Chris Langan: IQ, Free Will, Psychedelics, CTMU, & God

Chris Langan is an autodidact who's known for having the highest recorded IQ in America and he's conceived of an extremely inventive Theory of Everything called the cognitive theoretic model of the universe or the ctmu for short this introduction will be fairly lengthy so feel free to skip to the timestamp here if you're uninterested and want to get straight to the podcast my name is Kurt jongle and I'm a filmmaker with a Background in math and physics who is investigating the topic of theories of everything as usual this isn't meant as an introduction to the guests

but rather where one goes after they've done some research in fact the first hour can be rather technical most interviews with Chris are somewhat superficial and talk about his days as a bouncer his experiences what it's like to have a high IQ but we're interested in the topic of theories of everything and You're not afraid to get your hands dirty I don't often like to give my opinion on the variegated theories that exist but in Chris's case I have to say that if I was to say that I'm impressed that would be an extreme understatement

his theory is unfairly criticized by critics who have read his theory for approximately a day at most and who point to its supposed incoherence but I found that critics tend to do this with virtually every Theory that's self- Proposed like Eric weinsteins or Steven wols though from my investigation of these these theories are far from erroneous casuistry it just takes plenty of difficult work to understand it's far from nonsense and the easiest way to tell is to ask the critic can you explain their Theory back to them in a manner that they would agree another

way to think of this is that one Field's technical achievement is word Salah to someone who's outside that field what we Have in the case of Weinstein Wolfram and Chris Langan is that in their own way they're inventing their own field thus it's understandable that it's difficult to penetrate because it doesn't have a team of people over the course of years decocting the essence but difficult to penetrate is not a synonym for this work is gibberish I highly recommend you check out ctmu radio.com and cmu.sio Often illuminate what was previously obscured now a word on

myself preparing ing for this particular podcast took weeks and weeks usually I'm able to prep for multiple guests simultaneously but this one was so involved that it consumed me and took a physical toll I went through virtually each one of Chris's papers and even spoke to someone who's conversant in the ctmu just so that I can make sure I'm understanding these Concepts correctly that person's Name is Sam Thompson and he's a brilliant mathematically gifted humble Soul who I dedicate this entire episode to since he put up with my naive pestering questions on a daily basis

in fact it got to the point where I had to ask him if I could add him on WhatsApp because texting takes far too long and it's much easier for me to send voice notes so almost every hour I would send him a voice note and then he would send me back and then I would ask him Follow-up questions thank you Sam thank you because of this physical toll like I mentioned the pressure of releasing another podcast soon with the same quality as this one and the same quality as the others is a bit too

much for me and I'm going to have to take a couple weeks off soon I'll be interviewed by zg the simulation podcast Coast to Coast a.m. and I'll be on someone else's podcast whose name is a fairly large name but I can't announce right now like I mentioned those aren't my podcasts I'll be interviewed instead so I'll post the links to those on Twitter as they occur as well as perhaps put them on the iTunes Spotify audio version if you're interested if you'd like to hear more conversations like these then please do consider going to

patreon.com slkt jongo it may sound silly but literally every dollar helps and this is now thankfully what I get to do full-time it's absolutely encouraging to see that People care and often the notes that I get when people donate are of the form this is so that you don't have to worry so much about finances and you could spend time with your wife thank you so much I've recently opened up a crypto address and PayPal is also an option the plan is to have more conversations like this of the same quality approximately once per for

week at least at some point toward the end of the year I also plan on interviewing some of the audience Members who have sent me their well articulated PDFs people such as Steve agnu Tyler Goldstein Steve Scully and Jennifer sharf links to their remarkable work are in the description again I feel a bit icky saying this as I'm not a self-promoter but I've been told by some people who have donated that I need to be saying this a bit more as they wouldn't have donated if they didn't hear it to begin with please please do

consider donating or supporting it in Any way that you can at patreon.com/crashcourse of the podcast from its early days the second sponsor is brilliant brilliant illuminates the soul of math science and engineering through bite-sized Interactive Learning experiences Brilliance courses explore the laws that shape our world elevating Math and Science from something to be feared to a delightful experience of guided Discovery more on them later thank you And enjoy one of the longest most in-depth interviews with one of the brightest people on the planet Chris Langan if I look down or look angry that's my thinking

face you're familiar with that but if I look down I'm making notes so please don't think I'm not paying attention I have you my have a resting face right apparently I do people told me that I just look angry all the time well well it's it's those eyebrows you're You're a good-look guy but you know oh that means a lot thank you I tend to get that compliment primarily from guys okay how long does it take the average person to get through your theory such that they can grock it it's intuitive to them uh well

you know I really can't say that's their subjective criteria would determine the answer to that I don't have access to anybody else's mind uh if it were me I I think I would catch on Fairly quickly um but some people I don't know you know I have a couple of groups and we occasionally hold conferences and they get to ask questions and I think that I bring a lot of them up to speed on the theory fairly quickly the ones who have read the theory there are people that read the 2002 paper for example many

of them and they're they're quite expert on it and they've done a lot of thinking about it and they know what it's about um other People they'll read a couple of paragraphs and oh you know I I hate this and then they sto and then they go online and do some trolling or whatever and uh that's the end of that why don't you give an overview of your theory for those who are uninitiated a broad Strokes view well the ctmu is a theory of everything there are two kinds of Theory of Everything one of them

is a physical Theory usually it's related to a unified Field theory in some way which means the forces of nature is supposed to be unified into one General Force um but of course that's only part of reality my theory is a theory of everything in the metaphysical sense it actually has to conform to certain logical criteria which in philosophy and metaphysics govern what a what a Theory of Everything has to be so I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself about itself it Is a language a language is an algebraic

structure this is a particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself and to make decisions regarding how it models itself which is another way to say how it evolves right and it's uh it can be modeled in in many ways you can actually look at it as an operator algebra a as a quantization a new kind of quantization of reality or oper reality self- simulation You can look at it from from the perspective of quantum mechanics as quantum metame mechanics I believe you must have read that paper or you mentioned having

read anyway uh and uh once again as a metaph formal system which is like a formal system but it's a generalization of the formal system that that that goes deeply into the nature of language and what it takes to here's another way to describe the ctm basically you've got a system you've Got this metaphor system and it relates intelligence and intelligibility reality has to be on ontology and epistemology are coupled in this the so reality reality actually has to recognize itself and process itself it has to do both so that's that's what it does it

relates intelligibility and intelligence which are dual quantities in the ctmu thusly defining both of them in the recursive sense it's a mutual recursive definition of those two terms Within this ctmu structure so uh I know can even be regarded as a theory of Consciousness for example it says what Consciousness is because the way it quantizes real so is that enough yeah let's start from what's most fundamental and then how you work your way up from there to derive your theory okay the theory is developed by a means called logical induction you start with uh you've

heard of Uh darts you know Kum right Kum which is I think therefore I am and you heard of Berkeley's uh uh SC pppi okay which is basically to be is to be perceived or to perceive right you start with perception and cognition then you develop the minimal model of how cognition and perception work then you induce an overall system that works by those processes okay and that's the way you Get to the ctmu it's called logical induction been using that terminology for years it's Superior to empirical induction by the way most scientists use empirical

induction which means that they just kind of guesstimate inductively guess what the proper theory is and sort of AIX that you know sort of glue it on to the observations that they make that's how science usually works this logical induction thing is a more Precise process more General process let's get into some of the more technical questions and for those who are listening as a first pass you don't have to understand all of the terminology it's much better I think wheeler said this or vigner I'm not sure which one he said that people are trying

to drink from the fire holes but the point is to just get wet and then another another quote that I like is from noyman Von noyman who Said you're not supposed to understand math you get used to it so that's in a similar vein don't worry if you don't understand all the terms or Follow The Logical steps in the first pass of this podcast it's more about rewatching and then recontextualizing for me one of the greatest Pleasures in life is being is that feeling after you're so confused and then all of a sudden you start

to glean what you're supposed to and different connections are made and You comprehend and you push through that confusion okay so push through the confusion eventually some parts of it at least will make sense is there a duality between syntax and semantics yes sorry is The Duality between syntax and semantics a generalization of stone Duality yes well all these dualities are related you know there there there are all kinds of dualities out there you Know where Duality the the the idea of Duality originally comes from right two points deter a line two lines determine a

point where the lines intersect you've got a point you know whereas if you draw two points put two points on a piece of paper you can draw a line between that's a duality basically you permute your uh your terms uh and you still have an invariant truth what the original form of the relation remains true so that's that's what a duality is anytime you can Do that anytime there is an invariant and you can switch things around within that invariant and the invariant stays true that's a duality there are many kinds of duality in the

CT so how are syntax and semantics related well syntax is intrinsic if you take a look at a language that that are those are the absolute invariant that every every intelligible statement is made for all right you know about grammar and non-terminals and how Non-terminals are substituted cumulatively until they result in terminal Expressions right that's uh that's basically what it is if human cognitive syntax is syntactically covered by reality syntax how can one meaningfully describe reality as humans well as a language when you talk about syntax and semantics you are talking about a language and

as I say syntax is the intrinsic structure of the language whereas semantics is that Involves things like definitions and interpretations you have to Define terms all the terms syntactic terms are supposed to be primitive terminals are cognitively primitive whereas when you get into semantics now you're combining those Primitives to get defined terms to get definitions then you're combining those in certain ways and then once you form your expression now you have to interpret it or form a model of it in some other structure that you've got Right and so it's a it's a big process

language is as I say the most General algebraic structure there is and to see that any other algebraic structure you can name is a language when you write it down you are writing it down in the form of language so automatically you know language is the most General algebra excript right I heard you say that many people think that mathematics is extremely precise has High Fidelity it's Unequivocal whereas language natural language is considered to be indistinct opag dubious volutin at the edges so how that's just that most people use it sloppily that's all in reality

it is not there's nothing dubious about every mathematical language every mathematical theory is by definition language so you have to decide how precise you want to be how precisely you want to formulate things and then you Make your judgment about you know what's what's loosen and and what's tight is there a relationship between the inner expansive domain where syntactic operators are entangled and mutually absorbing and so this inner expansion and love is there a relationship between those two yes there is there's at least an analogy between the two because when when uh when things combine

in the non-terminal domain via inner expansion When they overly each other that they are more or less merging their identities and that's what love is love is also a combination a merger of identities that enhances the self-actualization or self-expression of the combined entity in other words it's synergistic the it's more than the sum of these parts now of course you know that that that the merging the syntactic merging that occurs due to Inner expansion that Has to be actualized and that actualization is semantical the first is a syntactic process the second is a semantic process

and that's what causes what you as a physicist would call Quantum wave function collapse or measurement of that's why is there no such thing as a literal interpretation is it because you mentioned before we move between models and to look at the symbols one must Apply an interpretation on it and so to say literal interpretation is like saying uninterpreted interpretation and so it's oxymoronic uh the meaning is very simple and that is that if I hand you a book written and say Sanskrit unless you understand understand Sanskrit all you're going to see is little geometric

shapes on the page and it is going to have no meaning whatsoever to extract any meaning whatsoever from those Symbols you first have to know the alphabet the signature of the language then you've got to know the the grammar and the syntax of the language and then you've got to actually put things together you know put all the terms and the Expressions together and then you've got to interpret those or model those in some framework that allows you to actually make sense of them right all of those steps are necessary these are absolutely necessary steps

of language And as a matter of fact in the way we deal with reality you can look at reality external reality as a language you're looking at it all of those steps yeah they they all have to be solved for they all have to be deciphered before you can actually make sense of your environment as a preface to this I thought it would be instructive to go through some of the sentences that are seemingly inscrutable to the person to someone at the at first glance there There are then we break it down term by term

so that someone they can read this Sanskrit essentially not understand it and then all of a sudden be able to so let's take one of them standard physics is largely confined to the linear ectomorphic semi model which is retroscope so firstly what is retrosic that means that means Looking Backward that means you're seeing the past you're looking at it in the past rather than in the in what of course You're you're actually the what your reading operation is performed in the present but what you're looking at is in the past takes time to get from

there to your eyes Okay and the so the speed of light dictates that it has to be in the pet the referent of the expression have to be has to be in the past so that's what retroscope means okay what's a semi model uh the ctmu consists of two semi models because it consists of two semi languages those semi- languages have to Be coupled with each other or transformed into each other and so there are two semi models one in each Direction there's the advanced semi model that goes backward in time and the the basically

from future to past and then there's the semi model which goes from past to Future Okay and linear why do you say that standard physics is linear with respect to being a semi model because because particles and objects follow Linear trajectories and of course there are a number of other reasons that they're linear as well those are algebraic Reasons I'm sure you're familiar with most of those but basically when I use that terminology I'm referring to the fact that things follow line through space and what does ectomorphic mean ectomorphic means basically when something is moving

it is projected to a point outside of itself that's the Ecto that's the outside so in Other words when a particle is moving it's moving from here to there and the there is outside of the here right whereas if if the if the there was inside the here then it would be endomorphic right right special kind of of end orphism called a distributed endomorphism in the ctm okay now how does this ectomorph relate to your issues with xenos Paradox or with his motion as standardly defined well it relates to the fact that the real Manifold

