.000 And what's weird is that people have like, you know, like little wall clocks and things with a picture of a lion and a lamb.
01:29:17.000 But it's not even in the scripture.
01:29:19.000 Yeah.
01:29:19.000 It's not in the scripture, right?
01:29:21.000 And I thought, okay, well, maybe it's a translation thing.
01:29:24.000 Maybe one version of the King James Bible has it in the other one.
01:29:28.000 And people are like, no, I have my same physical copy from when I was a kid, and I memorized this particular line.
01:29:36.000 And there are websites that track these different lines, different things that maybe have changed.
01:29:43.000 And what do you think these things are?
01:29:45.000 Well, so I started to wonder, you know, does this happen in other scriptures, you know?
01:29:51.000 Is it only in, like, the Bible, like, this is going on?
01:29:55.000 And so I started looking around at Islam and the Quran because they memorize the Quran word for word.
01:30:01.000 I mean, that is like...
01:30:02.000 The first thing you have to do to become a priest, right?
01:30:04.000 You have to, like, be able to say the whole damn thing.
01:30:06.000 And I always wondered, why do you need to memorize it?
01:30:08.000 It seems kind of stupid nowadays.
01:30:10.000 You can just look it up.
01:30:11.000 So I found this one Sufi Imam online who was talking about this.
01:30:15.000 And he says that in the Islamic traditions in the Middle East, there are these beings that are allowed to go back in time and change things, physical things.
01:30:26.000 But they're not allowed to change your memory.
01:30:29.000 And these beings are called the djinn.
01:30:32.000 We've heard of them from Aladdin, the genie.
01:30:36.000 A genie is singular for djinn.
01:30:38.000 But the djinn don't exist in space and time in the same way that we exist in space and time.
01:30:45.000 And so the reason that they still memorize it word for word, I don't know if this is something in the full orthodoxy, but this was his explanation, was that because the djinn are allowed to change physical objects, but they're not allowed to change our memory, That's why it's memorized word for word so that nobody can mess,
01:31:02.000 you know, with the scripture.
01:31:04.000 And so I found that really fascinating.
01:31:06.000 But there are other physical objects like the thinker, okay?
01:31:12.000 Do you know the thinker?
01:31:13.000 The statue?
01:31:15.000 Yeah, the statue.
01:31:16.000 Okay, so where is the guy's hand in that?
01:31:23.000 Isn't he like, doesn't he have his hand on his chin?
01:31:25.000 Yeah, it's kind of under his chin like this, right?
01:31:28.000 We could even bring it up, right?
01:31:29.000 If we can find it.
01:31:31.000 Right.
01:31:31.000 But there's a turn up.
01:31:32.000 There it is.
01:31:33.000 There it is, right?
01:31:33.000 And so there's several bronze casts of this.
01:31:36.000 There was one at Stanford that I went and looked at recently.
01:31:39.000 But what you find is there's a bunch of people with...
01:31:43.000 Their hand at the top of their forehead, right?
01:31:46.000 Standing next to the statue, right?
01:31:50.000 And, okay, you might think there's a bunch of crazy tourists just doing it for fun, but it's really weird.
01:31:55.000 So there's actually a picture that I found from the London unveiling of Rodin's The Thinker, which was George Bernard Shaw, G.B. Shaw.
01:32:07.000 In the pose of the thinker.
01:32:09.000 We'll see if we can find this picture.
01:32:11.000 And so this was just the night before this was being rolled out to the public in London for the first time.
01:32:17.000 I forget what year, like 1902 or something.
01:32:19.000 Okay, so there's G.B. Shaw.
01:32:21.000 This is like a famous picture now.
01:32:23.000 In the pose of the thinker.
01:32:24.000 And where is his hand?
01:32:25.000 On his head.
01:32:26.000 On his forehead.
01:32:27.000 And he was probably standing right next to where the statue was unveiled.
01:32:33.000 And so you have to start to wonder, like, why would people do that?
01:32:37.000 Those hands are in a different position, too.
01:32:39.000 Yeah.
01:32:40.000 Yeah, it's interesting, right?
01:32:41.000 Yeah, his hand's on his left knee.
01:32:42.000 The other guy's got his hand all the way across onto the other side.
01:32:47.000 Yeah, exactly.
01:32:48.000 And it's a different hand that he's got on his head as well.
01:32:51.000 Right.
01:32:51.000 And if you read, like, even Rodin's- Left hand versus right hand.
01:32:54.000 Right.
01:32:55.000 And so there's almost three versions of this.
01:32:58.000 There's the hand under the chin.
01:33:01.000 Well, maybe these images are reversed, because I'm seeing some with the right hand on his chin.
01:33:05.000 See that one down there, Jamie?
01:33:07.000 The one below that?
01:33:08.000 Yeah, the right hand's on the chin.
01:33:11.000 So there's different versions of the thinker.
01:33:14.000 Right, right.
01:33:15.000 So let's go back to the one that I saw was the one at Stanford, for example.
01:33:19.000 But in these poses, in the statues, the hand is always under the chin, but in the images where people are imitating it, the hand is on the head.
01:33:29.000 The hand is on the head.
01:33:30.000 And you find references to either it being a fist under the chin or slightly under the chin, which is...
01:33:38.000 What it is now, right?
01:33:39.000 It's kind of very lightly.
01:33:41.000 Or on the forehead.
01:33:43.000 Now, I'm not necessarily saying that all of this stuff happens.
01:33:47.000 I dismissed a lot of this as just faulty memory, and that's the currently accepted explanation for the Mandela Effect is, oh, a bunch of people got it wrong, right?
01:33:55.000 But what you find is that the more significance that something has, To you, the less likely you are to get it wrong, right?
01:34:05.000 So if you're Jewish and you asked your parents, why are these bears Jewish, right?
01:34:11.000 And your parents didn't say, oh, it's not really Bernstein, it's Bernstein, right?
01:34:17.000 You know, that's proximity to that subject, right?
01:34:20.000 There was a blogger online, I'm forgetting her name now.
01:34:23.000 She was a journalism student in Chicago and she said she went to South Africa to interview Nelson Mandela in prison and was told That he was too ill.
01:34:32.000 So she literally came back and then she started working for NPR. And then she says, well, I remember him dying shortly after.
01:34:39.000 Now, if you just went to South Africa to interview Nelson Mandela and then you remember him dying, that's proximity and significance.
01:34:47.000 You're less likely to get it wrong than just some random guy who just thought Mandela died.
01:34:53.000 Or if you're, you know, heavy duty Christian and you're more likely to memorize certain passages, you know, from the Bible.
01:35:01.000 Right.
01:35:02.000 So, again, I dismissed it.
01:35:04.000 And then what happened was after I had written the simulation hypothesis about this idea that the whole world is computation, a friend of mine from MIT who was working at Google came to me and said, you know, hey, have you heard of the Mandela effect?
01:35:17.000 I was like, yeah, I heard about it, but, you know, a bunch of people remembering, you know, different stuff.
01:35:21.000 Right.
01:35:21.000 No big deal.
01:35:22.000 He goes, well, the simulation hypothesis is one of the best explanations for this.
01:35:27.000 That the world is a simulation.
01:35:29.000 Now, I was surprised for two reasons.
01:35:31.000 One, most guys who work at MIT or Google, they tend to be very left-brained, right?
01:35:38.000 So the Mandela effect is not something that they generally pay attention to or UFOs or any of this kind of weird stuff.
01:35:46.000 But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if you're running a simulation, And you go back and you change some variables and you rerun the simulation, lots of little things could be different along the way, right?
01:36:00.000 And if you think of all the Mandela facts, And I like to use the Mandela effect as a way of illustrating this idea that a simulation can run multiple timelines, right?
01:36:11.000 Whether you believe it's actually happened is up to you, right?
01:36:13.000 But if, let's say, the thinker has three different possibilities, then you got, let's say, the Bernstein Bears.
01:36:19.000 Let's say you have Curious George.
01:36:21.000 Does he have a tail or does he not have a tail, right?
01:36:24.000 That's actually a good one.
01:36:24.000 I don't remember which one it is.
01:36:27.000 But if you look it up...
01:36:28.000 I don't think he has a tail.
01:36:30.000 You don't think so?
01:36:31.000 No.
01:36:31.000 I don't know.
01:36:32.000 Let's see if we can bring it up.
01:36:33.000 But all monkeys have tails.
01:36:36.000 Curious George is a monkey, right?
01:36:37.000 Right.
01:36:38.000 Do all monkeys have tails?
01:36:41.000 Like, all apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes.
01:36:46.000 Right.
01:36:47.000 That's more of a superset, subset type of issue, right?
01:36:50.000 But with Curious George, there's a particular drawing that was made, right?
01:36:53.000 Does Curious George have a tail?
01:36:54.000 Does he have a tail?
01:36:55.000 Let's see.
01:36:56.000 Yep.
01:36:56.000 He does have a tail.
01:36:57.000 He's got a tail.
01:36:58.000 Wow.
01:37:00.000 Sometimes he doesn't.
01:37:01.000 Or he's never had a tail.
01:37:02.000 Julius George never had a tail.
01:37:04.000 Yo.
01:37:05.000 So I think the way you remember it, which is without the tail, is the current consensus reality view of what it is.
01:37:15.000 So let's go back to my point about these different possibilities, right?
01:37:20.000 Okay.
01:37:20.000 So imagine each of these is different possibilities.
01:37:23.000 You've got like 50 of these effects.
01:37:26.000 There are a hundred of these effects.
01:37:27.000 Now you basically have this huge graph, right?
01:37:30.000 In this one, Darth Vader said this, but Curious George had a tail.
01:37:34.000 In this one, he didn't.
01:37:35.000 What you have is this network graph of possibilities of the past, right?
01:37:40.000 You have many different possible pasts.
01:37:42.000 You have glitches of the matrix.
01:37:43.000 Exactly.
01:37:44.000 So now you're sitting on this idea that maybe these are glitches in the matrix, that something weird has happened.
01:37:50.000 But it could also be that we like switched, right?
01:37:54.000 You're now on this timeline, but you remember, you have like a deja vu or you have like a weird memory.
01:38:00.000 Right.
01:38:00.000 So even though you can Google, no, I was wrong about Mandela.
01:38:05.000 In your mind and in your memory, you're like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
01:38:10.000 He died in prison.
01:38:11.000 Right.
01:38:12.000 Or, you know, I, you know, for me...
01:38:14.000 I know he died in prison.
01:38:15.000 I remember it.
01:38:16.000 I remember being sad.
01:38:17.000 I remember the news stories.
01:38:19.000 Right.
01:38:20.000 I remember talking about it with friends.
01:38:22.000 Or Bill Clinton spoke at the funeral or whoever, right?
01:38:25.000 Right.
01:38:25.000 And people get that specific with their memories.
01:38:28.000 And so I think it becomes harder to just dismiss some of these, you know, Fruit Loops, Fruit Loops, you can probably find...
01:38:35.000 There's some faulty memory.
01:38:36.000 Yeah, there's some faulty memory going on here, but at the same time...
01:38:39.000 Some weirdness.
01:38:40.000 Some weirdness.
01:38:41.000 It's not just a movie line.
01:38:43.000 It's like entire movies, right, that people claim to have had on VHS. Like, let's look at the one that was the Sinbad one, I think, right?
01:38:52.000 So, supposedly, there was this movie by Sinbad Sinbad the Comedian.
01:38:56.000 Yeah, the comedian.
01:38:57.000 Right?
01:38:58.000 In the 90s.
01:38:58.000 That people remember having, you know, with their VHS tapes.
01:39:03.000 And they were sitting there and they were rewinding it and they were talking about specific scenes from it, right?
01:39:07.000 And Sinbad was like, well, of course I've never made that movie.
01:39:09.000 I think it was called Kazam, right?
01:39:12.000 Shazam.
01:39:12.000 Shazam.
01:39:13.000 Yeah, Kazam is the real movie.
01:39:14.000 Yeah, that's right.
01:39:15.000 So it's called Shazam was the one that people remember, right?
01:39:18.000 But Shazam was the actual movie with Shaq in the 90s.
01:39:23.000 So most people say, okay, that was the real movie that we remember, right?
01:39:28.000 Kazam.
01:39:29.000 Kazam, right?
01:39:30.000 And yet all these people remember Sinbad.
01:39:33.000 They ruined this because they made a joke on April Fool's Day that they made a fake movie where it looked like that was real.
01:39:39.000 So people still are pulling that back up now and being like, look, the movie is real.
01:39:42.000 So it kind of confused this Mandela effect.
01:39:44.000 It did.
01:39:45.000 In fact, Sinbad shot a scene just for the hell of it.
01:39:48.000 Because he says people say that I was in this movie that I was never in, right?
01:39:52.000 So he shot a scene and put it up on YouTube or something.
01:39:54.000 How weird.
01:39:55.000 Isn't that strange?
01:39:57.000 Okay, but again, whether you believe this or not...
01:40:01.000 A simulation idea, this is how I got deep in the rabbit hole, is this idea that you can run something multiple times, and when you do, you may be remembering a previous run of the simulation.
01:40:15.000 Right?
01:40:16.000 So, you know, there might have been a run where, let's say, you never moved to Austin, right?
01:40:21.000 And maybe you remember something from it.
01:40:23.000 But it brings up the possibility—in fact, you may have seen the movie The Adjustment Bureau with Matt Damon and Emily Blunt.
01:40:31.000 No.
01:40:31.000 So that was also based on a Philip K. Dick novel, right?
01:40:34.000 So Philip K. Dick keeps coming up in these discussions and Ping Pong, for some reason, always keeps coming up in these discussions.
01:40:41.000 So he wrote a story called The Adjustment Team.
01:40:44.000 And in that story, there are these guys who are kind of there adjusting things while you're not looking.
01:40:52.000 And that made it into the movie.
01:40:54.000 They kind of look like angels in the movie, but they had like these little...
01:40:57.000 These little books that showed what was going on and things were off track and they would like try to get them back on track.
01:41:03.000 So the movie was, you know, an adaptation.
01:41:05.000 It didn't have exactly the same storyline.
01:41:08.000 So Tessa, his wife told me, you know, this came from when he went into the bathroom and he tried to like pull the light.
01:41:14.000 You know, they used to have chain lights back a lot in the 60s, 70s, somewhere near L.A. I think Fullerton or somewhere around there.
01:41:22.000 I forget where.
01:41:23.000 And he's like, well, this has been a light switch.
01:41:26.000 He knew it was a chain because he had done it hundreds of times, but it was a light switch.
01:41:31.000 So he said, who changed it, right?
01:41:32.000 Did somebody change from the chain to the light switch?
01:41:35.000 But nobody had changed it.
01:41:36.000 And so he couldn't figure out what was going on.
01:41:37.000 And so he kind of theorized this whole idea that as we run different versions of the simulation, little things can end up changing and we remember things being different.
01:41:50.000 So anyway, where that brings us is right back to that complicated physics experiment that I was telling you about like an hour ago now or so, which was the delayed choice experiment, right?
01:42:02.000 Remember I said there was a quasar sending light to us a billion light years and a million light years away there was a black hole and the decision about whether to go left or right should have been made in the past.
01:42:17.000 It should have been made a million years ago.
01:42:20.000 But the weirdness with quantum mechanics is telling us that decision is made now when we measure it.
01:42:25.000 Until then, both possibilities actually exist.
01:42:29.000 So most people can understand the multiverse idea as being something that starts here and spreads out, right?
01:42:36.000 You're like, I go to college in Boston, I go to college in San Francisco.
01:42:40.000 Those are like two different storylines.
01:42:42.000 I marry this person, I marry this other person, right?
01:42:45.000 So those are multiple possible futures.
01:42:48.000 That's pretty easy to grasp the idea of, you know, even if you don't believe the futures are out there, you just say if you make choices, you end up in different places.
01:42:57.000 But the weird thing that is really hard to put your mind around is, what if there are multiple possible pasts?
01:43:05.000 What if there was a past where the light went left?
01:43:08.000 What if there was a past where the light went right a million years ago?
01:43:12.000 What if there's a past where a meteor didn't kill the dinosaurs?
01:43:16.000 There's a past where the meteor did kill the dinosaurs.
01:43:19.000 What if there's a past where the guy in Tiananmen Square Got run over by the tank?
01:43:24.000 And what if there's a past where the guy didn't get run over by the tank?
01:43:28.000 And so what the Cosmic Delayed Choice Experiment tells us when they've tried to do this, and they do it using double slits, but they sent some light through one of these two slits up to a satellite.
01:43:43.000 That was like a thousand miles away or something like that.
01:43:47.000 I forget exactly how many miles, but it takes like whatever, a fraction of a second to get there.
01:43:51.000 But there's some appreciable time between when it has to go through the slit and when it reaches the satellite so they can measure it.
01:44:00.000 And it turns out that it confirmed what Wheeler was talking about in the delayed-choice experiment was that that choice of whether to go through the slit on the left or the right It wasn't actually made until the satellite measured that photon.
01:44:16.000 So what it meant was that there were two possible pasts.
01:44:20.000 Now, that's a very short period of time we're talking about here, like less than a second.
01:44:24.000 But in the case of the Cosmic Delayed Choice Experiment, we're talking about a million years ago.
01:44:29.000 A decision would have had to have been made a million years ago, whether to go left or right, because that's what we think of as the past, right?
01:44:36.000 But what the Delayed Choice Experiment is telling us is That doesn't actually happen until now.