as we understand it is really kind of a paradoxical construct okay you can't really where is if you take two adjacent points obviously something has to move you realize that a manifold consists of limit points or zero points or Cuts dant cuts and they have zero extent now no matter how many times you add zero what are you going to get as a sum zero so how does a manifold have any Extent if it consists of Zero Dimensional points when you add all those points up it's nothing but zero itself so you start with nothing

and you get nothing okay so it's a paradoxical construct right you've actually got to construct a manifold in a different way so that things actually so that no point leaves its predecessor so there's no jump that it has to make through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another that's basically what I mean That okay telic recursion I imagine is the process by which a point makes some Evolution uh yes yes but it's a feed it's a feedback between past and future you've heard all about you've heard all about you know retrocausation

is a very big term in physics to you've already mentioned it right but this idea of there was somebody named Costa De borgard who came up with these zigzags you know which are basically you know there's there if let's just try to Simplify here if you have a trajectory through SpaceTime it's going from the past to the Future right but it's a correspondence and correspondence is symmetrics so there's got to be some kind of a of a symmetry thing going on between the cause and the effect where a certain particle is at one minute and

where it is at a later time there's got to be some kind of symmetry there not just a temporal symmetry but a caal symmetry as well and so that's what We're talking about cons spansive manifold is a term that'll likely come up plenty so we should Define that cons spensive manifold is a manifold that is self-dual in the sense that it is both it has both distributed endomorphic and ectomorphic linear ectomorphic aspects simple as that and those two things are are are absolutely dual totally equivalent if you can explain something adequately in in in in

the Linear world in the ectomorphic world of of physics for example automatically it is guaranteed to have a duel in the distributed endomorphic uh semi model I'm going to call it a semi model here that's a bit of a liberty because I'm using the term now in a different sense than I used it before but uh you know I have only so much terminology to go around so I'm going to reuse it okay we have this telic recursive process which is associated with meta time and meta Time as far as I understand from your theory

has a preferred Arrow whereas our time doesn't but our experience is of unidirectionality so what I'm wondering is is there a way to take the preferred Arrow from this meta space and pull it back or push forward to our experience yes and basically meta time and and time are orthogonal the reason they have to be orthogonal is because meta time distri attributes programming Over time you can think it as being like program okay it's actually grammar I call it scpl grammar but it's actually like Distributing programmer over over an entire timeline okay so they have

to be orthogonal for that reason but you can actually restrict meta time so that it lies along the timeline right in other words you people tend to talk you know about time is is a before and after thing it involves prepositions meta time always termin Ates at An Origin okay and that origin is not temporal in nature right it has to contain both past and future meta simultaneously right I don't know if you're familiar with that do you mean when you say meta things are simultaneous things are meta simultaneity it's just you know simultaneity with

a meta in front of it but but basically things are simultaneous when you look at them and They're both in space and you're looking at them at the same time Meta simultan Meta simultaneity means that they're not only you can not only see them at the same time in space you can also see them at the same time in time in other words you can consider a past event and a future event to be simultaneous even though they're separated by a time one this is something that you have to do to use the concept of

metaton because things that if you write a computer Program you schedule events in the program you see schedule one event has to happen here then there's a sequence of other events and then finally there's going to be event B it's going that Happ right but when you've got that program in front of you both of those events are present programmed at the same in the same time and you're looking at it simultaneously okay that's meta simultaneity you see they're separated in time when they're act when the Program is run okay those two events are at

different times but when you're looking at the program itself they're they're virtually simultaneous or meta simultaneous what's the assertion that what generates our experience or generates our world this terminal world is this meta time world this non-terminal world right where there's meta simultaneousness right right yeah that's the well that's basically it yes the the universe is closed right there's Nothing outside of reality that is real enough to be you know real enough to affect it if it's real enough to affect reality it's got to be real and it's got to be inside reality all right

so that's closure all right so everything has to be closed everything has to be formulated in a respect in a in a reflexive way in ctmu set theory there's descriptive inclusion and I'm wondering if there's an analog of the AXA Foundation which States that elements of a non-empty set must be subsets thereof so is there an analog of the axom of foundation in the set theory that CMU has sure well actually when you're dealing with set theory you're dealing with something called topological inclusion topological space is a point set it's a set of points that

relate to each other in certain areas uh whereas uh when you're looking at there is a duel to that and it's because sets have Intentions right there's usually if you take any given set and you say Okay consider the set of all red appli red apples is your intention it's actually a property and you just choose Elements which instantiate that property okay the intention requires you can't talk about topological inclusion with respect to the intention you've instead got to talk about descriptive inclusion in other words you've got to talk about more specific properties that are

included in The main overall intention of the set so you've got two kinds of inclusion topological inclusion which applies to sets and you've got descriptive inclusion which applies to property in set theory the way that we understand it as mathematicians would be axiomatic and yours how would you describe it if not axiomatic it's not Based On A first order language well first of all it's not just a set theory right it's not Even just category Theory it's it's both it's it the the metaphor system is a foundational language it it's presented as a foundational language

for mathematics physics The Sciences pretty much everything okay set theory can't pull that off and neither can category Theory but on the other hand if you once you've defined the metaphor system you get to make use of both of those other languages as you see fit you can pull anything out of them you want right the Important thing is that you have the metaphor system which is the the very outside item potent metal language that spans between these two so-called fundamental languages set theory and category Theory and of course they they say there's already a

blend between set theory and category Theory called topos Theory but that too leaves something to be desired there's a lot of missing structure there it doesn't qualify as a foundation language so how does your Metaphor system defer like what is it describe it simply for people who are unacquainted sure the metap formal system is simply a language that that is quantized not in terms of signs but in terms of synta syntact and identification events right syntor is an active sign it's something that actually has two data types a syntactic data type and an input data

type it can accept things from the external World process them internally which gives it an Internal State and then you know release its processing back into the real world's output okay that's a syntor it's fundamentally different from a sign usually when a person looks at a sign or a word or something like that they do all the processing inside their head they and they forget the fact that wait a minute you know this processing whatever it is it requires me I'm actually having to do this mathematicians don't usually reason that Way okay if you're a

mathematician you you you you kind of forget about yourself and you look at things as though they're totally objective that is not how reality is quantized in the ctmu it has both a subjective and objective aspect that's what syntact and tors or syntactic identification operators intellic identif identification operators are in the ctmq and we would be an example of a teller yes and what are some other examples I Heard God or God is the ultimate teller then we're almost Global operator desri and then fundamental Fons let's say are a tertiary level so is that correct

okay and explain tertiary syntactics so explain that that there are three levels of syntactic operators or tellers okay so why first of all why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means again once more to be a syntactic operator they're just scale there scales of coherence in in Causation in structure and causation just basically you've got to you have the universe the universe is closed it is one un entity that's your primary Quantum okay but now everything it's got to be self-composed because there's nothing external of which it can be

composed it has to use itself as its primary comp as its secondary and tertiary components so it has to map itself internally by descriptive endomorphism or or de endomorphism to Tertiary syntact and then those tertiary syntact can can agglomerate can come together in organisms which then nucleate secondary Quant or tellers which are necessary to complete causation ex ordinary Quantum particles don't have what it what it takes to actually decide on events and emerge in events that takes tesis you've got to have this this other kind of of quantum of causation this secondary Quantum of causation

called Telesis and that means That Tes Telesis is bound that's the monic substrate of the universe it must be bound by these things called tors we are ters we actually bind Telesis in this way so that causation can be completed so that events can actually occur all of this nonsense about well Quantum Randomness and Quantum indeterminacy if something is totally random and it deterministic there is no reason for it to occur and it won't occur all right it's not just the Principle of insufficient reason that I'm talking about here I'm talking about something has to

be distinguished from its logical complement right and that basically that that act of Distinction it takes a certain amount of information to complete that so we are the ones who provide that information either directly or indirectly what is meant when you say that tell us is bound that we bind it well basically we're we're quantifying it we're logically binding it using uh Using something analogous to to quantify as in predicate logic so that events occur in other words we're binding it into events we're taking something that is basically cons spansive that is self- potentializing it

consists of potentials and actualities and actually giving those potentials and actualities something to connect them they we actually selecting many possible futures or from many possible Futures which is a potential we're then selecting specific Events that combine that are related in tons which are these quantitive causation I'm talking secondary Quant intell recursion one of the ways I've heard it explained is that for an evolution of the system it looks back at all possible at all the states that it previously has in its memory to make a decision about the future and it makes a decision

about the future based on a generalized utility function when we are exercising Free Will first of all does Free Will exist we can talk about that okay secondly let's assume Free Will exists because you're it exists yes right how when we're operating with our Free Will how are we looking back at all the decisions so for example right now if I make a decision I don't have Perfect Memory but at the same time int recursion it seems like all of the states are being considered so am I only conscious of a few but unconscious you're

locked into Terminal Consciousness now you have a form of Consciousness that is appropriate to life in the terminal domain okay what I'm talking about telec recursion occurs in the non-terminal domain it involves a different form of Consciousness and in the conspan of manifold it it it it's its own memory it consists of layer upon layer upon layer of events that never disappear and never go away they're right there nothing you don't even have to reach into storage And pull this information out it's right there all right that's one of the advantages of having a manifold

structured in the way that ctmu is structured everything is right there as it is needed and of course tons are adaptive okay Tel recursion is adaptive when things happen that are not necessarily in accord with a certain telon the telon adapts to the new set of resources at its disposal and comes together again approaching the same Final outcome does one have to be adaptive if one is let's say incoherent which I heard you equate evil to is that a possibility I didn't I didn't equate evil to incoherence I said evil is incoherent okay so okay

basically it's incoherent because evil is antiexistence all right basically it wants it it hates existence and it wants to go out of existence right but when you put when you take a bunch of evil and and it Won't recognize its own existence and it won't recognize the existence of anything else it's very hard to coordinate it can't be coordinated so it becomes incoherent the only way that evil actually achieves any sort of uh reality is it uses physical systems to do it the nucleates physical systems and uses their structure their power structures their hierarchies in

order to be realized but it has no coherence of its Own it's anti- coherent in the ctmu there's this hierarchy of meta languages and what I'm wondering is is it possible for two sublanguages to be incomparable under ordering in other words can languages be arranged in a in a partially ordered set totally incomparable no that's a violation of CIS in the ctmu there's a universal relational structure called synesis it means that syntax something CTIC is Being distributed over different relat or Reland right things that are related okay and the syntax distributes over them and makes

them comparable makes them things are never totally incomparable never totally out of order I mean things can be partially ordered you know there's a there's a there's a lattice structure called a partial order you know where things are actually moving it can't necessarily be related to each other with any definite form of Simultaneity right but uh that's basically what I mean okay so this gets into separate objects which you would argue doesn't exist so let's say we have an apple then we have a cup they're in your terms dionic reins but then by the fact

that I can point them out I'm using a cognitive structure and that cognitive structure distributes over both of them which relates them and so by even by pointing out that there are two separate objects I'm also pointing out how these Objects are the same so by pointing out difference I'm pointing out sameness is that correct you don't have to point anything out basically you're just Distributing your awareness over both your awareness being the focus of your awareness is a logical property which you are Distributing over both of those objects that's Sy a conscious Universe has

to have that it's the only possible relational structure it can have okay so we have This cons spansive manifold and it has an intrinsic background or I assume that's related to what physicists may call Background fre it is its own background that's closure it's autic closure all operation all real operations real relevant valid operations basically start with reality and end with reality it's complete closure nothing unreal ever really comes into for obvious reasons this background free place does it consist of Non-terminal symbols it consists of Telesis it it consists of Telesis the whole idea here

is we need a a theory of multi-aspect monism the monism refers to one underlying substance it's actually a meta substance because it's both self- attributive and self-composed okay it it does all of that stuff for itself it makes attributions to itself and it is composed of itself in this monic structure how does One get differentiation from monism from Unity that's what tesus does tesus differentiates itself synthonic all right there are utility deficits you you have secondary tors utility deficits arise you know what utility is it's value okay things that okay when you don't have any

food now you have a severe utility deficit because you place value on food there's a hole in your value structure that's a utility deficit you automatically react To that by forming a telon designed to remove that deficit can the ctmu explain leptogenesis excuse me can the ctmu explain leptogenesis so leptogenesis yeah you got me on that one there's a disparity between matter and antimatter and one of the propositions is there's something called leptogenesis which accounts for this asymmetry right yeah uh can can ctm well let's Just put it this way if it cannot be explained

within the ctmu then it cannot be explained the ctmu is called a toe for a reason okay it's comprehensive all right so if this distinction is valid and it is because we know that both matter and antimatter exist then it has to be explicable in the ctmu would you consider the ctmu to be more of a definition than a theory it's both a definition and a theory okay it's the self-de of reality Reality must Define itself okay but it does that in the form of a language the metaphor language we were speaking about earlier and

it takes the form of a theory okay in other words every theor every Theory you know technically it's not just a theory it's a theoretical language that's what a that's what a logician or or model theorist would call it it's a kind of language so it has that structure getting back to this Background independent place there's a question here about if this coincides with Einstein and mock Einstein and moach had this idea of sorry I'm sure you've heard of Mock's principle yes okay what does the ctmu have to say about Mock's principle and is it

related to this intrinsic background all right maybe I better ask what your formulation of MOX princip sure sure sure it's strange that we can feel Rotation when we do so and it seems as if it's related by the distribution of matter far away like there's an actual background so now if there's an intrinsic background in the ctmu does that serve as some basis for Mock's principle yes well the you're actually coupled with your background that's one thing that you see in the theory of relativity basically the medium is given some kind of separate structure separate