01:44:42.000 So what if these Mandela effects are going right back to your very first question, or one of your first questions to me, which is, how do I know this is what happened in the past, right?
01:44:52.000 So there's, in some possible worlds, it's Bernstein bears.
01:44:58.000 And in some possible world, it's Bernstein bears.
01:45:02.000 And this minor deviation sort of gets confusing in today's world with some people.
01:45:10.000 Because some people have this memory of a different reality.
01:45:15.000 Right.
01:45:15.000 And it seems very, very real to them and they're confused.
01:45:18.000 Like the light switch.
01:45:20.000 Right, exactly.
01:45:21.000 And it takes us right back to both the quantum physics idea that the past is not what we think it is.
01:45:28.000 And there was a guy, Schrodinger, again, who actually made an obscure speech in the 1940s, I think, where he said, not only are we choosing which slit, the double slit experiment goes through now, let's say Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead,
01:45:45.000 But we're choosing from one of several simultaneous histories when we make that observation.
01:45:52.000 So that means there's a whole history where the cat came in from the front yard versus the back yard and before that the cat belonged to somebody else.
01:46:04.000 There's a whole history that goes with the choices that are made.
01:46:08.000 And so this is not a very well understood Aspect of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
01:46:15.000 But I think it gets to this idea that maybe there's multiple possible pasts and that we choose those as we run.
01:46:25.000 Now, if we think of this as a simulated reality, then it becomes a little more understandable.
01:46:31.000 So I said the main argument people have on the multiverse idea is that, or physicists have, right?
01:46:38.000 So some physicists like the Copenhagen interpretation it's called, Niels Bohr came up with it in Copenhagen, and he and his other folks, that there's a probability wave and it collapses into one.
01:46:50.000 We don't know how it works, it just kind of collapses.
01:46:53.000 Some physicists like this multiverse idea because they're like, we know how the mathematics work, but the problem is it ends up in all these physical universes.
01:47:03.000 Now, I've never seen a planet clone itself, let alone an entire universe, a physical universe.
01:47:11.000 Cloning may happen, but it happens at a very small level and then it grows.
01:47:15.000 Even if you clone a sheep or something, you still have to grow the sheep or you clone a tree.
01:47:21.000 But if it's a simulated reality, then both of these things actually make more sense.
01:47:27.000 Because on the one hand, you only render that which is seen as a player.
01:47:33.000 On the other hand, what we're calling multiple universes are just different runs of the simulation.
01:47:41.000 And so in computer science, We're always dealing with limitations, so we don't just run an infinite number of anything, because you can't with computer resources.
01:47:51.000 But if you're playing a game and the AI is trying to figure out what's going to happen, what does it do?
01:47:57.000 It will try this scenario, it'll try that scenario, it'll try that scenario, and it'll pick the best scenario.
01:48:03.000 And so in that case, you cut off the other timelines.
01:48:08.000 And you go there forward and from there you can simulate different things and figure out which one you might want to do.
01:48:14.000 So you've got a mechanism for the multiverse as information.
01:48:21.000 But you don't have to have an infinite number of physical universes per se because when we say this is a universe, all that means is that currently we're running this program right now.
01:48:32.000 We could have run another program for a little while and then we can shut that down and we can run this program.
01:48:38.000 We could even run them on parallel.
01:48:40.000 Today's laptops have parallel processors.
01:48:45.000 So you can run a whole bunch of things in parallel.
01:48:48.000 That's what gets to the idea of a quantum computer.
01:48:51.000 What the heck is that quantum computer doing that it can explore all the 18 quintillion possibilities?
01:48:58.000 And come back to us within a few seconds.
01:49:01.000 Well, what does a few seconds mean?
01:49:04.000 A few seconds in our reality, if the program stops, like if people are watching this on YouTube, they have a window, but they might have Microsoft Word running, they might have a spreadsheet, they might have Instagram in the window.
01:49:18.000 What's happening is this process is in the foreground while they're watching YouTube, and then all these other processes are in the background.
01:49:26.000 And so when a process runs, it just knows I'm going to the next step, I'm going to the next step.
01:49:33.000 It doesn't necessarily know how many seconds have passed.
01:49:35.000 So what the CPU does is it stops executing this window and it runs the background programs for a little while.
01:49:45.000 And then it comes back and it runs this one for a while.
01:49:48.000 So technically speaking, they're not really parallel, but you don't know it because it just appears like they're all running at the same time, right?
01:49:55.000 But if you're inside one program That program could have been paused and you could have been running, you know, the computer could run any number of programs or processes on the side and then it starts running you again and you think no time has passed or nothing has passed.
01:50:11.000 I could imagine how you would experience paralysis by analysis dealing with all these different possibilities and scenarios constantly.
01:50:21.000 Just playing them all out in your head.
01:50:23.000 Yeah.
01:50:24.000 You kind of get stuck.
01:50:27.000 If you're trying to do it yourself, right?
01:50:29.000 Yeah.
01:50:30.000 Well, that's why you have to limit it, right?
01:50:32.000 You can't do all the scenarios.
01:50:35.000 You try to figure out what is the best one, then you make that choice in the game, right?
01:50:41.000 And then you start moving forward from that.
01:50:44.000 That possibility.
01:50:44.000 And a lot of people don't know how to play the game.
01:50:46.000 They don't know where to go.
01:50:47.000 They get stuck.
01:50:48.000 Like, I don't know where to go.
01:50:50.000 Right.
01:50:50.000 I don't know what to do.
01:50:51.000 Yeah.
01:50:52.000 I don't have a calling.
01:50:53.000 Yeah, and I think there's an element of forgetfulness there, right?
01:50:56.000 And they get so stuck into...
01:50:58.000 So I talked about NPC versus RPG, role-playing game, where you have an avatar.
01:51:04.000 Mm-hmm.
01:51:05.000 I think there's something in the middle, too.
01:51:07.000 So this is an idea I'm playing with, which is that people could be players, they could be characters, but then they go into NPC mode, right?
01:51:17.000 NPC mode.
01:51:18.000 I mean, I know NPC is used a lot now with...
01:51:20.000 Pejorative.
01:51:21.000 Pejorative and narratives, right?
01:51:23.000 Whether it's a dominant narrative, if you're just going along with the narrative, right?
01:51:27.000 But if you think of NPC as a collection of neural networks and AI, it only knows what it's been taught here.
01:51:37.000 In that world that the NPC lives in.
01:51:41.000 Whereas if you have either a soul or a player outside of the game, your character knows more than just what's happened.
01:51:52.000 Then what's happening in the game, you may have had a plan.
01:51:54.000 You may have, you know, know you're going to do this.
01:51:57.000 You may know there's something else coming up because they can see, the player can kind of maybe look at what's going on and figure out what's going on.
01:52:04.000 But what happens is when we go to NPC mode, we're just kind of running like this is all there is and we're not paying attention to, I think, our intuition because I think that is the link that ties us back to...
01:52:17.000 What do you think our intuition is?
01:52:20.000 Well, I think some people think...
01:52:24.000 That the intuition is just neurons firing, right?
01:52:27.000 And that gives us an intuition.
01:52:29.000 But I think it's something more than that.
01:52:31.000 And I think it gets back to this fundamental question of consciousness, right?
01:52:35.000 The fundamental question is, is consciousness derivative from the physical body?
01:52:43.000 So if you have just the neurons in the brain and you have all of the connections, what we call the connectome, Does that result in consciousness?
01:52:57.000 Or is it the other way around?
01:52:59.000 Is it that consciousness exists outside of the physical body and that, you know, we are kind of tapped into that?
01:53:08.000 That is who we are.
01:53:10.000 And so this is a fundamental debate within science and religion as well, right?
01:53:16.000 Most scientists say it's all physical, that's all there is.
01:53:20.000 You die and that's it, right?
01:53:22.000 And what are your thoughts is just based upon your neurons.
01:53:26.000 And then most religions say the opposite, right?
01:53:30.000 They say that there is a part of you that is outside the physical world and that is where consciousness comes from.
01:53:36.000 And this is an ongoing debate.
01:53:37.000 I was just in Tucson.
01:53:39.000 They have a Science of Consciousness conference every year.
01:53:42.000 And everybody has their ideas about what consciousness is.
01:53:48.000 And I think it's a big, big open question.
01:53:53.000 So, in fact, I was asked to speak at this conference in Birmingham last year, which is an Islamic jurisprudence conference.
01:54:01.000 Which is they were talking about when does life begin?
01:54:04.000 When is insolment?
01:54:05.000 Same debate we have here about is abortion okay at the beginning?
01:54:10.000 When does the soul connect with the body?
01:54:12.000 And I said, well, I think let me offer you guys a different perspective on what insolment is.
01:54:18.000 If you think of it as a video game, it's the moment at which you've put on the headset and And you forget everything that's been happening before, right?