From the content of the medium but you actually have to couple those two things relatively would make no sense at all if you didn't so you know as far as being able inertia and being able to feel and you're talking about angular momentum and and you know inertia uh basically those two things are a function of that coupling the way you are the way you are coupled to your environment like I said this is how the ctm quantizes things in these uses these dual couplings to do That and of but that's all intrinsic I mean

keep in mind that's all intrinsic there's nothing external to the universe so if you're going to talk about the universe rotating in some external medium that's not valid okay the rotation for all rotation is intrinsic and the way it can be intrinsic is because you're formulating it as a coupling of it and its content and you're actually making you're actually introducing some kind of angular Momentum between them that's intrinsic and of course as you know the theory of relativity is is our major intrinsic Theory of physics right it's intrinsic based on intrinsic geometry and so

forth I also heard you talk about the fact that the universe is expanding is it's a strange concept because what is it expanding into however I think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding it's more about the metric is changing so now Let's imagine that that's what the statement is the metric is changing so what's the problem with that statement and why does it need the CT muu to solve it because it's cons spanding it's basically the when you say the metric is changing you mean that the scale of the

whole and its parts are changing with respect to each other they're they're changing contravariantly as the universe gets bigger the the parts the the little uh particles and Objects embedded in it get smaller relative to the universe this you know everything is relative right and the size of objects is defined relative to the size of the universe and vice versa so you've got this relativistic relationship between the whole and its parts and this contravariance is called cons spansion I'm not understanding how the ctmu solves like firstly I'm not sure what the problem is so explain

to me Once more what is the problem with saying that the metric is expanding I understand that there's a problem with saying that the universe is expanding because it implies that it's embedded in something higher the metric isn't expanding the metric is the metric is actually Contracting you're getting you know you know what co-moving coordinates are basically you start out if the as the universe expands co-moving coordinates actually Cove with the Universe itself right that in that sense the metric is expanding with co-moving coordinates but our metric is Contracting relative to the size of the

versus Po so you got to make this distinction our metric meaning as tellers as syntactic operators me means it means the metric that we is the scale of distance that we use in the everyday World okay that exists between us and the objects that surise you understand right that comes From Arthur Edington you know he talked about a cosmic Observer you know things getting smaller and smaller faster and faster from the point of view of this Cosmic Observer that's what it is you know I got to give credit to Arthur Edington for that he got

to it before I did with this Cosmic Observer thing they had you know who Edington was right he original tested Einstein's G relativity right you know I'm going to be jumping around quite a bit now that we're on the Topic of how you thought of your theory and how you came up with it quite some time ago I'm curious what does the process of coming up with the ctmu look like practically speaking do you have a whiteboard do you just sit alone with a pipe do you bounce it off your wife do you go for

walks how are you coming up with the theory just sort of comes to you sometimes you know you start thinking okay I'm very good at recognizing Paradoxes and inconsistencies it's just a little thing that I'm good at and I noticed a lot of paradoxes and inconsistencies from an early age onward in the way people explain things right I i' ask them for explanations they wouldn't be able to explain things to my satisfaction and I i' you know ask myself why why doesn't this appear to make sense and I would find out there were certain things

that didn't make sense then armed with those Paradoxes I would work on resolving them and from those resolutions came the ctmu let's give an example of a paradox that's been resolved by the ctmu so newcom's Paradox is one do you mind explaining the Paradox of newom and then also Your solution to it well so that's kind of a long Paradox but basically it's you've got this uh this predictor who has never been wrong before and he's got this game that he plays where he show where he shows you a box with uh With ,000 in

it and tells you that you can take either you know one of these boxes the opaque box so you can take both boxes but if you do not take this transparent box with $1,000 in it I've put a million dollar I already know what you're going to do i' put a million dollars in the OPEC box right but if you try to take both boxes and make that extra, that you can see right in front of your face here if you've done that I've left this opaque box empty so You're going to get scuffed you're

going to get your you know you're going to get your thousand bucks and you know you're going to have a nice dinner someplace and then that's going to be it for you all right that's nukem's Paradox okay but unfortunately the the the subject the one who is he's running this game on okay has two strategies that he has to that from which he has to choose one of them is of course that well this predictor has you Know never been wrong you know and and so therefore you know I'd better do that the other one

says well wait a minute nobody can actually predict the future this is some kind of Lucky run that this guy is at and uh you know I have nothing to lose because that money that he says he's he's he's acting as though he's going to he's predicted whatever that money is already in that box one or another because I'm looking at it he can't tamper with that box at all it's Already there so I've got nothing to lose by taking both boxes so instead of just winning a million dollars if that's what he put in

that box I'm going to win you know one point you know million plus 1,00 right one point you know 001 million and so that's enough you know the $1,000 has enough value that he's going to take that instead he's going to enrich himself more and thusly increase his utility and of course increasing your utility is the is the the whole Ron Detro of Economics right an economic theory that's what you're always supposed to do increase your utility so this is It's considered an important Paradox because of its applicability to to economics and causation in general

is it possible to predict the future well nukem's demon which is what I call him is analogous to the programmer of a simulation he's already run this simulation in which you think you have free will but he basically knows what You're Free Will is in advance right so he has you know that is what has allowed him to do this with the boxes okay so that's the Paradox now how does the solution resolution come in the resolution is nobody ever placed it in a simulation before I was the only person to ever place it in

a simulation back in 1989 by saying okay well basically now we have to use the idea that reality may be a simulation and that nukem's demon is somehow a programmer of this Simulation this was the first application of the simulation hypothesis everybody talks about it now but you'll never see my name mentioned in connection with it but I was the first person to apply it at least as far as I know there could have been somebody else that did so but I've actually looked and I can't find anything there as far as I you were

the first pH self simulation well that too absolutely self- simulation appears you know that That terminology appears in in a paper I wrote 20 years ago so yeah that basically I'm Mr simulation okay unfortunately nobody ever comes to me they always ask Elon Musk why the hell they ask Elon Musk but I don't know you know okay Mr Moneybags Elon Musk and then there there's another fellow named Nick Boston I guess is it Oxford or someplace he's got something called the simulation argument which you know is basically a Little bit extraneous than simulation hypothesis is

How likely the simulation hypothesis is to be true on the basis of how Humanity has evolved how how certain how how should we say these the species that is simulating reality for Humanity has evolved do they have the technology to do it don't they have the technology to do it that's what Boston now how does posing new comes Paradox in a frame of simulation help It it basically tells you that you you might be in a simulation so you better take a very close look at what nukem's demon has actually succeeded in doing it's got

a long arbitrarily long sequence of sequence of correct predictions you'd better give the demon its due and you'd better take just the opaque box that's the only way you're getting your mil does that mean that the person being simulated doesn't have free Will no it does not why would it just because the demon knows what he's going to choose that somehow deprives of Free Will well see this is this is the problem that I had to solve by integrating this into the ctmu okay you actually have a pre geometric or non-terminal domain in which nukem's

demon actually exists and in which he actually makes his predictions you see so that's that's what it amounts to you see how does Being in the non-terminal domain and being able to discern what's this person's decision is going to be not violate Free Will for that person for that person from their perspective are you saying they have free will but from another perspective they don't have free will or no matter what they have free will from both Vantage points well you have free will period to the extent that the Universe has free will as I

said the universe is Self-composed all right you are a component of the universe therefore you have inherited Free Will from the universe itself so you know everything even a Quantum particle to some extent has free will or Freedom has degrees of freedom right it's not totally determined now as far as whether from God's point of view however God knows let's just put it this way let's forget about n Nukem stean for a second to talked about God okay God can see Reality as a whole you know what Einstein's block universe is right God sees the

universe not as a block he sees the universe Through The Eyes of its secondary tellings okay that's how he's seeing that's how he's looking and seeing the universe through our eyes where God's sensor controls right which puts a whole different complexion on he waits for us to make up our minds before he knows what he's seeing in other words what we see is what we've decided on Okay so God is automatically allowing for our decisions automatically making room for we see what we decide can you explain everything we decide you know when we decide to

uh commit an event or commit an act okay automatically we know we can see ourselves committing the ACT that's that's what I mean that doesn't mean that we determine everything that's going on around us right but God sees That too through our so it doesn't mean that we can see whatever we like that for ex like if I wished that there was no wall here then I would see no wall does that mean that or are there limitations on my perception well of course there are okay there is a state of affairs an external State

of Affairs that has been created by other tors it's not entirely up to you okay so you are constrained in what you can see by the state of the external World when one does psychedelics are they operating now in this geometric pre- info cognition plane well what the psychedelics do is they introduce a gap between the terminal and non-terminal Realms and kind of uh allow you to see things that aren't really in the terminal realm and that's what those hallucinations are okay you still got one foot in the terminal realm but the Psychedelic is kind

of you know opened up a gap there And you're sort of in that Gap so you're there is a certain there are degrees of freedom in which you can actually uh perceive or should I say hallucinate you see you have things that you think are perceptions that seem like perceptions but actually there's this this Gap that has opened up and and you're inhabiting that Gap and that's why that's what the psychedelics are doing you know they're they've been finding out that there you know basically all chemistry Is quantum and they know for example that quantum

mechanics is involved in how opiates and morphine heroin things like that affect psychology this is basically what we're what we're talking about psychedelics are doing a little bit of the same thing when one says hallucinations usually they mean we're seeing apparitions that aren't actually there that's not real now I know that you have a qualm with saying that anything is not real well What we well it it is it's mentally real I mean what I'm saying is reality is a coupling of mind and and and physical reality with non-terminal and non-terminal non-terminal and terminal reality

so therefore there is such a thing as subjective existence syntax exists for example any combination of syntax you can put it together however you want to and that has mental existence is it realized in the terminal realm not Necessarily you know find me a unicorn there are un and/ Nery relations they have two levels CTIC and defic do you mind explaining that well all relations are synic right when when you see two different things or even when you see yourself right you're Distributing your own cognition over yourself therefore you've got that cesis dianis you've got

you've got basically a property and something instantiating a Property that's what that means you mentioned that there are three ways in which the Sy fic relationship is selfdual there are three ways now does it have to be three ways does it just happen to be that there are three ways or is that necessary component for them to exist somehow I'm talking about General symmetries of of the cionic relationship you know what I mean Kowski diagram he around it's got a space axis horizontal space axis and then temporal Axes that that that are orthogonal to it

that go up you know into the future and past uh and just imagine that you could rotate manowski space right well you can rotate a synip onic relation in the same way right and and because the time axis is ordinal whereas the the the space axis is all about arity or the number of things that you're seeing in parallel out in the real world you're actually making Transformations between Ordinality and erity in in the relation and there are other kinds of Duality as well I could probably find more than three if I look very so

CTIC is ordinal dionic is arity no the the thing the line meta time axis that relates one to the other okay that's or okay because you've got levels you got you know the property level and then you've got the instance level you also mentioned that they're dual because they have an active and a passive Interpretation so what do you mean by that an active and passive interpretation okay well well well we recognize things but have you ever heard of John Wheeler's Observer participation thesis no okay John Wheeler had this idea called The Observer participation thesis

that when we see a Quantum event when we look at a far away star and a photon from that star hits our eye we are somehow participating in that event okay so that's what we're talking Basically you cannot just watch something without actively participating okay you're actually agreeing to it in some way you're actually actively putting yourself by perceiving it you are contributing your perception to it and because of the nature of tesis it's impossible for you to stop yourself from becoming actively entangled with it okay you can't just passively perceive things okay those things

also have you you and the thing That you're observing both have an impact on each other that's the way it has to work because all of these you've got this causal symmetry in the ctmu and in other theories as well how would that work on a more mundane level where there's a wall let's say whether I look at the wall or not does that have any bearing to the wall does it exist or not exist when I look does it erode more when I look for example yes you are participating in the Existence of the

wall right can the wall not self- perceive can it not perceive itself the the tertiary contactors in the wall can and do receive each other in a limited way yes but in terms of the in terms of the secondary utility of the wall you know what it's actually doing you know in the world you're participating in that as a matter of fact you know human constructed walls wouldn't exist unless they were they were useful to Tor like You right you can't you can't look at anything without participating in its existence okay that's what a measurement

event is when you when you measure the spin of a particle up or down you are participating in that determination okay that measurement is yours you're the one who set up the measurement device you're asking a yes or no question and your question is being answered you impose the question on reality and reality is answering the question for you so There's this active passive symmetry in everything let's get to one more of these abstr sentences the maximal generality in bracket universality comprehensiveness Criterion of a reality theoretic Identity or ontologically necessary and sufficient Theory of Everything

means that a fully General formal structure must be selected as the skeletal identity of a toll framework okay so let's break down some of these terms term by Term maximal generality comprehensive okay reality theoretic identity that mean when you know identity is that's something as which that thing exists okay basically that's its identity you exist as a secondary tellor that's part of your identity any property that you can assign to yourself that's part of your identity fully General formal structure is that related to the metap formal Structure you mentioned earlier uh yes sometimes I use

formal for metap formal because the metap formal system is you know intrinsically a metap formal system but by virtue of it description but I have to write that description down in a formal way okay it's SC ought to be written on a piece of paper and you kind of add the metap formality to it with your own by understanding what it's saying but it's Written down on a sheet of paper and that makes it formal okay it's a form as opposed to the content of the form all right and then skeletal identity skeletal mean yeah

skeletal means that it's it's just a set of invariants in which you know without interfering with those invariant a lot there's a lot of variability reality can vary it can change it can adapt okay without disturbing its essential invariance so those essential invariant Are skeletal reality you flush it out must a Theory of Everything explain mental activity yes exent to a certain extent it's not going to determine mental activity okay there is no such thing as a deterministic theory of reality right but you know it has to explain the wherewithal of metal activity I'm trying

to find out what ingredients see some people have Different definitions of theories of everything you mentioned this before a grand unified one which is more of a physics term for gravity and so on or or one that explains Consciousness or one that explains the explanations themselves The Theory of Everything has to explain all of those things everything it's to be taken literally anybody who doesn't take it literally is making a mistake do you have any thoughts as to The biological origins of life sure life originated biologically but it also originated metaphysically okay it comes from

the origin it's part of the structure of the universe it was inevitable to say that well there there could have been a universe with no life where life just never got started and never formed that's hogwash okay there is no basically no reason for such a universe to exist even for itself right it's it's that is that's an Absurdity it's a little bit like the the anthropic principle but there's got to be it's the anthropic principle with utility right part of the reason the universe exists is because there are secondary tors that derive utility from

it otherwise what is its reason to exist the universe just simply exists and it has baked within it some T some purpose and one of those purposes is to observe itself through secondary tellers that's its structure in order to Exist the universe must have certain aspects of structure one of it must be completely self-explanatory and self-justified all right because it's closed it has to provide all of these things for itself all right and if it can't provide those things for itself then its structure is inadequate to support exist and it will not exist why is

that inconsistent with the anthropic principle why can't it just be that There are multiple universes and we can call that all the collection of universes one meta universe or one large universe and call that the true Universe let's say well that's what the ctmu does the ctmu incorporates something called a syntactic metaverse but in terms of how do all those universes that you're talking you're talking about putting them all together and collecting them into a set how do they come into existence why it's the reason you need To justify it otherwise it it's pointless to

to uh hypothecate their existence what are your thoughts on many worlds generally you know many worlds is is basically a you know if it if it can exist it does exist but it's got things the matter of it it's it's Everett's theory of course his idea was well this the the uh uh scer equation is deterministic you know and uh and uh everything that you know all of those Possibilities that exist in the in in that equation should continue to exist without Quantum collapse and so he converted Quantum collapse events into a Divergence of universes

in order for this to work you need certain you need to have certain things certain assumptions have to be in place for example you need a fixed array in order to parameterize all the events and identify all your particles and events in the universe so that you know just Exactly how the eventualities are splitting okay uh it turns out that that these these assumptions are not autologic viable so although Everett had Everett was correct in that there is a metaverse he sort of mischaracterized it it's not you know Infinity upon Infinity of pointless universes that

are pointlessly diverging in every tiny little Quantum event that's ridiculous okay but the idea of a of a metaverse of this this Earth universe that exists prior to in some sense the reality that we inhabit that's a valid idea so he sort of you know he he sort of hit the nail on the head and then he kind of went off on a tangent in order to make his theory work you know in order to get his interpretation of you know all of these you know to interpret the the Multiverse of the metaverse as being

this collection this vast collection of pointlessly diverging universes Because we have telic recursion the way that I understand that is that at each cons spansion point in the manifold over time somehow the points are evolving and including their neighbors and I recall you saying at the speed of light forget about at the speed of light because that can take us down another route regardless there the speed of cons the rate of cons spansion is usually the way I refer Okay cool so they're absorbing and then that translates to a positive Cosmological constant because the universe

seems as if it's Contracting from one point of view or expanding from another okay do you happen to have a prediction for I know that your theory says there should be a positive cosmological constant does it have a calculation as to what range it should look like yes I've made calculations I'm not going to announce them here I I'll publish them first and then we can talk About them you're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics Consciousness and the ostensible connection between the two what's required to follow some of these arguments is facility

with mathematics as well as discernment of the underlying physical laws and you may think that this is beyond you but that's false brilliant provides pcid explanations of abstruse phenomenons such as Quantum Computing general relativity and even group Theory when you hear that the standard model is based on U1 cross su2 cross su3 that's group theory for example now this isn't just for Neo fites either for example I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in these lessons to vastly Aid my penetration into these subjects for example

electricity and magnetism sign up today at brilliant.org to that is to OE for Free you'll also get 20% off the annual premium subscription try four of the lessons at least don't stop before four and I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you comprehend subjects you previously had trouble grocking links are in the description okay let's get to some philosophy all right what's meant by existence is everywhere the choice to exist well that's that active passive Duality that we were talking about Before okay you you in in the ctmu tors are basically

secondary Quantum and they've got to nucleate physical bodies all right so they actually have to actively participate in their own birth do they do so of some Proto will or is it happenstance that they inherit the will of the universe the will of the universe is to exist therefore these therefore you know any part of the universe in the non-terminal domain you've got things Everywhere that are seeking to exist you know the the terminal domain provides them with resources that they can use to actualize themselves and this is what happens and you mean that they

want to exist at the dionic level at this terminal level or you mean to say that they want to exist at all because to me as I hear that when someone says this entity wants to exist it implies it already exists you need a physic in order to truly exist in the sense that Most people mean you actually need this this form content feedback okay so in order to fully exist things do require some kind of a terminal body where people get confused is they think that their terminal body can only be of a certain

kind in a certain world all right that's not necessarily true there can be many different kinds of terminal realization all right for example there can be an afterlife a heaven or a hell for example in which you can exist and Have another kind of terminal body which was generated just for that world or just for that heaven or hell you see it doesn't necessarily have to be right here one way or another you need those resources in order to fully instantiate Your Existence otherwise your existence never achieves full resolution it is never fully actualized the

universe wants to actualize itself everywhere it can that's why we have this profusion of life right that's why we have all these Different species all these different organisms Telesis wants to actualize itself it wants to exist and this world provides it with the resources to do so so is it akin to God wanting to exist God wanting there to be more God the reason why I say yes that's exactly right that's that's why that's why I say you know reality is closed it has to be totally self-justified right existence is the will to exist all

right and you've also heard me Possibly use a term called triality right as the identity of reality This Global operator descriptor is not only an object and a relationship it's also a process or an operator right in other words you can imagine that the universe is not just an object it's an event it's a creation event that's what the universe it's a self-creation event or self-identification event you see and everywhere in the Universe these self-creation or self identification events are seeking to occur they're trying to occur particles are you know are being created and annihilated

everywhere in the universe all right because they're inheriting this will to exist from the universe itself and this is a Criterion of existence without it existence is impossible right you can't just exist for a second and there not be an operation that that that maintains Your Existence that because that second is meaningless okay it there's it's got to be a permanent existence it's got to be in some sense atemporal or Eternal that's what God is in C basically God is being equated to Ultimate Reality so God is eternal in this sense and to get Vicken

steinan when you say Eternal do you mean infinite temporal length or timelessness basically we're not talking about we're talking about atemporality Which is timelessness is in put okay in other words it's prior to time it's pretemporal in a way okay it just exists as a canus exists as as an Impulse as an imperative but it is not fully actualized without existence and all it goes into it and there these existential criteria are what most physicists and other people leave out of their understanding of reality but these criteria are logically necessary and They do in fact

before we get further some people may be turned off by the use of the word God so I'd like you to Define how you use it because you have a well it comports with the general definition of God but it's more specific well I've done everybody the favor of of making an acronym out of it Global operator descriptor the identity of reality or Ultimate Reality okay as far as personifying it is concerned anthropomorphizing it or Whatever you want to call it um that follows from the properties of the god of the global operator descriptor we

find out that it has certain properties ordinarily attributed to God by people who have religious beliefs usually monotheistic beliefs that's the correct way to look at so that's what that's what I mean when I say God I'm not saying well you I'm not you know necessarily the Christian God the Muslim God the Jewish god whatever Kind of God right I mean the global operator descriptor and it does have sentience it it is all of the criteria that go into the basic religious definition of God creating the universe all the rest of that stuff these are

actually can actually be validly interpreted in the ctm the ctmu models those properties therefore God exists now these ter tellers come into existence because of their will to exist at least from my understanding but at The same time at the secondary the universe's will to exist at our level it seems like not everyone has a will to exist which you also mentioned is equivalent to evil or at least cognate with it is it possible for a particle to have an anti- will to exist most people who commit commit suicide basically have no will to exist

they're not antiexistence okay so suicide is not necessarily evil in the Sense of uh of a mass murderer who tries to destroy civilization in the human species they're not quite the same thing can a particle commit suicide in a sense can a particle have a suicide particle does not have sufficient self-modeling capacity to make that decision for itself that's why we require secondary tells they have the self-modeling the advanced self-modeling capacity to be able to make decisions of that complexity and only they can do it It's why they're necessary it's why we have to be

Quant coherent Quant in this universe can you talk about what good is defined as and what evil is defined as well basically good is what reality as a whole wants teleology the will of God people have many terms for it okay and evil is its opposite the negation of it simple is that and good wants good wants self-actualization and self-identification that is what the universe is doing it is one huge massive Self-identification event everything in it all of the events are self-identification events that go into its self-actualization what's meant by self-actualization that's a term that

some new AG people use let's delineate it well okay well as physicists would call it a Quantum wave function collapse okay the quantum wave function you know something is according to the the SC your equation you've got a Quantum wave function it's expands you know it's it's radiating out into space and then suddenly poof it collapses that's inner expansion and collapse okay that's a cons spansive meta event all right this is what the universe is made out of in the ctmu you're no longer just looking at particles you're looking at more advanced kinds of qu

that are much much easier to tie together in the con exp I tend to get bogged down in words so I'm going to press you sometimes and It may seem unduly personnic but when you say self-actualize isn't it is it not the case that there's only self-actualization not just actualization because the universe is itself that's correct that is correct everything is self actualization of the universe if not necessarily of you can you explain your thoughts on this on the human Singularity versus the theological sorry versus is the technological singularity The tech Singularity right well the

human singular it's all about how uh it's all about human Destiny and how responsibility for human Destiny is distributed all right if there's a Tex singular if there's a human Singularity we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and where it's going and how to realize it all right that distributes the the whole thing over Humanity as a whole and no one gets left out if we have a text Singularity everything will be controlled by the people who who own the technology those are Mega corporations okay run by people who are not

typically very nice or public spirited people they're highly acquisitive okay they they they tend to be narcissistic Naki aelian sadistic sometimes basically these are not all good people I are exceptions there's some people you know that that that have a lot of money or are in charge of Various kinds ofch technological Enterprise that aren't totally bad people but when you put too many of them together they start getting the idea that they're Elite and they should be in charge and they start deciding that people are useless eaters there are too many of them and for

the good of the planet and really because they're a nuisance we have to get rid of them right the this kind of talk has been going on for centuries all right people Are a lot of people aren't aware of it but the elite tend to form these gations when left to their own devices okay so if there is a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology that technology will be used against the human species it's almost certain and that is called a parasitic Divergence where they become a parasitic subspecies of the human race

and the rest of us become their Hosts now the human Singularity it's one that you advocate for something that we should have instead of the technological singularity what is the human Singularity well it's been it's been laid out by others for for instance Tad shardan you're probably familiar with him he was a he was a Jesuit priest who came up with this idea of the Omega Point okay we're approaching this quickening of Consciousness where we're going to realize what we are who we are Our relationship with God in reality and fulfill our destiny and this

is going to be this huge worldwide Global event and it's going to save us and allow us to pass through the great filter and realize our destiny that's what it is he used that term great filter or did you just come up with that great filter no great filter is a term that's been around for a while it's basically every species you know as it develops technology and starts killing itself With pollution and overpopulation all the rest of it every species comes to a point where it it either has to grow up and live sanely

and and uh and sustainably in its environment or it dies part of the technological singularity one of the reasons why people are venerating it is because there's the potential for Minds to be uploaded into classical really really and whose theory is that right right this is what I want to this is what I Want to ask you about there is no Theory it has why do you laugh why is it absurd and let's imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to but some other maybe quantum computer why is that outrageous because

that's not the way reality is structure okay reality exists it exists on other terms entirely you're not going to build a machine it is not mechanical it is it is metame mechanical or protome mechanical you might be able To call it that but you're not going to be able to use a universal touring machine or for that matter a Quantum touring machine to simulated it can't be done all right it does not satisfy the requirements for existence there is no Theory there is no theory of transhumanism how this whole thing is going to occur all