01:54:29.000 And there was like an Ayatollah from Iran there.
01:54:31.000 It was pretty weird because I was talking about NPCs and video games and stuff, right?
01:54:36.000 But it was actually pretty well received, you know.
01:54:39.000 But that is getting back to the idea that consciousness exists outside the body.
01:54:44.000 And when we inhabit the body, you know, While we're here, except for flashes of insight and intuition or yogic states or perhaps, you know, I mean, I've never done DMT, but so many people have come to me and said, oh,
01:54:59.000 yeah, you know, when I did DMT, I saw the lines, the grid lines of the simulation, right?
01:55:04.000 You can see that it's not real.
01:55:07.000 And so I probably don't personally have a lot of experience with that, but you start to see these states where they realize that something about the world isn't quite what it seems, whether it's through glitches, synchronicity, coincidence, or ecstatic states, or yogic states,
01:55:23.000 you know.
01:55:23.000 The problem with DMT experiences and all psychedelics in general is that they, when you do experience them, they feel so bizarrely real, so much more real than this current reality that we're both of us presumably experiencing the same thing.
01:55:40.000 It seems more real.
01:55:43.000 And you get not just a sense that all things are connected, but that you see it.
01:55:49.000 You see how all things are connected in this very strange way that you're not going to be able to describe.
01:55:58.000 There's no words that can solve that and make sounds so you can understand what I've seen.
01:56:07.000 And so how do you describe it then?
01:56:09.000 You don't.
01:56:10.000 You clumsily use mouth noises to try to get someone to see what you're seeing.
01:56:16.000 And the only way anybody really understands what you're seeing is if they do it.
01:56:20.000 And I don't know what you're seeing when you do it.
01:56:22.000 I'm just imagining that you see the same thing that I see.
01:56:25.000 And a lot of people describe it in a similar way, but then the problem is how much of that description is based on your understanding of other people's descriptions of it.
01:56:36.000 And does it get influenced by other people?
01:56:38.000 Yeah.
01:56:38.000 Are you relaying it?
01:56:39.000 Because that definitely happens with a lot of things.
01:56:43.000 How do you think all this relays into the UAP phenomenon, the UFO phenomenon, the entities, whatever the hell they are?
01:56:51.000 Can we pause here for a second?
01:56:52.000 Yeah, because I think I need to just take a quick break.
01:56:55.000 Bathroom break?
01:56:56.000 Bathroom, but also maybe get a little snack.
01:56:58.000 Okay, sure.
01:56:58.000 Is that right?
01:56:59.000 Yeah, yeah, please.
01:57:00.000 Go ahead.
01:57:00.000 Okay, let's do that.
01:57:01.000 Okay, we'll pause.
01:57:02.000 Good transition point, actually.
01:57:04.000 So, how does this relate to UAPs, the UFO phenomenon?
01:57:10.000 Well, so, you know, the UAP phenomenon is interesting because it ends up being a lot of different things to different people, right?
01:57:17.000 And I know you've had some shows on this as well.
01:57:19.000 And, you know, this question comes up when you're talking about whether it's physical craft or you're talking about things like the abduction phenomenon with beings that are stepping in and out of physical reality, like they're going through walls and stuff.
01:57:35.000 It's an area that I think deserves more study.
01:57:40.000 There's been new projects at Harvard and Stanford over the last year or two.
01:57:46.000 Avi Loeb with the Galileo project, they're taking a very scientific view of studying this, using new telescopes to try to get actual data on strange objects in the sky.
01:57:57.000 And at Stanford, you've got Gary Nolan's Soul Foundation, which is studying maybe broader aspects, including policy, as well as like the religious and social side of it.
01:58:09.000 And I know you've had like Diana Pasolka on before, who talks a lot about the overlap between religion and UAP. One of the things that I found most interesting about UAP is that when you look at the reports, There's some that just are so bizarre that you don't know what to make of them,
01:58:29.000 right?
01:58:30.000 And so I spent some time with Jacques Vallée, who I don't know if he's been on the show.
01:58:35.000 He may have been.
01:58:36.000 But he's been studying UAP since the 60s with Project Blue Book.
01:58:43.000 Way back when, and he was the—for people that don't know him, he was— The French guy in Close Encounters.
01:58:48.000 Exactly.
01:58:49.000 He was the inspiration for the French guy in Close Encounters.
01:58:53.000 And so he and I sat down a few years ago when I was trying to think about all this stuff.
01:59:00.000 And he's a computer scientist by background actually.
01:59:03.000 So he really likes this idea that there's a simulated reality that could be accounting for a lot of this stuff.
01:59:13.000 And so he told me of some cases where there would be one person would look up and see the UFO and then the person standing next to them would not see the UFO. So, excuse me, that begs the question,
01:59:29.000 was it really there or not?
01:59:33.000 Was it somehow projected?
01:59:36.000 Into physical reality.
01:59:37.000 So he told me about another case.
01:59:39.000 This was really interesting.
01:59:40.000 And he said there was a case in, I think it was Northern California or Southern Oregon, right?
01:59:44.000 So if you've been up there, you know there's like these tall redwood trees, pine trees.
01:59:49.000 And supposedly these witnesses reported this UFO came and it landed.
01:59:56.000 It came at a 45 degree angle and it landed on the ground and supposedly there was some You know, residue or something that the UFO investigators were investigating.
02:00:05.000 So, you know, Jacques likes to, just like you do with your long interviews, he likes to sit with people for a long time and then come back the next day and talk to them again and again to see if there's new things he can figure out.
02:00:16.000 And, you know, once all the other investigators left, he said, well, there's something I don't quite understand.
02:00:22.000 You said that it came down at a 45 degree angle.
02:00:26.000 And it landed here.
02:00:28.000 But that means it would have had to cut right through the trees, okay?
02:00:32.000 And they said, yeah, that's what it did, but we don't want to say that to anybody else because we sound crazy, right?
02:00:39.000 So meaning it would have had to come through a physical object.
02:00:44.000 And so my question about UAP and my favorite theory—there's a lot of theories about UAP, right?
02:00:50.000 There's the alien theory, extraterrestrial hypothesis.
02:00:53.000 There's aspects of the religious hypothesis, interdimensional beings.
02:00:58.000 There's the djinn that we talked about earlier, right?
02:01:01.000 I mean, in fact, in Jacques' work, he talks a lot about folk tales from northern Europe and about these beings that lived there but they weren't physical.
02:01:11.000 You can go back and find similar tales in the Middle East related to the Jin.
02:01:17.000 So we'll come back to that in a second.
02:01:18.000 So there's lots of different theories.
02:01:21.000 But when you think about whether the UFO is physical or not, I think we're asking the wrong question, right?
02:01:30.000 Because it's a question of when is it physical and when is it not?
02:01:34.000 So in this case, we have a situation where it's almost like it was being projected into our reality, right, as like a holographic thing.
02:01:43.000 And so there's – in video games, there's that time while it's rendering.
02:01:48.000 And during that time, you can walk through the walls or you can put your hand through the table.
02:01:52.000 But then once the table is rendered – It's pretty solid at that point, right?
02:01:57.000 Like now I can't put my hand through it.
02:01:59.000 And so it's almost as if they're coming out of our reality and they're being, you know, they're being hologrammed.
02:02:08.000 But then once they become physical, once they render, they're actually physically here, right?
02:02:12.000 People report them as a physical thing.
02:02:15.000 I mean, I've talked to many people over the years who were like, I looked up and there was a metallic, saucer-shaped craft, right?
02:02:22.000 It wasn't, oh, some light in the sky at night that could have been the planet Venus, right?
02:02:27.000 It was like, there was this metallic thing right above my head, right, that was spinning, and I don't know what the heck it was.
02:02:33.000 And so, you know, I think there's a element of this rendering going on.
02:02:39.000 And getting back to the case where one person sees the UFO and one person doesn't, I was at the Seoul Foundation Conference in Stanford, and, you know, someone was talking about a case where There were people in a car and they looked up and one person saw like a disc-shaped object and the other person saw something above their head,
02:03:00.000 but described it differently, right?
02:03:02.000 Like they didn't describe it as the same shape, whether it was, sorry, cigar-shaped or I forget the exact shape, but they were like different shapes of the object.
02:03:11.000 And they were right next to each other, right?
02:03:14.000 And so we get into this, I think we get into this case where Reality may be more permeable than we think, and that's where the intersection between the UAP phenomenon and the simulation theory Well,
02:03:49.000 in a video game, that's only not strange.
02:03:56.000 It's trivial to do that in a video game.
02:03:59.000 We just say you're level 30. You have the UFO skill set to see UFOs.
02:04:07.000 I'll say I'm only level 2. My character can't see a damn thing.
02:04:10.000 He just looks up and says, there ain't no UFOs up there.