right unless you can point me to a theory now if you can do that I'll change my mind I'm an open-minded person I don't think there Is such a theory you just mentioned mechanical um is this because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telic causation or is this unrelated to that I have causation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is mechanical causation is incoherent you have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be bolted together in the right way the Machine Works perform a function the way it's supposed

to but they don't work Coherently in the sense of quantum me mechanics Tel recursion is coherent in the sense of quantum mechanics all right so it's you know everything is superposed on each other all of the possibilities interfere Within These Quant of causation called Telos which are just configurations of tors like you do you have any thoughts as to entanglement speed so what I mean mean by that is some theories predict that There's a maximum speed of entanglement right now as far as we can tell there's no speed to it it's just instantaneous I'm curious

if in your models it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere simultaneously or if there is also a speed associated with it well you're just talking about some kind of terminal lag in reality entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain where things are meta simultaneous it is not appropriate To try to schedule them the same way things are scheduled in the terminal domain but there could be a little bit of a lag where yes there is some measurable amount of time that it takes for things to become entangled once their wave functions hit

each other that is a calculation I have not yet performed how does one solve the Liar's Paradox in your model the EP amenities Paradox the one that says this sentence is False right well you simply exclude that kind of sentence from reality you say or that is a pathological construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain unless you can find me an instantiation and I don't think you can because it's paradoxical so it's akin to naive set theories move to zfc where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements of them set of

all sets that aren't elements of themselves it's akin to that you just negate it you say That's not a possibility it is a possibility you just can't involve the negation part you can't involve the self- ne ation product you can have sets that are self- inclusive we've got self-inclusion all over the place fractal geometry there are all kinds of things Consciousness itself all kinds of things that that are self- inclusive but you can't allow this misuse of the of the negation functor okay you can't allow that to intrude on Them and render them paradoxical that's

what I'm saying is there a realm say the pre- info cognitive realm this primordial place unbounded to's place where as far as I understand Paradox ring it's fine it's just in our experience our world of the terminal right right it can exist it can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form which is sufficiently well formed that you can apprehend it or think you apprehend it but in reality it Is incapable of instantiation you can formulate it right and then you can you can Envision it in the non-terminal realm you cannot however achieve an instantiation an actualization

of it because it violates the terms of existence in the terminal realm physical existence right what happens after death so there's a couple ways to interpret that what I mean is what let's let's talk about what is death what does it mean to die that's The that's the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this present time when you when you are retracted from this reality okay you you you go you you go back up toward the origin of reality you can be provided with a substitute body another terminal

another kind of terminal body that allows you to keep on existing with the same memories is what religions excuse me with a modom of your Memories before or a complete eraser uh you can have the these memories can be ret nothing goes out of existence in the conspan of manifold your memories can always be pulled back out if that's but there's no reason to do that usually okay why cling to memories of a world in which you are no longer instantiated so there are certain automatic psychological things that happen on death at the moment of

death and also You mentioned you mentioned what happens after death that's not quite appropriate of course because that's a temporal preposition and when you're extracted from the terminal domain you're no longer Tim likee now you're basically medit see everything changes however you exist that way right now arguably all of your lifetimes if you were to be reincarnated again and again and again all of those Reincarnations are meta simultaneous there is a sense in which they all occur at once in the non-terminal so when people talk about heaven which I know you have your own views

a specific differentiated view I haven't heard before as to what heaven is and even hell when people talk about heaven usually what they mean is something like uh reinstantiate of this body with probably a better hairline than I have Andine man is you should see Bernardo castr who I should put you in touch with have you heard of Bernardo castr I've heard of Bernardo yeah as a fact I think I think he was on email distribution I was saw think one of Jack SAR Fat's email distributions so who's that Jack who Jack sarfatti yeah Jack

Jack sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics uhuh you related to UFOs does he study UFOs yeah as a matter of fact I think he's working on right now he's Working on meta materials that uh that will uh allow us to build spacecraft that emulate Tic Tacs one of those tictacs that the we're gonna talk about that man I mean yeah he's a gono physicist right but he's been around since the you know 1960s and and he and there a bunch of other guys you know like sag and Nick Herbert and uh and

uh Fred Allen wolf and other people like this who uh David there's a guy named David Kaiser I think He's in MIT he wrote a book called How the hippies saved physics and these were the guys these were you know non locality and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes came from these guys but in reality they had a lot of very productive thoughts and in a way the world we're living in now is an outgrowth of some of what they were thinking and doing in those days some of these guys are still around

I mean not just Jack zaretti but you've Also got other guys like you know I know Nick Herbert is still there you know and I know that that wolf is still there sag is still there these guys are on email distributions that that uh that you know Jack sometimes puts me on one of his distributions I want to talk to Jack at some point I heard that I should talk to Jack what I've been exploring recently is the topic of UFOs because like you know this podcast is about theoretical physics Consciousness Free Will and God

And it's it seems like UFOs from our observations of them break the laws of physics as we know so a simple one is angular sorry a simple one is conservation of momentum how can you move back and forth if you're we have to assume a certain mass is associated with the craft well yes and of course Mass amounts to inertia and that's a violation of inertia you can't just suddenly turn on The right so that's what I've been exploring unless unless you're dealing with a projection right right right that's also called spoofing I believe have

you heard that term yeah I have heard the ter the term spoofing but you need a a better theater of reality in order to explain what this kind of projection would be okay while we're here man let's talk about this what are your thoughts on UFOs in general as well as the recent disclosure movements is There anything about about UFOs that you find convincing that they are in fact maybe us from the future maybe associated with God or demons or Angels or just an advanced civilization visiting us in the same way that we House people

at zoos I mean animals there could be any or all of those things there could be different kinds that some kinds that come from the future sometime some kinds that come from another planet elsewhere in the Universe right um but they definitely you've got too much reportage on them there are too many people people who are coming up with heartfelt stories about them they're they can't possibly all be fake right people aren't Liars if someone's going to risk his reputation and be called a nut by coming out and saying I saw a UFO you have

to take that person a little bit seriously sure there are scammers out there and people who are going to lie about it but I don't Think we could have this much uh reportage without actually having something to it right so I think a lot of people are telling truth about UFOs that means they have to be explained and there are a number of possible explanations corresponding to different kinds of UFO you mentioned the word woo about five minutes ago what I'm wondering is did you used to have a conception of what you thought was woo

so for example Telekinesis or psychic phenomenon maybe when you were in your teens that now because of your development of the ctmu you no longer regard it as incoherent mysticism well I mean I have had a number of paranormal experiences um and began having them at a rather young age and that's one of the reasons I had to develop the CTN to develop an extended picture of reality that would actually accommodate alternate states of being Alternate states of mind and so that is uh rather than dismissing the experiences that I had in the past I've

actually become more comfortable with it what are some of these paranormal experiences well you know psychokinesis telepathy lots of precognition in my case um out of body experiences you know There's Pro I don't know I I don't I don't know the single kind of paranormal event that I haven't spontaneously experienced at one point or another have you witnessed any UFOs on your own well yes I have all right and I was basically up near I was working for the US Forest Service and I was up near in Central Montana near mstom Air Force bace by

the way where there nobody have shown up but uh I saw something in the sky and actually Stood and watched it for 30 minutes until I got bored and drove away and I was driving a US Forest Service pickup T but literally stood there leaning against the back of the truck looking directly at it for a long long time okay it was perfectly it did not change shape it did not change position it was right up there in the sky over they were called the little Snowy Mountains so I was in charge kind of in

charge of this mountain range uh In Montana and uh that's where it was and it was huge it was Titanic I mean there was no missing I don't know if anybody else saw it or not but yeah was up there what do you was however excuse me sorry what do you estimate it size to be you see it's very very difficult to tell because getting a distance fix on something like that is very very hard could have been anywhere from 500 yards to 5 miles in diameter so I don't know but it was Huge was

it one of the Triangular UFOs or was it more dislike it was uh oblate it was it looked to me like an oblate spheroid and one of the first things I thought was well this must be a lenticular cloud and so I kept on looking at it to find out if it was you know to see okay if it's a lenticular cloud I'm going to see some sign of movement there's going to be something there it was nothing like that this thing was totally solid metallic And it did not change I kep I'm staring directly

at it to see if it would change you know I change change you know do something but it wouldn't so as a I I stayed there for you know until I was quite sure that uh there was no doubt about it and then I just drove away can you give me an example of another paranormal experience of yours a specific one um there are just simply all kinds well the first time I had an outof body Experience I was lying down and uh I exper you ever hear of nocturnal paralysis yeah Bally I was lying

down and I I woke up but I you know thought you I better you know maybe I'll get up and go to the bathroom or something so I tried to move and I couldn't immediately I started to panic there was a wall next to me so you know I figured what's going on I look over there's a bookshelf next to me on the wall right next to my head that bookshelf was 4T above the ground Okay in other words somehow I must have risen above my body I couldn't figure out how this did happen but

anyway I thought oh my God am I dead what time is it how long have I you know if I'm dead how long have I been dead suddenly I I floated I began to move I floated in from the room that I was on into the kitchen of the house that I was in turned a corner and looked directly at a clock that was on the stove there and saw the time and at that Point I realized you know this is you know basically the middle of the night and I woke up back up in

my body I mean it took me a little bit and I got control of my my muscles and I walked back in and it was one minute later than it was when I looked at the clock so of course now some people are very good at gauging time and and you know figuring out what time it is but that was an exact an exact estimate of the time after I'd been asleep for some period of Time so you know that was something of course it was terrifying because the first time you experienced this nocturnal paralysis

you are going to be um uh but then many many of these experiences after that have you had any intimations of God speaking to you well now you're getting a little bit yes I have had religious caliber Visions okay now I'm getting a little bit what now you're getting a little bit Person no no you're asking me to reveal some of the most personal details right right right if you want you can I have I have I have too much experience with these iable creatures called trolls that have been specializing in my case for D

you admit that you had a paranormal experience and suddenly these creatures looking for any reason to dis crawling all over the internet right saying nasty things about you and unfortunately you know is I don't know if you know Anything about me but I've been canceled me and my ideas have been canceled despite the fact that they're totally provable been canceled for a long time because of the God thing and also because people don't like IQ differentials okay and and so if there's an IQ differential it's Politically Incorrect and if you're talking about God and say

God is mathematically provable on top of that the trolls come out of the woodwork on here okay and Pretty soon people are reading the internet and they see all this troll nonsense and they somehow get the idea oh wow well there's smoke there's fire so this guy must be like totally off the- wall and then they don't pay attention to you or they think that it's somehow your ideas are somehow tainted and so this leads to what is called cancellation or cancel culture which in my case has been going on for over 30 years but

somewhere between 30 and 40 Years and let me tell you I'm sick of it okay there is not an academic alive that can do a thing about anything that I have ever said or done nevertheless I'm not invited to you know conferences or symposia I'm not invited to do media appearances I mean these are you know things that I should have been able to there ways that I should have been able to spread the word uh about you know my work and actually get it out there so that people could look at it they were

Denied me right and so I'm a little bit I don't like trolls I don't like people that talk out of turn about things they don't understand and there are a lot of those people out there and unfortunately it would be it would be fine I guess if most people were able to distinguish between a troll and someone who actually knows what he's talking about most people can't if the troll uses a little bit of language well I work at a un University and here's my opinion it's All nonsense okay then you know people think well

he says he's from a university maybe he really is all right and this is you know the problem people can't distinguish between truth and falsehood especially when it's you know when it takes the form of Internet noise what I find is that people don't go intoy can you give me something to drink please yeah yeah can pardon me c that's okay my mouth is getting dry here yeah no problem no problem What I find is that people dismiss intellectuals like Steven wol from Eric Weinstein yourself without delving into the papers maybe they'll watch they'll do

a cursory glance at their work quote some of it so that if they want to look like they've read they'll quote a few paragraphs here and there I've seen criticisms of yours but they're not they're not they haven't see I'll tell you my my is when I'm going into Your theories or anyone else's it takes sometimes weeks and I try to put myself in the position where not only am I understanding it at an intellectual level but I'm realizing it and what I mean by realizing is is I'm trying to see how what you're saying

how can I model it such that I see it completely obvious that's how I know I've internalized a theory and I don't see anyone who criticizes you as as attempting that Oh that that's correct yeah and basically Well they claimed it's so abstract and abstruse that they can't visualize it and that it's impossible to visualize that's the usual line I visualize all it's not hard for me but you know for for some reason I think it's intellectual laziness I think it's the idea that they don't want to become involved with something that might prove them

wrong or mistaken about something There are a number of psychological factors that that go into it but are these two guys you mentioned uh wolf and Weinstein yeah those they may have somewhat the same problem although they're in a better position than I am because they've got you know lots of money and they've got University degrees I have neither of those things well Chris if I can do something about getting you more notoriety I will man if I can uncan you I do plan on having you On again at some once I've I'm going to

go through your theories more which will take some months because I don't have only your theory now I've only been studying yours for the past couple weeks but now I have to move on to some mine's the best one right right we're gonna talk about that we're gonna talk about that at the end because I I I can get to that question right now what I'm wondering is I I want to make sure that what I'm doing is honest and open And for the good and I I I wouldn't make a claim that I that