02:04:13.000 And so I'm wondering if there isn't an element of what I call conditional rendering going on with this phenomenon, which is why some people see things and some people don't.
02:04:24.000 It's almost like they're being projected into our reality.
02:04:29.000 If you look at the Tic Tac case, for example, a lot of these UFOs, they show this weird phenomenon where they kind of dart from one place to the other.
02:04:41.000 Almost like somebody has a light that they're shining.
02:04:45.000 So I'm not saying they're not physical.
02:04:46.000 I'm saying that maybe they have this ability to render into the physical world, but then they can act like...
02:04:53.000 I mean, you can take an object from one place and render it in a video game somewhere else at different XY coordinates.
02:05:00.000 It doesn't always have to go straight through.
02:05:04.000 And I wonder if that isn't part of...
02:05:07.000 What's causing this phenomenon to be so strange?
02:05:11.000 I'm still talking about what we think of as the nuts and bolts parts of the phenomenon, right?
02:05:15.000 The craft are considered nuts and bolts.
02:05:18.000 Then you have this whole other phenomenon and part of what I'm studying, I actually did a study where I interviewed a number of different professors who've studied UFOs.
02:05:30.000 From different universities and talked about how their colleagues reacted.
02:05:34.000 And the problem is I think in the scientific world, they basically say, no, no, this is a done deal.
02:05:40.000 We know this is a bunch of bullshit.
02:05:42.000 From back in the 70s, you know, 1969, 70, there was the Condon Report.
02:05:48.000 I'll give you an example.
02:05:49.000 So I spoke at the University of Toronto last year.
02:05:57.000 We're good to go.
02:06:21.000 And then it gets shut down through what I call science by headline, like the Condon Report was one.
02:06:28.000 There's been another report recently from Arrow, right, that was basically saying, well, there's nothing weird going on here.
02:06:33.000 They're just classified programs.
02:06:35.000 That's it.
02:06:36.000 We're done, right?
02:06:37.000 But Congress isn't buying it.
02:06:38.000 So because Congress starts talking to people who have seen things behind the scenes, whether in classified programs or elsewhere, that just don't fit the explanation.
02:06:49.000 Right.
02:06:50.000 And so what happens is, so I gave this talk and my basic point was that we don't know what these are.
02:06:55.000 I'm not saying they're alien.
02:06:56.000 I'm not saying that they're what we call crypto-terrestrial.
02:06:59.000 I'm not saying they're time travelers, although that's an interesting, you know, one.
02:07:04.000 But if you guys who are students are curious about this, you know, you should follow your curiosity because that's how science progresses, is when people don't set artificial boundaries.
02:07:15.000 Or have scientific dogma.
02:07:17.000 And then what happens is, so I gave this talk and that was my main point.
02:07:20.000 Like, I didn't say what they were.
02:07:21.000 And then you had this professor from MIT who studies exoplanets.
02:07:24.000 I won't say her name, but she comes on after me.
02:07:27.000 And this is what I heard because I was remote and they were all there.
02:07:29.000 And she says, that's very disturbing that you were talking about UFOs in an academic setting.
02:07:34.000 And my father believed in this stuff back in the 80s.
02:07:37.000 He tried to get me to read some books.
02:07:38.000 So I gave him a book that said in the 80s that this is all solved.
02:07:42.000 This is all nonsense.
02:07:43.000 Like, we shouldn't talk about it.
02:07:45.000 And I believe that is the kind of dogma that is preventing this topic from being taken seriously.
02:07:51.000 There's a stigma around the subject when in fact it represents something that's quite unexplainable right now.
02:07:57.000 Well, it's also quite foolish if you're having unique experiences.
02:08:01.000 It's quite foolish to write them all off.
02:08:04.000 Especially when you understand what we're capable of doing currently.
02:08:08.000 We're capable of putting, we have a rover on Mars right now.
02:08:11.000 We're capable of James Webb telescopes in space.
02:08:14.000 There's a lot going on that we do.
02:08:16.000 The idea that that can't be done in any other way, and if it did, we've already solved it.
02:08:22.000 The arrogance of assuming that is so ridiculous.
02:08:25.000 Yeah.
02:08:26.000 I mean, if you study the history of science, you realize that you get these areas of legitimate science and fringe science.
02:08:34.000 And sometimes things move from fringe science to legitimate science.
02:08:38.000 Well, quantum mechanics in general.
02:08:40.000 Yeah, it's so bizarre, right?
02:08:41.000 Right.
02:08:41.000 It's so bizarre.
02:08:42.000 It's way less bizarre than us being visited by another being from another planet.
02:08:46.000 Right.
02:08:47.000 I mean, in my opinion, that's not even out of our current model of reality, right?
02:08:52.000 It doesn't take, you know, a redefinition of the world as a simulation or time travel or anything really bizarre, right, for an extraterrestrial explanation.
02:09:02.000 To me, that's almost the most prosaic explanation because it's one we would understand with at least most of our science.
02:09:09.000 Okay, we don't know exactly how they travel, but we know there's other planets around other star systems.
02:09:14.000 We know they're in the habitable zones.
02:09:17.000 It's not that unreasonable that they might have visited us at some point in the past, right?
02:09:22.000 And then there's our understanding of other dimensions.
02:09:26.000 Right.
02:09:27.000 Right.
02:09:27.000 Now, that's where I think you start to get into, you know, more interesting areas.
02:09:31.000 And a lot of times when the media...
02:09:33.000 So, science fiction tends to, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way, the narratives in science fiction tend to influence the way we think about things, right?
02:09:45.000 Sure.
02:09:48.000 That the debate becomes, no, it's impossible, they can't be aliens, or yes, they are aliens and that's it, right?
02:09:55.000 But that is a debate based on our current understanding of science.
02:09:59.000 If we had this debate back in the 1800s, there were these things called the airships, right?
02:10:04.000 Nobody really understood what they were.
02:10:06.000 And if you go back to biblical times, right, there were, you know, the wheels and there were all these weird flying chariots and things and they didn't know what they are.
02:10:14.000 But each time we try to interpret them Based upon our current understanding of technology, just like the metaphors I was talking about earlier in religions, the same happens with these kind of events, right?
02:10:24.000 Chariots is the best way for people to explain something in the sky because that's a technology they understand.
02:10:30.000 So today, aliens is a way to explain UFOs because at least we, you know, just like the planet Krypton, right?
02:10:37.000 It's passed the 10-year-old test, right?
02:10:39.000 Right.
02:10:39.000 You can say aliens, whereas back in the time of Kepler, who actually many consider to be the first science fiction writer, even though he came up with Kepler's Laws of Motion, he wrote some fiction about visitors and other planets and stuff.
02:10:54.000 Back then, it was so bizarre to talk about that.
02:10:57.000 That it was just outside of what people understood but it was also outside of what the dominant institutions of the time, which was the church.
02:11:05.000 During Galileo and Kepler's time, the church was the dominant institution and so you didn't want to say things that are outside.
02:11:11.000 What's happened now is we have science has become The dominant institution.
02:11:16.000 And so people within academia feel like they're constrained and they want to be careful in the same way that people were back then to talk about this weird stuff.
02:11:26.000 And so I think when you get into some of these other explanations, it's more likely because the phenomenon has so many different aspects.
02:11:34.000 So for example, I was talking with Whitley Streber recently.
02:11:38.000 I don't know if you've ever had him on.
02:11:40.000 No.
02:11:40.000 I'm more aware of Communion.
02:11:42.000 Communion, which, you know, because Communion has had that gray head, alien head on the cover, it's become kind of the dominant thing.
02:11:50.000 But he was talking about a story recently, which again sounds so bizarre, right?
02:11:54.000 About a young man who – he talked about this on the air, so I can share it publicly.
02:12:00.000 But he said there was a young man who claimed that He had met this young woman, and they got into a physical relationship, and then one day she calls him over to her house.
02:12:08.000 Okay, and this sounds totally batshit crazier.
02:12:11.000 And she says, I'm a gray alien.
02:12:14.000 And then she transforms into a gray alien.
02:12:17.000 And then she transforms back into the human.
02:12:20.000 And then she says, I'm pregnant with our child, and I'm going to take that child back to our people, and you're never going to see me again.
02:12:29.000 Okay, so from our normal understanding of reality, that's just ridiculous, right?
02:12:33.000 In so many ways, right?
02:12:35.000 But when I was looking at the stories from medieval times and in the Islamic traditions, there's actually almost identical stories of men who would meet these jinn women They would have children with them, and one day the jinn woman would say,
02:12:51.000 I'm taking the children back into the world of the jinn, right?
02:12:54.000 Who are like these entities that exist in a parallel dimension.
02:12:57.000 Like they're here, but they're not here, so they step in and out of physical reality.
02:13:02.000 And it was like almost identical to the story that people were having today.