I'm trying trying to do that because that would to me mean that I'm trying to be good which means I'm good and I don't I don't know if I if I am I'm a bit hesitant to say that but I'll say I'm I'm trying to try to be good let's say that you haven't done anything especially bad yet in my side thank you however here's where it gets bad you mentioned that your theory is The only one of God that is correct and then what I'm wondering is does that mean when I'm inter in other

people on their ideas of God and so on it's incorrect which means I'm promulgating evil in some way and promulgating in if only if they claim they've got a true theory of everything that's totally comprehensive otherwise the possibility exists that their theories or their viewpoints can be interpreted in such a theory in a true theory of everything You see for example these other guys that that you mention you know and you ask me you know questions about about uh other thinkers if to the extent that their ideas can be interpreted in mind of course they're

not correct but my idea is called a super topology it cannot be broken okay the conditions for intelligibility are realized by it which means that if you try to come up with a counter example it will be unintelligible and inadmissible my Theory cannot be broken so you know although these other guys don't have I'm the only person with a super tautology but all of these people have valuable Insight so I don't think you've ever you've ever interviewed a dummy these people actually see things they've got insights as long as those insights can be interpreted in

the ctmu super tautology that's okay another way for people to understand what you've just said is that think of set theory as the Basis by which physics comes up with their theories and that's not exactly true they don't aati from set theory onward but no it's empirical induction think of it like that what Chris is saying is that under underneath first order languages there's a meta language a super topological language such that other theories are interpretable almost like with physics whatever the equation is that governs the grand unification let's imagine it's just a single Equation

well that's based in axiomatic set theory okay then you can take it a step back and say what would a theory of everything at all have to look like in all of its in it's outline is the is the probably the best way to look at that the important thing is that it be comprehensive and not exclude anything that's true all right nobody can present a complete you know Theory of Everything that explains every detail of the universe right up front universe Doesn't work that way it is not deterministic so there is no such Theory

what you need is you need the outline the very generic form in which anything that is true that actually occurs in the universe or is relevant to the universe can be expressed if you've got that then you've got a toe I'm the only person that has a toe with that description so even though it's not yet a unified field theory in the sense that most physicists would make you know Unifying general relativity and gauge Theory and quantum mechanics although it it comes pretty close actually um you know once I I started getting into it you

know if I were to give all the detail it does come close in some respects to something like that but that's not the way I present it I'm presenting it as a super tautology as The Logical form of a theory of ever everything that cannot be broken you can't get out of there is no Escape Nobody gets over I'm actually writing a book maybe it's just for myself for now on theories of everything I have a chapter on yours so as I've been as I've been studying for yours I'm writing it that's partly how I

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

normally would be thought of as contradictory that not two of these could be correct because they make opposite propositions but you see well Actually there is a way in which there's an overlap and that's probably what they're referring to is is this over exactly exactly there are ways if you have a general framework that is super toau logical and you know it's a fact all you have to do is worry about interpreting these different religions in so that they are consistent within this framework so that's what the C that's why I call it a meta

religion take all of these other religions you Know that that are usually at each other's throats because they don't know how to interpret their their their doctrines and and uh you know what what they pull out of scriptural documents they don't know how to interpret that so they end up imagining these conflicts those conflicts usually don't have to exist if you have an overall framework in which the the scripture and Doctrine can be interpreted they can be avoided why is it that intellect is associated With atheism now you may disagree but what I mean is

in Academia there's obviously an association with intellect there that's a danger zone phenomenally just assume that proposition is correct you know what what I'm referring to why is it that most smart people now think that it's smart or it's intellectual to S God they're dummies they think they're a lot smarter than they actually are that's the problem the the the Geniuses Throughout history if you want to look at the real geniuses throughout history most of them believed in God most of them admitted that there was a higher power that there had to be a higher

power the people who occupy universities I'd say your average Harvard instructor Harvard is a very good University of course I'd say your average Harvard instructor might go 13 35 140 Max in terms of IQ that's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God especially when you've got people like like Isaac Newton okay that that you're looking at you know people like uh people like they're just thousands of them great Geniuses that have believed in God counter would be obviously that if we go back far enough in time let's say 100

years in thei or 250 years in Prior almost everyone believed in God both what you call dummy quote unquote and intellectual so to say that the higher end of the IQ Spectrum believed In God previous to 250 years ago well almost everyone did so then we have to look at modern thinkers now you're obviously someone who has someone who's extremely bright as an understatement is there a correlation between those on the extreme end of the IQ Spectrum who believe in God but then those who are of higher intelligence that don't so almost like a Dunning

Krueger where the middle doesn't believe you're that smart alic teenager But then if you gain a bit more insight there's this false quote I'm sure you've heard it that says something like the first sip of science makes you an atheist but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer in God it's a false quote attributed to I think schinger or Heisenberg it's false but regardless it's true even if it's false it's it's actually there's there's something to it you've got to have depth you the intelligence has to have a lot of Penetration and you've

got to get the big picture before you understand that there there must be a god out there right and a lot of people don't have that you mentioned the Dunning Krueger effect all right people imagining that they're much smarter and more competent than they are okay there is a it's usually associated with stupid people you know stupid people tend to be tend to have Dunning crueger right but there is a higher IQ version of that it's Called The Danger Zone effect we've been talking about it for years people who range an IQ between you know

like 130 and 150 you would ordinarily think well it's extremely high IQ almost up to genius range so these people must actually actually have something going for them well well basically it works against them because they're right so often compared to the ordinary person they almost always turn out to be smarter they actually this gives them The idea that they're intellectually infallible they start to get to lose sight of their own intellectual limitations and believe that they're really what they've cracked themselves up to be and they become insufferable at this point this is the danger

zone phenomenon people would tend to have tend to exhibit this when they're between within a certain IQ rate that we call the danger zone like I said that's it's like you know a two standard you Know two standard deviation range right around where I said it was you know maybe I said 130 maybe it's like 122 15 whatever what you're saying is that some people because they're so smart they and let's just say it's two standard deviations they're above their peer group when they grow up and then they think they're the smartest in the room

so then they extrapolate that and say I'm the smartest in in the world at 150 exactly there was smartest in the Room but they were in a small room okay then they get out there in the real world where there are people smarter and you know Suddenly It's like they were scalded okay oh you know I I must still be the smartest person so they start belittling and denigrating people who are smarter than they are and this describes a lot of people who are regarded as very intelligent especially in Academia they regard each other as

intelligence it's kind of a club you Know well you know anybody who's not in our club has no intelligence whatsoever right this is what they believe it's what they they calm themselves into Bel it's not true but they come to believe it anym it's their reason it's gives them a license to exclude and belittle people who are actually smarter than that speaking on intellect I'm sure you've heard of Steph J Gould he has some criticisms of the concept of IQ and I took a nonoverlapping magisteria meaning meaning basically he thought that science and religion were

nonoverlapping magistery and one had nothing to say about the other he's a complete dualist and his his ideas his conceptions of IQ are totally hogwash I mean he the the guy was he was obviously a smart guy but he had certain maybe he was a danger Z own person who decided that all those people who scored better than he did on IQ test Must be really a bunch of ninka boops compared to him and that's where he got his ideas from but he seemed to be largely motivated by ego I got the impression that Stephen

J G was a guy who thought very highly of himself and his own perspective but couldn't really justify in other words I saw him as a danger zone kind of person right it's largely where you know a lot of this stuff you know and it's not that IQ is all that special IQ is by no means the Whole of intelligence people like are right about that but it is it does correlate with intelligence to a certain extent it's an aspect of intelligence so you can't just totally you know totally dismiss it and say well you

know this person despite the fact that he's got a measur measured IQ of 65 is just as smart as this guy with the 150 IQ over here you can't make a statement like that but that's what these people want to do everybody's equal you know even Intellectually equal they don't really believe that because they believe they're super smart but when it comes to you you can't be any smarter it's ridiculous what I wonder people who dislike the concept of IQ mainly they dislike it because it has connotations with respect to race and then they think

Eugenics is going to come out from conversations about it or that they're not happy with their IQ or they're afraid to find out their own IQ because It may be lower than they think and they actually unconsciously attribute plenty to it so they there's this great quote which is we Mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for but don't obtain it's from eso's fables I put that in this movie that I was directing called better left unset it's about you've heard of the radical left I'm sure you've you're familiar with them so it's about what makes

extremism unfor it's obvious what extremism is on the Right when it comes to ethn nationalism and so on it's easy to identify but it's not easy to identify what extremism is on the left because it's couched in terms of diversity and compassion and so on so I made a film usually these days though it's also couch in terms of Marxism which is a very flawed philosophy it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense so it's getting easier to to uh identify the people on the extreme left what I would like is for

Someone who doesn't think the concept of IQ is important at all to say okay well I give them a pool of people here's a pool that has people who are measured of IQ 80 to 90 and then people who have 150 to 160 okay are you telling me if you're running a company you would choose equally from them okay then take the 80s take the take the 9s I don't think that they actually would do so I don't think when push comes to sub they would put Their money where their mouth is unless they're practicing

some form of affirmative action or have to abide by some kind of racial quota system all right then all bets are off I mean I remember when I was in New York uh you know and I needed money in New York the rent was the rents were pretty high so I was constantly looking for what job the civil service exam at the time that I was in New York which was during the 1980s 1990s they spotted uh racial Minorities certain racial minorities 30 points on our test in other words someone like could go in and

score a 100 but if you belong to one of these privileged minorities you could score a 70 and get the job right and that's because of a basically affirmative action raci racial quot system right obviously not very good for our society because you get a lot of people that really can't handle the jobs that they're given and because of that Society deter rights I mean I feel for people that that are denied work for example because they have a low IQ but you know that's not that is not a reason to destroy a society you

can't pretend that you're being compassionate and pretend oh we can't hurt anybody else's feelings and then ask them to do things to be you know uh doctors Airline Pirates the pilots physicists you can't expect them to perform functions like that because You feel compassionate toward them or because you don't want to hurt their feelings right I mean there has to be a point at which reality Cuts in right so that's what we have to remember it's not that these people are bad people or that they're they're not as good as other people they certainly can

be as good as other people okay but you got to sort of some people are capable are better at certain things than others and and IQ is a is a good measure for some of those Things so you know there there should be you know employers should be able to give put a certain amount of weight on IQ they don't because the the the academic system Academia Incorporated has more or less shoved the IQ off the stage and replaced it with having a college degree so now what they're looking at is does this person have

a college degree if he has a college degree he's smart and if he doesn't he's a dummy he's one of those High School Dropouts you know forget about him because he's a bump all right it's that that is a disservice to the world that kind of thing because anybody at this point can get a college education right it doesn't make any sometime you know sometimes I think that you know I have a dog who if I you know let if I paid the money and and put this dog in a class the dog would end

up with a degree right I mean he can't write or spell his own name but then again it seems to me that Some of the people who are graduating from college these days can't do that either so you see where it's getting it's it's not very good we we need we need to properly use our intelle intellectual resources and that means we pay a little bit of attention to who's good at what kind of task I see it from both sides because there is like you mentioned there is it's it's a correlation IQ is a

correlation which is important it's one of the highest Correlates with success in terms of money in terms of even happiness and health of well up to a certain point okay that doesn't extend into this into the genius or Super Genius range but it it it it goes up to a certain level it also correlates very highly with academic success right which of course correlates with materal but it does not correlate with morality so for example there's something called the there's a psychometric I think it's a dark Triad Is the only is the closest to a

moralistic behavior it's not correlated with IQ you may think well the you are the more you can take advantage of people and You' actually be more harmful to society it turns out there's zero correlation which is great because that means that the smarter you are doesn't make you a good person and people tend to associate intellect with with with moral Worth or with even Human worth I'm not sure if you do that I see that as a dangerous game and I also understand that if one belongs to a like I understand the controversy with IQ

and race because if you belong to a race that has been demonstrated to have a low IQ or supposedly demonstrated to have a low IQ that's debilitating to be part of that group it's it's not a fun feeling to go that's because you're identifying with the group you know everybody has a Right to be taken you know as an individual if you have a high IQ I don't care what color you are what race you belong to you deserve to be recognized for that but if you feel that well but I'm not really me I'm

a member of this group okay and because this group has a low mean IQ because it has that statistic that statistic must apply to me no that's not true never was true okay but the the whole identity politics thing that we've fallen into leads People to take that attitude and once again it's it's counterproductive and we we have to stop it I mean we've got to break out of that that's one of my questions was with regard to IQ and race or just IQ in general if you're told that you have a low IQ what

let's imagine that you're an individual who has taken an I test I forget that you're inferring by membership of a group and you're you have an IQ of 100 or 90 or whatever it may be how do you avoid Crushing someone's Spirits by that well you just tell them you you you tell them the truth about intelligence there's a lot more to intelligence than just IQ I mean that we have examples you take Richard fan one of the best physicists of the 20th century had an i Q of approximately 125 which isn't that sure isn't

high enough to be a genius physicist in the in the estimate of most people but it was high enough for him uh Intelligence is it comes from another place the IQ is being able to focus all of your mental energy on specifically well-defined tasks within a certain time period okay that's what it is intelligence need not be focused that way intelligence is something that can be spread out over much larger areas of space and time people that produce works of Genius don't necessarily have to produce a work of Genius every time they take an IQ

Test okay so intelligence is much more than IQ and this is something that I think if people understood this and I'll try to help them understand this if they understood it they wouldn't feel so bad about you know some kid who scores you know better on an IQ test than they do they wouldn't even necessarily feel bad about belonging to a group that has a low mean ey Q you see I mean people are there are differences you know between people We're all good at certain things we're all bad at certain things okay and everybody's

different as long as we learn to accommodate those differences uh but you know also allowing for the the way those differences affect our performance at certain tasks in real life when we can do that we'll be much better sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself imagine that morality could also be placed on a Spectrum much like IQ is would you take a decrement to your IQ for an increment in Morality I call it moral intelligence I actually conflate the two all right you mentioned the the the dark tetrad the the the pical tetrad of

sociopathy narcissism machanism sadism okay now a lot of the elite have those they have that that dark tetrad too they've also got a lot of them have danger zone intelligence and I'm not entirely convinced that they Might not be a little bit of a correlation in that range between those two things right hello can you hear me hear me yes this looks like The Blair Witch Project do you have another do you have a what who thinks this looks like The Blair Witch Project what the light you have you have more powerful light uh well

we this is a more powerful light it's got several adjustments uh I have a Genie could you Could you put this on just one more light one more light people need to see your beautiful face man with your on no no no I don't have a beautiful face hairline matter matter of fact I would like I would like less of my face to be you like Darkness what we have this or it's fine it's fine that or that no that that looks awful that looks F okay do you want me to try opening the garage

door Missouri is big on fgs what do you want Me to try opening the door to see if that helps with the backlight uh I don't think it will honey just it's fine don't worry about it let her know it's fine also can you thank her for me because she's she's extremely assiduous she put so much energy and effort into Kur wants to thank you honey for your for your punctious attention to all the details here yeah and she's a sweetheart she told me that you're a pussycat and to Not be afraid of you when

I first emailed her when I'm good mood yeah well cuz from what I've seen you were probably being interviewed by people who either you didn't like or or they conveyed that they didn't like you and so you disagreeable mood with me or not I'm happy the the Errol Morris video I don't remember well are you talking about the well no I don't know which one I don't know which one but I'm just saying that I I thought that you'd be a Combative person she assured me you weren't and I'm happy that you're not no I'm

actually a very easy to get along with person although I think you know Malcolm Gladwell wrote wrote a book uh in which I was one of the the people it was called outliers and he attributed to me zero social intelligence so that may be where a lot of people get that impression I'm actually I'm actually rather easy to get along with but you know I was a bar Bouncer for 25 years my background even before that was such that I don't suffer fools gladly so if someone wants to be an idiot if rapidly changes my

mood and perhaps I'm not so easy to get along with what you don't have the ask I don't I there's no ass kissing Gene inside of me I mean I I love to be nice to people and make people feel good but once it becomes evident to me that someone expects to get his ass kissed then there's a problem is there a Personal story about that that stands out to you like you have one in mind well they're just they're just there's all there's all kinds of you know it lasted from when I was about

5 years old to when I was uh well out of high school uh you know having to constantly I was other you know we came from a disciplinarian household shall we say where there was a certain amount of where physical abuse was the norm uh to a certain extent and uh and that sort of You know got me got me going along a certain trajectory and then we were usually the poorest folks in town the poorest family in town which caused us to get into fights with uh with other kids so you know I had

to learn how to fight at at a young age and I didn't necessarily want to be bothered with that but it's it's just the way things went for us so that's what I had to do and uh then uh you know when I went to get a you know I started working at Working for the forest service working construction things like that ultimately I figured out that it was there was a better way to make a living paid almost as much but wasn't so grinding and I could actually think about my work and things that

I was interested in while I was doing it was bar bouncer I worked in about 50 said about 50 nightclubs over the course of 25 years or so in the greater New York area and you know it's probably The best not bar bouncer in denor for a long time and so you know physical altercation was more or less a a way of life and you meet a lot of people and you know U but some of them are are not especially easy to get along with especially when they get drunk so you know there's a

altercations arise and you that I'm sure that affects your personality once you recognize that somebody is a bad drunk whether or not he's had anything to drink uh you react To him in a certain way I'm improving you know I'm not likely to punch anybody these days how did you choose your wife how did you know she was the one well uh she was actually a member of the super high IQ Community such as it was back in the 1980s and uh and 90s and uh so I met her through one of those groups and

uh we you know gradually you know we corresponded a little bit and I things just grew from there so I got myself a Very intelligent woman beautiful too was there something about her that stood out to you compared to the other women of the high IQ range I've always been attracted to uh intelligent women to me uh intelligence is sexy it makes a woman makes a woman more of a woman you know not that you know a woman who who is you know not so intelligent can't be sexy I mean that's far from the case

but it's always something to which I was attracted in a female so that's one of The reasons that uh that I held out for for her I mean I was single for most of my life up until I was about uh nearly 50 years old what are your vices what do you do that's dissolutive that you think you shouldn't but you gain some satisfaction from it and you engage with it anyway um my temper gets a little bit short sometimes I that's always something that I'm trying to improve uh uh I have a uh weakness

for certain Kinds of uh snacks or candies like liquor is shining I just love stuff can't stop eating it you know I literally have to hide it for myself after a certain point because other you know I just eat bag after bag I'm the same way man yeah I know it may not look like it but trust me I'm 200 lb greater than I am no I'm serious my wife I pig out like you wouldn't I expand my it hurts and I'm like okay that's the that's the Beginning let me keep eating and then I

have to fast for a day or two days so alternate between extreme I don't know if it's great for my liver I talked to my doctor about it she said your liver seems to be fine but I go yeah but it's it's just it takes sometimes days to let your digestive system catch up to everything that you put in your mouth you know that's that's uh you know if you just keep on eating I I find myself getting Into trouble if I just keep on stuffing myself for a week or two at a time then

you know I got to stop eating almost entirely for the same amount of time before I'm back to normal I I see the workout the weights behind you I see the gym set oh you're you're anytime if you ever make it to this area definitely you're welcome to enjoy the gym as much as you want to I I like working out it uh helps keep you young you know I mean after a certain point you've got to have Resistance exercise your muscles deteriorate you start losing muscle mass and that's something that fortunately I haven't lost

any muscle mass at all and uh I'm probably you know as strong as as an athletic 20-year-old you know I can I can still I do military press with over 200 lb for reps which is very good for someone how old are you age I'm 69 good job man so you don't work out because you want to keep your IQ you Work out for other reasons the IQ too believe you me there are a lot of reasons to work out okay you just keep yourself young you keep your mind sharp you keep up your motivation

your level of testosterone doesn't decrease so you m you you maintain the amount of mental aggression you need to attack difficult problems these things are important to me so I work out okay I wanted to get your thoughts on some other thinkers one of The reasons I factiously call it theom Maki which is like the Battle of the Gods and the reason is that these are intellectual Giants and I'm not sure about you but for me I glean plenty from seeing these Giants disagree with one another it's as if I pick up nuggets from the

damage of their their fight from The Fallout so what are your thoughts on new atheists like Sam Harris so new Atheism in general you don't have to attack Sam Harris although you're More than welcome to I don't look there was a you know back in the they started publicizing me they I had a chance to get heavily publicized I was asked to appear on TV shows as early as the late 1980s I refused so I simply didn't want to be involved then in the late 19 it was around 1998 when I started uh getting publicized

and after that you know I was I got a few media appearances uh you know of one sort or another um uh but Then I started you know because I mentioned during some of these appearances that uh there was a mathematical way to prove the existence of God I began getting trolled uh by atheists and for a while I was on a few sites that were supposedly religious sites that were dominated by by Christians people calling themselves Christians uh and noticed that you know they weren't protecting me from these atheistic trolls and these a these

Atheistic trolls were saying an awful lot of bad things and there were some that actually attacked me personally named brand atheists who were nothing at the time but have since become you know sinisters of the uh of the new atheist movement I'm not going to mention their names because that would be publicizing them but they were they were nasty and uh and uh I didn't get along with them at all and uh then uh as I was trying to nevertheless get purchased for my theory I found myself getting cancelled and there were several people among

them Richie Dawkins Daniel Dennett and uh who the hell was it not Chris Hitchens but one of the I don't know if it was Sam Harris or not but they came up with this new policy of how to deal with people who believe in God theists you cancelled them they must be cancelled refuse to talk to them right refuse to to give them any sort of respect whatsoever and pretty soon Nobody will pay attention to the medical and so this is what they pulled on me and my theory and uh they pretty much managed to

stop me dead for a long time I'm not happy about it and I don't like those people I think they're intellectually dishonest look the scumbags are they um although I'm not saying that they're stupid people denned I mean his theory is easy to pick apart Richie Dawkins there's nothing there I mean they're They're you know they're intelligent in a way but on the other hand they're not really they don't have much penetration they can't understand the inconsistencies in their own work um I just don't respect them very much I mean I was on a I

was I've been on a couple of sites they're just awful you know the things they say about you the things that they do they apparently have no moral grounding they don't believe in God so they don't believe there's any Sort of moral identity in the universe that can that that can make them act or behave in any particular way that others find acceptable so all bets are off they can they think they can do whatever they want say whatever they want about you and uh and get away with it and that's what they have done

repeatedly they've been deplatformed you know people will say things you know and I will you know politely refute them but you know politely but succinctly very turly Refute them and eventually I get deplatformed because the people running the platforms are also atheistic okay and these people don't hesitate to cancel you they're not they're just a very poor excuse you you can't run intellectual Commerce under the watchful eyes of such people who are who are cancelling you you know all you have to do is mentioned the GW and they've got a problem with you right and

so this is the this is where we've Gotten to today and uh as far as I'm concerned that policy of theirs where they where they simply refuse to converse with you that is intellectual cowardice you know I mean you take people like Richie Dawkins Daniel D easily crushed by by someone like me I mean they wouldn't last they wouldn't last a minute but you know they if they still won't talk they you be it's a reason it's an excuse for them to flee oh well he believes in God you know what A dunce so he's

beneath our dignity we won't you know cast any of our shed any of our glory on him so this entitles us to run away and they hide in the shadows you know you'll see them I mean they get out there in public but not where they can really be dealt with by anybody who's smarter than they are and that's not a very tall order at all there are plenty of people smarter than they are speaking of hiding in the shadows you look like Russell Crow Is there another light I I want to prevent you from

making the same mistake that people do toward you so for example they'll make ad hominin now I don't think Daniel Dennett or Dawkins have a low IQ I think they're extremely intelligent people they may not have as high IQ as have you ever been personally insulted by them or their friends because until you have been you know you haven't walked in my shoes don't worry man I'm on your side and I'll defend you well that's good thank you I'm just saying that I think your animosity toward them is from being attacked and if they were

kinder to you I don't think that you would denigrate their intelligence it's been going on for 20 years certainly I would have been willing you know if they had just said oh well you know let's let's let's get together and all have a conversation these people don't give an inch they're haters okay they hate God Richie Dawkins If you listen to what he says becomes very evident that he doesn't really have an argument against God he just hates God okay and this has been going on for 20 years in my case and I've had it

with the guy so I I don't you know he's misled a lot of people and this is something that you can go to hell for Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me and he's he's got another thing coming I mean I'll just pluck his wings like those of a Fly let's speak about the concept of hell can you Define it can you tell us how it's necessary be where Richie Dawkins is going I'm just joking yeah so let's talk about the concept of hell what is it so some religions say

that hell doesn't exist some interpretations of Christianity is that hell doesn't exist some interpretations is that it does exist or there's a Purgatory place a purgatory And or and then there's that hell is a place where you'll be tortured for a finite amount of time and then you'll be brought back versus and then there's some where it's an infinite amount of times what is your idea of Hell derived from the ctmu hell is simply the process of ceasing to exist of being tally Unbound and having your identity destroyed because it is unacceptable to God see

God in the ctm there's something called A stratified identity and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity the level that we all share with each other we're all United in God but God is good and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the Integrity of his identity this is what he does so if you deny God and you cut your basically you're cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly then God can no longer see you no longer wants to see You and can no

longer accept you into himself because he's totally consistent God is is totally completely self-consistent and will not tolerate his denial it's just not something that God can afford to tolerate because something that is perfect cannot tolerate cannot absorb or assimilate imperfection into himself he can tolerate it for a while but then after a while he's got to exclude it all right so this is what hell is basically Your own highest level of identity is telling you you can no longer exist because you're no longer in touch with me you've cut your own identity in half

you've severed it it's called the soul the human soul that's what this these levels of stratified identity are they're your soul and once you you interdict that once you sever it okay you're cut off from God that way your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you Anymore it can't see you so when you die and you beg on the deathbed please take me back in God can't hear you anymore that's a terrible thing and I don't wish it on anybody but if people understand this and they understand this stratified identity they understand what