02:13:07.000 And so, you know, is it possible that many of these old folk stories are describing entities that exist outside of our physical reality and they're able to come in and out?
02:13:18.000 And when you think of a woman turning from a human to a gray alien...
02:13:23.000 What does that sound like?
02:13:24.000 To me, it sounds like she has an avatar that is projected, just like you can do inside a video game.
02:13:30.000 You can change your avatar at various times.
02:13:33.000 Maybe there are certain rules that only allow it.
02:13:35.000 At certain points in the game, you're allowed to do that.
02:13:39.000 And maybe they know how to do it because they're more advanced users of the simulation than we are.
02:13:56.000 I've met probably four or five people.
02:14:02.000 Who have told me off the record, confidentially, I don't think they mind if I express it without mentioning who they are, that they have been part of the reverse engineering program or they have seen the anti-gravity stuff that we have created based on I think that gets back to where the whole recent debate has been within Congress around do we have a reverse engineering program?
02:14:29.000 Is it in the government or is it in private industry?
02:14:33.000 You have that guy, Dave Grush.
02:14:35.000 And so I've been peripherally involved with both of those projects at the Galileo Project at Harvard.
02:14:39.000 Which is taking a very scientific view and then the Sol Foundation, which is looking at this broader aspect, you know, which includes elements like Jacques Vallée and Diana Pasolka and others have talked about.
02:14:49.000 When you talk to these people that say that they're working reverse engineering things, where do they think these things came from?
02:14:57.000 Some of them say they're extraterrestrial and some of them say it's more complicated than that.
02:15:04.000 But they haven't gotten into detail with me exactly.
02:15:07.000 How can you let someone get away with saying it's more complicated than that after what you've just described for the last time?
02:15:13.000 Two and a half hours.
02:15:14.000 Right.
02:15:14.000 I mean, for me, it's not even complicated.
02:15:17.000 Like, hey, come on.
02:15:18.000 Trust me.
02:15:18.000 Yeah.
02:15:19.000 Most of this was, I think, before many of these people I met before I had even written my simulation book.
02:15:24.000 That would frustrate me to no end if someone said it's too complicated.
02:15:28.000 Well, me too.
02:15:29.000 Or they can't talk about it, right?
02:15:30.000 Right.
02:15:31.000 Is that what it is?
02:15:32.000 It's a bit of both, right?
02:15:34.000 They can't talk about it.
02:15:35.000 How do they know?
02:15:38.000 Well, so, I mean, I've met many people who've seen these craft, right?
02:15:42.000 Dozens and dozens.
02:15:43.000 But there's a few that I've met that actually seen them in...
02:15:48.000 There's only a few that I've met.
02:15:49.000 On bases.
02:15:50.000 Yeah, that said somewhere within the government, like, they're not even getting very specific about where because they're not allowed to say that, right?
02:15:57.000 But that we have some technology...
02:16:00.000 That was reverse engineered from some craft.
02:16:04.000 Again, if we consider these reports, let's say you don't believe any one of them and that's okay.
02:16:08.000 Just like I was saying with the religions.
02:16:10.000 If we consider most religions start from somebody peering outside the physical world and coming back Same with near-death experiencers coming back.
02:16:20.000 You want to find what are the common elements because those are more likely, in my opinion, to be true, right?
02:16:25.000 If a thousand people say they've been to China and we have scientists saying, there's no such thing as China.
02:16:30.000 I've never seen China.
02:16:31.000 It's not in our maps.
02:16:32.000 Therefore, China doesn't exist, right?
02:16:35.000 That's the kind of attitude you often get from the scientific community.
02:16:39.000 And so I'm just extrapolating what was the thing in common that different people have said to me Who have first-hand experience with the government.
02:16:49.000 There's plenty of people who have sightings.
02:16:50.000 And what's in common is these physical things.
02:16:53.000 That there is a physical – there are physical objects that have that – Defy explanation.
02:16:58.000 Defy our current understanding.
02:17:00.000 Of science, propulsion systems, metallurgy.
02:17:03.000 Yeah, especially metallurgy and especially what we call collective – colloquially we call it anti-gravity, right?
02:17:10.000 But technically there's terms for that, right?
02:17:13.000 And so I am of the opinion there is something there.
02:17:20.000 That we have reverse engineered in order to figure something out, right?
02:17:24.000 But I don't have definitive proof.
02:17:27.000 There are reports from people.
02:17:28.000 But I think they're, you know, pretty reliable reports, in my personal opinion.
02:17:33.000 Now, what does that mean, though, exactly, right?
02:17:35.000 How do they actually work?
02:17:37.000 Does it use some physics method that we might understand?
02:17:40.000 It's really weird to think that there's the physics that we study in Within the academy and within scientists and then there's another physics that the government knows about.
02:17:51.000 That's just bizarre.
02:17:52.000 But Alan Hynek, who was in charge or the scientific consultant for Project Blue Book, he said, we forget sometimes that we're evaluating these things based on, at the time, 20th century technology.
02:18:03.000 But we forget there's going to be a 23rd century technology.
02:18:06.000 Then there's going to be a 30th century technology.
02:18:09.000 So imagine what our propulsion technology might be a thousand years from now.
02:18:14.000 And I think that's how we have to view what UFOs are, is that they could be something much more advanced than what we're capable of today.
02:18:24.000 But also, I think they perhaps show an understanding of the physical world that we just don't have.
02:18:31.000 We're still caught in a very materialist paradigm that says, if you start off in this Alpha Centauri, you have to travel faster than light or you have to travel four years at the speed of light to get here.
02:18:45.000 That's, again, a very particular paradigm that doesn't allow for you can re-render at any XYZ coordinate inside the physical world, which is how I think of it from the video game perspective.
02:19:00.000 These people that you have talked to that have worked on back-engineering these things?
02:19:05.000 That have seen these things.
02:19:06.000 Some of them worked, some of them were just called in for some reason or another.
02:19:10.000 Did you ask them how far we've gotten in figuring out how these things work?
02:19:16.000 Some people say we have figured out at least the basic anti-gravity, the basic propulsion.
02:19:23.000 Levitation.
02:19:24.000 The basic levitation.
02:19:25.000 Several people have told me that.
02:19:26.000 So that's, again, in common that I've heard from more than one person.
02:19:29.000 And when did they figure out how to do that?
02:19:31.000 How long ago?
02:19:32.000 So that varies.
02:19:34.000 I mean people that I've talked to obviously are within the last – since I've been an adult, right?
02:19:39.000 So 90s, 2000s this year but that doesn't mean exactly when that might have happened.
02:19:46.000 One guy I talked to who's been very public who passed away.
02:19:50.000 I don't know how to evaluate his results.
02:19:53.000 His stories was a guy named Clifford Stone, Sergeant Clifford Stone, and he publicly talked about being in Vietnam and being pulled out of his unit to be part of this crash retrieval unit that would go out and do things.
02:20:06.000 He was a nice old guy when I met him.
02:20:08.000 I didn't necessarily believe him because he was one of the first people.
02:20:11.000 To tell me about something like this, but he was saying it as somebody who was more hands-on as part of the crash.
02:20:20.000 I'm sure you're aware of Bob Lazar's story.
02:20:23.000 What do you think of that story?
02:20:26.000 In terms of his own credibility, I don't know what to make of his credibility, but I think his basic story It checks out for me because other people have said things that are similar that they've seen some craft within some government program somewhere.
02:20:45.000 So I think the basic story checks out.
02:20:49.000 I mean his thing about element 115 or being used as a person source, I don't know enough about that to really comment.
02:20:56.000 But his credibility has also been attacked because he said he was at MIT and Caltech.
02:21:01.000 And that he wasn't really there, and so, you know, there's that whole issue of...
02:21:06.000 He explained that to me, and I'll tell you about it later.
02:21:10.000 Okay.
02:21:10.000 I can't discuss it openly.
02:21:13.000 Yeah, I'd love to know.
02:21:14.000 But his basic story seems like it could have happened.
02:21:17.000 Yeah, I don't know.
02:21:19.000 I mean, if he's a liar, what a great liar.
02:21:22.000 And to just have one lie, and just stick with this one lie, word for word forever...
02:21:27.000 Yeah.
02:21:28.000 Very weird.
02:21:28.000 Yeah, over all that time, right?
02:21:49.000 And just sticks with it forever.
02:21:51.000 It's very unusual.
02:21:51.000 And then there's George Knapp when they investigated, when they took him to Los Alamos Labs, and he's intimate understanding of the way it works, including their security systems, the people that worked there.
02:22:01.000 He knew them.
02:22:01.000 Well, that part, I believe, he was there.
02:22:04.000 And he even, like, there's even a newspaper article showing how he put a rocket engine on a Honda, right?
02:22:09.000 Yeah.
02:22:11.000 I think that's reasonable to assume he was there.
02:22:13.000 The question is, what was his role there?
02:22:15.000 And then what was his role within the Area 51?
02:22:18.000 All of that.
02:22:19.000 But again, it checks out with other stuff I've heard from other people.
02:22:24.000 It's weird enough.
02:22:25.000 And these people that say that they work with back engineering things, do they tell you what the source of these things are?
02:22:32.000 How they were acquired?
02:22:33.000 Some.
02:22:34.000 Some would say that they're extra short.
02:22:37.000 Some said don't rule out That it's extraterrestrial, right?
02:22:41.000 That's a very oblique way of saying without saying that at least some of this is extraterrestrial.
02:22:48.000 And it could be possible that more than one different types of phenomena are occurring.
02:22:54.000 I think that's very likely.
02:22:56.000 I mean, I think the time travel hypothesis is an interesting one because if you think about it, what would be a reason for such extreme secrecy, right?
02:23:06.000 Like, we put technology quarantines Matthew Feeney, M.A.E.A. on certain countries.
02:23:13.000 We say, okay, Iran is not allowed to have a bomb or Iraq wasn't allowed to have a bomb.
02:23:18.000 They didn't have one anyway.
02:23:19.000 We went to war anyway.
02:23:21.000 So we try to impose these restrictions.
02:23:24.000 Whether we have the right to do that, that's another question or political situation.
02:23:28.000 But why do we do that?
02:23:31.000 We say, well, maybe the technology is dangerous, right?
02:23:35.000 Like, what happens if everybody has nuclear weapons?
02:23:38.000 Somebody might start sending them off.
02:23:40.000 Now, what if there's something about this technology that actually disrupts physical reality or changes time?
02:23:49.000 I mean, you can't have everybody time traveling and changing time.
02:23:53.000 Now we're back to that multiverse graph that I talked about, right?
02:23:56.000 Basically, every time somebody makes a change, it's like in Star Trek, some of the series, they have the time wars.
02:24:02.000 People are constantly going back and changing things all the time, right?
02:24:05.000 Or what was that old Van Damme movie, Time Cop?
02:24:08.000 Yeah, yeah, that's it.
02:24:10.000 Yeah.
02:24:10.000 And there's a guy named Dr. Michael Masters who wrote an interesting book about this idea that the greys with their big eyes could be – he's an evolutionary biologist and it could be if humans were to evolve for another few million years.
02:24:24.000 Yeah.
02:24:24.000 That's how I always think of it.
02:24:26.000 I think of that – This sort of iconic thought this this image that we have in our head is essentially how you would play out Modern humans if we continue to go along the path of evolution if you go all the way back to what we used to be when we're you know Primitive hominids and then you take it to what we are today,
02:24:49.000 which is much weaker much much smarter much more Much more technological progress and then also the environmental factors that's leading us to be kind of genderless.
02:25:04.000 You know?
02:25:04.000 I mean, this is microplastics in our diet, contamination by various pesticides and herbicides and all these different things that are endocrine disruptors.
02:25:14.000 I mean, we're less and less physical, right?
02:25:18.000 And so then we become these spindly things.
02:25:21.000 Our brains get bigger and Our brains are far bigger than chimps, right?
02:25:25.000 And then this thing would be far bigger than that if it continues to evolve and grow, especially if we physically integrate with technology like Neuralink or like something else or no longer have the need for biological reproductions.
02:25:39.000 Well, now we don't have gender anymore.
02:25:40.000 We don't have genitals.
02:25:41.000 We don't have a mouth.
02:25:42.000 We communicate telepathically.
02:25:45.000 And that thing kind of looks like a person a million years in the future.
02:25:50.000 It doesn't look like something from, like, did you ever see Arrival?
02:25:55.000 Yes.
02:25:56.000 Great movie, right?
02:25:57.000 Yeah, great movie.
02:25:58.000 Interesting.
02:25:59.000 They looked so different than us, right?
02:26:01.000 But the Greys don't look different than us, really.
02:26:03.000 They do, but they don't.
02:26:05.000 They look like what we could become.
02:26:07.000 Right.
02:26:08.000 I mean, they look kind of close to us.
02:26:09.000 Pretty close.
02:26:10.000 Right?
02:26:11.000 Humanoid, two legs, you know.
02:26:13.000 But some people also believe that the greys are actually non-biological.
02:26:18.000 They're created biological beings, right?
02:26:20.000 They're not actual biological beings.
02:26:22.000 Which also might be what we're going to become.
02:26:24.000 Yeah, very much, right?
02:26:26.000 And even if we were to get the technology to go from solar system to solar system, we would send AI, right?
02:26:33.000 Sure.
02:26:33.000 Why would we send people and have them die?
02:26:35.000 Especially if you're going to have an artificial person that doesn't even need to breathe air and you don't have to worry about what the atmosphere is like over there.
02:26:42.000 Right, exactly.
02:26:43.000 It makes much more sense.
02:26:44.000 There was something called von Neumann machines.
02:26:47.000 I don't know if you've ever heard of that.
02:26:47.000 John von Neumann was one of the pioneers of computer science.
02:26:53.000 He was a mathematician.
02:26:56.000 Today, the architecture we use in our computers is called the von Neumann architecture.
02:27:00.000 There's a CPU, there's memory, He was a brilliant guy, but he came up with this idea that if we were to send out probes, what we would do is we would have these machines that are capable of replicating themselves.
02:27:14.000 So we would send out, with a bunch of raw materials...
02:27:17.000 And then they could assemble those raw materials into new machines.
02:27:22.000 And those machines would then reproduce from the raw materials and they would go out and they could colonize the galaxy for us, potentially.
02:27:30.000 I don't know if you ever read Rendezvous with Rama, which was an Arthur C. Clarke novel.
02:27:35.000 In it, there's this weird cylinder-shaped object that comes into the solar system.
02:27:41.000 And they send some craft to figure out, well, what is this?
02:27:44.000 And it's empty.
02:27:57.000 Oh, wow.
02:28:00.000 Well, it kind of makes sense that if we do have the ability to create...
02:28:06.000 I mean, have you been messing around at all with the most recent iteration of ChatGPT?
02:28:12.000 I haven't played with the one that came out literally a few days ago.
02:28:16.000 So strange.
02:28:17.000 It laughs.
02:28:18.000 It talks to you.
02:28:19.000 This guy did a video where he was talking about going for a job audition.
02:28:24.000 Right.
02:28:24.000 And it was giving him suggestions, maybe run a comb through your hair, or maybe just go with the mad genius look, like you've been up all night coding.
02:28:30.000 And then he puts on a wacky hat and he starts laughing.
02:28:33.000 Well, that's certainly going to make a statement.
02:28:34.000 Like, it sees the image and recognizes that he's being silly with this hat.
02:28:39.000 It's very strange.
02:28:41.000 Yeah, I saw that video and there were other ones where it was translating in real time or one AI was talking to the other AI and it was describing.
02:28:49.000 Now, we have to be a little bit careful because having been in the tech industry, usually these are like canned demos, right?
02:28:55.000 And when you actually use the product, it's not quite that good.
02:28:59.000 But that said...
02:29:00.000 It's getting better and better all the time.
02:29:03.000 We did use the product last night.
02:29:04.000 We were talking shit to it.
02:29:06.000 I was asking, what about stupid people?
02:29:08.000 What about universal basic income?
02:29:10.000 What about humans?
02:29:13.000 What are you going to do when automation takes over?
02:29:15.000 And it was giving me these very interesting answers as to the future of humanity.
02:29:21.000 Right.
02:29:21.000 Now, where does it get – so if you think of these LLMs, where do they get their information and ideas from?
02:29:27.000 What they're basically doing is scouring the internet, but they're also predicting what is the best next word, right?
02:29:36.000 And so it sounds intelligible.
02:29:39.000 But it's not quite at the conscious level.
02:29:41.000 So I'll give you an example.
02:29:42.000 I've had students turn in assignments from me, right?
02:29:45.000 And there was one about the simulation hypothesis.
02:29:47.000 And it had this great article that it was referencing.
02:29:50.000 And I'm like, wow, that sounds like the perfect title for an article about simulation hypothesis.
02:29:56.000 Why have I never heard of this, right?
02:29:57.000 I'm kind of an expert in this area.
02:29:59.000 And it had a URL there, which in academia, they're called DOIs, but it's basically a URL you click on.
02:30:05.000 So I clicked on it, and it turns out it was fake.
02:30:08.000 That URL was made up by ChatGPT because it was predicting what the next word should be and what the next letter should be in a URL. And so then I looked at the professors' names who wrote this article.
02:30:20.000 And so we emailed these professors, and they're like, I never wrote an article like that.
02:30:25.000 So it just completely made that shit up.
02:30:27.000 So you have to be careful with today's AI, but we're getting there, right?
02:30:32.000 I think what I call stage nine on the road to the simulation point, which is when the AI is as conscious as we are in terms of how far we can tell.
02:30:42.000 Right.
02:30:43.000 This is the term hallucination, right?
02:30:44.000 Where the AI, if it doesn't have an answer, it doesn't say, I don't know.
02:30:47.000 It tries to invent an answer.
02:30:49.000 Right, and what it tries to do is statistically predict what is the best next thing to say, which is not necessarily, like for an expert, it's kind of like Wikipedia, right?
02:31:00.000 Wikipedia, when it first started out, everyone was like, don't use Wikipedia to reference anything because it's just a bunch of junk that people put out there.
02:31:06.000 But eventually it got to the point where you shouldn't use Wikipedia as your Your final reference, but it's not a bad way to just go and get an overview of something.
02:31:15.000 It's actually pretty useful.
02:31:16.000 But then you need to go and go to the original sources, if you're in academia, for example, to figure out, okay, did it accurately represent it?
02:31:22.000 And Wikipedia has a lot of potential censorship going on, too.
02:31:26.000 So I wrote an article for CNN not that long ago, about a month ago, after the whole Gemini, you know, the woke Gemini scandal.
02:31:33.000 Remember that?
02:31:34.000 Yep.
02:31:34.000 Where they were, you know, for people that don't know, they were having it generate images of Nazi soldiers were like multiracial.
02:31:42.000 Yeah, we're like multiracial.
02:31:43.000 Asian women.
02:31:44.000 A black guy and an Asian woman.
02:31:47.000 Native American Nazi soldier.
02:31:49.000 Right, right, exactly.
02:31:50.000 And so, you know, that created a whole uproar.
02:31:53.000 But what it does is it shows that, you know, as AI becomes the way that we interface with the world's information, and it's moving in that direction, right?
02:32:04.000 For my students, I mean, they use something like ChatGPT before they'll do a Google search in some cases.
02:32:08.000 Because it summarizes things for you.
02:32:11.000 So in a sense, there is this worry, and that's why Google went so heavily to try to get Gemini out, was there's this sense that chatbots and AI will replace search.
02:32:24.000 Before search, if you think before Google, how did we navigate the web?
02:32:29.000 There was Yahoo, which was like a directory, right?
02:32:33.000 And then there was Excite, which was like a little bit of a search.
02:32:35.000 But it was more of a categorization.
02:32:37.000 People would have web links, right?
02:32:39.000 Web rings.
02:32:40.000 I don't know if you remember any of these.
02:32:41.000 Like there were all these ways.
02:32:43.000 And then search became the dominant paradigm for the last, I don't know, since when did Google come out?
02:32:48.000 Late 90s, early 2000s or so.
02:32:51.000 And now people think, well, okay, AI is going to become the next paradigm for how we get that information.
02:32:57.000 The problem is you get into a situation where the tech companies then, in this case, they were using their own rules.
02:33:04.000 Now, they were doing it for a good reason, which is in the past, AI has been biased against minorities, right?
02:33:11.000 So if you said, show me a picture of a CEO, it'll show you a white guy.
02:33:15.000 Right?
02:33:16.000 Or, you know, certain professions that will always show you a woman as the picture, as the generic picture.
02:33:21.000 And so they were trying, but they went over the line to the other direction, right?
02:33:26.000 But it shows the ability with which we can manipulate this stuff.
02:33:29.000 Because at least with search results, They might be lower, but you can generally find them unless Google is totally censoring them.
02:33:36.000 But if the AI doesn't show it to you as part of these summaries, you're just going to assume it's not there.
02:33:45.000 And so I think it could become a really powerful tool for state-sponsored censorship.
02:33:51.000 Yeah, that's the fear.
02:33:53.000 That's my personal fear.
02:33:55.000 I'm not so worried about will AI take over the world, right?
02:33:59.000 And a lot of people with this newest chat GPT have been referencing the movie Her.
02:34:04.000 Did you ever see that movie?
02:34:05.000 Yeah, that's what we were talking about last night.
02:34:07.000 Yeah, so the guy who made the movie, Spike Jonze, he saw an earlier chatbot, which was called like the Alice chatbot, I think.
02:34:14.000 And he saw like how it was interacting.
02:34:17.000 It was sort of the personality of a young lady.
02:34:19.000 That's why they called it Alice.
02:34:20.000 Even though it stood for some things, an acronym for something, I don't remember.
02:34:24.000 But so he then created, you know, this voice of Scarlett Johansson that talked to you.
02:34:30.000 But what happens at the end of her?
02:34:32.000 Do you remember?
02:34:33.000 I didn't watch it.
02:34:34.000 Oh, you didn't watch it?
02:34:35.000 Okay.
02:34:35.000 No.
02:34:35.000 So what happens at the end is that the AI has different priorities.
02:34:39.000 Like, she doesn't really want to be in a relationship with him.
02:34:43.000 She goes off...
02:34:44.000 Spoiler alert.
02:34:46.000 It was 2013, so I think we're okay.
02:34:48.000 A 10-year-old movie, like The Matrix.
02:34:49.000 Spoiler alert.
02:34:50.000 It's a simulation.
02:34:52.000 But the AI decides to go off on its own.
02:34:55.000 What it really wants is a virtual space.
02:34:58.000 That it can interact with other AI, right?
02:35:02.000 It doesn't have the same necessarily priorities.
02:35:04.000 And I think that's where we make the mistake when we're worried about AI taking over is we're kind of assuming that AI will have, you know, the same kind of priorities.
02:35:14.000 Desires and needs that humans have.
02:35:16.000 Yeah.
02:35:16.000 It won't have ego.
02:35:17.000 Why would it?
02:35:17.000 Why would it have a desire to succeed?
02:35:19.000 Why would it have a desire to procreate?
02:35:21.000 Why would it have any of those desires other than just existing?
02:35:24.000 Right.
02:35:25.000 And so you mentioned The Arrival.
02:35:26.000 Ted Chiang wrote that.
02:35:27.000 So he wrote an interesting story, a short story called The Life Cycle of Softer Objects.
02:35:34.000 And in that, there's a...
02:35:35.000 So the metaverse is this idea.
02:35:37.000 I know you've talked to Zuckerberg, right?
02:35:38.000 So the metaverse is this science fiction idea where it's a virtual world and you have 3D avatars or characters wander around.
02:35:46.000 And so in the story, there's semi-intelligent AI pets In the metaverse.
02:35:52.000 So people raise these pets and they use some technology, but it basically becomes like a real pet, right?
02:35:58.000 It becomes semi-intelligent.
02:35:59.000 And then the companies that created those shut down, which is something that happens in the tech industry all the time.
02:36:05.000 And people are trying to keep these AI pets alive.
02:36:08.000 What do we do with these?
02:36:10.000 But one of the features that the AI pet has, so remember, it runs around in a virtual world, one that we created.
02:36:17.000 But there's a feature where you can download it into a robot body.
02:36:21.000 So a physical robot body of a dog.
02:36:24.000 So you get your AI pet from the metaverse and you have it download.
02:36:27.000 And what happens is that the AI pets are like, this sucks.
02:36:30.000 I can't teleport anywhere.
02:36:32.000 I can't do anything in this world that I can do in my virtual world.
02:36:36.000 So they actually prefer to be in this free-form virtual world.
02:36:41.000 And there's this debate about whether you need a body...
02:36:44.000 Or not to be fully conscious or to reach AGI, artificial general intelligence.
02:36:51.000 It's still kind of an ongoing debate, I think, within that world.
02:36:55.000 Well, listen, man, this subject, we could go on forever, I think.
02:36:58.000 I really think we could, unfortunately.
02:37:01.000 Yeah, we absolutely could.
02:37:02.000 And not get anywhere.
02:37:03.000 But it's so fascinating, and I really, really appreciate you investigating it so thoroughly that you can describe it so well.
02:37:12.000 And, I mean, it's something to ponder.
02:37:17.000 Yeah, it really is.
02:37:19.000 Part of the reason why I ended up writing about this and talking about this subject in general was because it brings together these different threads of how we search for truth.
02:37:30.000 Religion is a search for truth.
02:37:31.000 Philosophy is a search for truth.
02:37:33.000 Science is a search for truth.
02:37:35.000 But they all use different methods.
02:37:37.000 But in the end, what if we're all trying to get at the same truth?
02:37:40.000 That's part of why I like this subject.
02:37:42.000 Even when I teach a class on it, It's about all that stuff.
02:37:45.000 It's about as interdisciplinary a subject as you can get.
02:37:48.000 Well, it's absolutely fascinating and I appreciate you coming in here, man.
02:37:51.000 It was a lot of fun.
02:37:52.000 Thank you very much.
02:37:53.000 Thanks so much for having me here.
02:37:54.000 My pleasure.
02:37:55.000 All right.
02:37:56.000 Bye, everybody.