God is namely their own highest level of identity they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction now because that's a very unpleasant experience everybody wants to cling to Their identity in the end it's hellish people create their own Hell by rejecting their own highest level of unde there's this phrase I don't know where I got it from but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside that's correct well that that that is that's a very good very opposite quote is it a place of torture is it a place of Torment is it

a place of infinite heat oh well you feel tortured And tormented that's for sure and if your conception of hell is a place where there's a great deal of heat then you're going to feel that too so you bring with it your own ideas of what hell is that's correct and where else would they come from for someone like Dawkins who doesn't believe in the concept of Hell either would he then experience nothingness okay well you know you're right I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins he is what he is but Richie Dawkins will create

his own kind of hell all right because he rejects he he rejects he will create his own kind of hell and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him okay he's no no longer a big shot at Oxford University he can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God nobody wants to listen to him anymore that's what will happen to Richie that's his hell and then finally in the end he'll just be melted down to Nothingness and the Telesis of which he consists will be redistributed

to the rest of the EMP you mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent however none of us at least I'm not perfect and no one that I've met is perfect so does that mean that none of us are going to heaven none of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded tesis the world throws too much at you For you to be perfect okay nobody can be perfect in this world to live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time things that

that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly all right so this is it's it's an oxymoron to think that God holds this against you we all have to adapt we all have to do what it takes to survive and God doesn't hate us for that all right he doesn't that doesn't that isn't What makes a person evil what makes a person evil is total denial and negation of his of of Ultimate Reality and his own highest level of identity which is God all right it's wanting to undo to unbind reality to say

the name of reality backwards that's what evil is and that's that's what you get punished and that's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing there's someone like Peterson who would come out and say that Sam Harris you say that you're an atheist but you say that with your words but you don't act like that with your body because you treat people with Humanity you are concerned with the world living and not dying flourishing do you agree with Peterson saying that you can say that you're atheistic but not act it and thus does

someone get saved even though they profess atheism yes basically the problem However is that once you professed atheism now you've got to get God's attention again okay once you've severed your soul once you you put a cut in your soul and you've actually cut God off now you've got to heal that Severance before God can see you again it takes a long time it's not going to have oh well I've changed my mind I've de decided not to hate God anymore that's not good enough okay it needs to go on for a long long time

and you've really got to try and You've got to cry like a babe in the woods until God finally hears you again okay so it's not easy these people are are hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that hey honey is there a is there a light over there you know one of those lights those food lights over there F on that clamp light I want to see how that influences the this thing is getting in my eyes what I'm getting at is almost the opposite of not all those who cry Lord Lord will be

Saved so on the one end even if you claim to be a Christian or you claim to believe in God that's not enough you have to also act it and on the other end one can say that even if one says that they're against God but one acts kindly one acts lovingly then does that mean that they still can be saved Peterson would say now he doesn't talk about heaven hell but he would say that you believe in god with your body you don't with your mind but the ultimate test is Your actions and what

I'm wondering is for their deeds shall you know them right right right so then does that mean to pick on Sam Harris who I may be interviewing at some point so Sam if you watch this well this is just for fun to pick on Sam Harris would you say that he in your model will be going to heaven or hell assuming that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth unfortunately your your Relationship with God cannot be Fain when somebody is is doing good acts it could be

only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts they want the moral approval of other human beings that's not good enough okay they're actually has to be the acceptance of your own highest level of identity by the way we have a rainstorm going on here he man can you still hear me completely fine can't hear a thing of The storm okay good um pardon me c go ahead let's take a quote from someone who criticized you you said if someone denies the existence of God then God will exclude them

from reality and then this person said well okay how does Langan explain the continued existence of militant atheists Like Richard Dawkins well they have a physical B they're basically coh ing to their physical body and that's what's Providing them with a Convent identity they've reduced themselves however to your physicality there's not much left any they have actually cut off their highest level of identity and that will affect them when they are retracted from the Mortal plan when we no longer have a body here that holds them together then that's it for it if God could

not have been otherwise like with your model there are these metal laws that govern the universe so It sounds to me like there is a bound to God God is his own bound God is his own boundary he his own origin and his own boundary and both of those things are distributed this is part of the logical structure of the C okay both of those things are distributed everywhere because God is self-composed he consists of himself everywhere he is unbounded therefore reality itself is unbounded in every Part that's why we have free will among other

things who is or was Jesus Jus we cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that was written about in the Bible but we know what Jesus is now Jesus is the ideal of human Perfection someone who was willing to lay down everything and sacrifice himself for man God All right that's what Jesus is he is the image of human Perfection it is through a Jesus shaped Gateway that we can approach God all right we have to become perfect in order to unify with the Perfection of God so that's

the way Jesus functions in in the Christian religion and the way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our two and far between if you know what I mean in in in Buddhism of course Buddhism has another central figure who is Buddha Gatama Buddha sidharta he's basically another kind of cat en TI he didn't talk much about God right you can infer sort of infer a conscious higher reality from some of the things that that Buddha said but he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God he was also a rich individual that was

born into privilege and then you know went around traveling and and meditating and and uh ministering to the masses and so forth um but in several ways he doesn't quite Measure up to the image of Jesus Jesus was born forth he didn't start out with any advantages at all he lived like a normal man like an ordinary human being you know absorbing the slings and arrows of Outrageous Fortune at every turn which is what we have to do that's what we're expected to do therefore Jesus is an Exemplar for us whereas Buddha Tech technically is

an examp is is an Exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from Reality and have a meditative existence and uh you know never mention God so there is a little bit of a difference between the two now in the ctmu we don't discriminate against Buddha because he lacks Jesus likee characteristics instead we recognize him for his strengths what he was which is considerable Jesus is for Buddha is not a is not a lightweight in terms of religious figures uh so he doesn't suffer at all for his non- Resemblance to

Jesus but if we want the ideal of human Perfection that's Jesus let's get to some other intellectuals like I mentioned for me I love hearing academics speak about other academics or intellectuals speak for example if Russell commented on Aristotle it illuminates not only how Russell thinks but it gives me a new perspective on Aristotle at the same time so I'm going to bring up a few different Giants intellectual Giants Even though you may not consider them to be so and we'll see what you think of them have you heard of CLE Irwin yes are you

presenting CLE is an intellectual giant yes I'm wondering what you think of CLE Irwin's theories CLE Irwin has theories on quantum gravity I'm unsure if you've taken a look and as well as Consciousness so what do you think about them well CLE seems like a smart person I don't want to say anything bad about Clee but I will say that CLE has a lot of ideas that are are very ctmu like and the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before plea did and I actually had to force plea

to site me in his most recent it wasn't it wasn't any paper reality self- simulation hypothesis okay um anyway CLE has a he has a theory it's got a number of ingredients some of which are questionable some of which aren't it's Based on Garrett Le's E8 uh Theory right it's a certain symmetry group that use but there are other aspects that are straight pure ctmu okay and I was simply not mention now you know I understand sometimes people don't know any better um but at you know at one time I was on on every major

News Network in the country there are probably relatively few people who are above a certain age who never heard of me a lot of them have forgotten that They heard of me but you know nevertheless I was still there I think that a reasonable literature search should should turn up something about the CTN if you if you undertake it you're actually doing your job and looking for you know other ideas that are comparable to you you're probably going to bump into so uh theory is to the extent that it resembles the ctmu it's great okay

other parts of it are questionable but here's The the key part is Cle is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self- simulation hypothesis and and and a reasonable toe Theory of Everything he's missing certain key ingredients that are built into ctmu structure his theory is not a super tautology it has to be a super tautology in order to be a true theory of everything right he he mentions language in his theory um you know and coding um you know he mentions A lot of things that that that I introduced with

the ctmu which was the first language likee theory of reality he mentions a lot of things but then he they're kind of halfhazard glued together and it looks like he kind of made a snowball out of them and you know I threw it up in the air to see what would happen and uh let me if if he ever realizes this there he is going to realize that he has a ctmu clone that doesn't just differ from the Ctmu but is the ctmu in different language okay that is where CLE is headed I don't want

to detract from CLE I think he probably yeah probably thinks he's doing a good I do know that forcing him to sight me was not easy I had long string of of correspond it originally happened he introduced his his paper his new paper he put it up on rxe I guess um in this it was one of it was a an email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known People and and he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his the reality self- simulation hypothesis and I'm like what the

hell you know what is this because these people know me they know who I am so I said you know wait a minute you know C I've been talking about reality of self- simulation for years you know you're going to have to site me I've looked at your paper I don't see you mentioning me here you know you've got some of the same ideas In there went back you know quoted a lot of self- simulation quotes for me the problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he

was responsible it wasn't and in my estimation he in some ways he's got it right but in some ways he's laughing it up okay and I don't want people confusing his idea of what a reality self simulation would look like from what it really looks like which is the way I describe and have been Describing for the last you know two or three decades so uh I guess the the the final analysis is flee seems to be you know on the right track but he's got some problems what about yosha Bach and his ideas of

conscious Yosh shabach uh like Daniel denn is a physicalist you cannot explain Consciousness with physics or in a computational system okay the ctmu makes use of a of a concept called protoc Computation which is even more General than Quantum computation I mean there's there's a universal touring machine there's a Quantum touring machine the ctmu actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a protoc computer except that it's the entire ctmu all of that structure has to go into this quantisation okay and then the universe is self- similar on that basis every part of

it mirrors the whole okay so you Can't I mean it's a metaphysical system you cannot explain Consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need okay your Consciousness is coherent you are a unary unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts you feel the unity of your Consciousness that's what I mean by coherence a machine is not coherent it doesn't have that coherence all right you got to figure out some way of Getting that coherence in there and that's a tall order okay Josh abach doesn't have

it Daniel Dennett never had that I mean there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned um these guys are they have some good ideas I mean I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done everybody has remarkable insights uh writes well I mean but he writes like a philosopher which is almost opaquely at times he reads some of his stuff people think I'm opaque I Think I'm a a Marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennis sometimes he talks around things like a lot of philosophers do I mean that's a skill that they develop in

Academia Josh Bach is better than that he actually tries makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennard ever did but still you know still he's not not really getting to the root of what Consciousness is in my opinion and even if they're wrong They're extremely inventive both yoshiok and Daniel denet I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points I'm not trying to you know these these are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination it's just that they are trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem and

their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused their solutions to go aride Can we talk about this Proto computer this Proto computation you mentioned so there's touring machines as we or classical machines as we ordinarily think of them and then there's Quantum computation and then you're saying there's an even more General notion where different states of an infinite type are able to be used in the calculations simultaneously I'm unsure can you please explain that some more because I haven't encountered that in Your work well it means that the basically a protoc computer is

generative which neither a universal touring machine nor a Quantum touring machine up you know the universal touring machine is you know that's that's touring's original invention then you've got the quantum touring machine which I think was introduced by David gch um you know they both resemble each other in certain respects uh they're different the nature of the tape is Different the nature of the of the storage module is different you know the the quantum touring machine is more General and more powerful than the universal touring machine but what a theory of reality actually needs is

generativity all right in other words at the same time as new states are created okay new medium has to be created to go with those States the medium is constantly being generated SpaceTime is constantly being generated these people imagine that the medium of reality is some kind of fixed array almost like a like a computer display like the one I'm looking at right now and seeing your face of okay that's what they think reality is they think it's a kind of like a display screen with little pixels in and that's speaking once again about CLE

Irwin CLE Irwin thinks that he's actually stated that reality has little tetrahedral pixels in It okay that meaning it's discretized huh it's discretized right right right it's discretized and basically that doesn't work okay it doesn't work for a number of reasons one of which is relativity you know you don't have the proper kind of of uh of covariance and contravariance it's very hard to make that work if you've got discreete eyes pixels okay the the you know Lorent contractions and things like that would Actually have to influence the number of pixels that are activated at

any one time and that causes inconsistencies but apparently these people don't realize there are also certain inconsistencies with with quantum mechanics but this idea of a discretized scint den it has the same damn thing he's got well I'll I'll I'll withhold basically D it talks about a cartisian theater as I will call and the cartisian theater is something that he attempts to Depart from nevertheless he is a physicalist and the physicalists do have to have something like a a a discretized pixelated display even if they describe it in terms of quantum mechanics which is arous

you can't do it that way really uh nevertheless what reality actually needs is something that is generative and generates new space and time even as as new states of matter are gener that's one of it's one of the implications of triality the medium has to change along It's it's even an implication of Einstein's equation you've got a stress energy tensor on one side and then you've got the the metric tensor on the other you see the the metric tensor being the medium and the stress energy tensor being the matter distribution okay those two things actually

have to be in sync they've got to be coupled in a certain way and these people are just not doing it you know they're not they're not you know approaching it in The correct way Einstein by the way I can make a pretty good argument that that relativity makes no sense outside of the CTN at all the entire you know the entire scenario the way things are done there the way things are coupled the way space is coupled with time for example uh and then you know the way he couples objects with SpaceTime in Einstein's

equation these things actually don't work outside of the CT so we need that we need that Generativity we need we need Telesis to be factored from the top down into space and time and that's what neither of these other touring machine neither the UTM nor the qtm does the ctmu does do this however and it uses the entire structure of the metap formal system to make that Proto computer so there are other models of of discret space not they wouldn't call it SpaceTime SpaceTime would emerge such as spin foam networks and loop Quantum That still

have the properties of being background free and Laurence and variant and so on so what about those would you say that those are also doomed you you've got to be a you've got to have a representation you've got to have an observer immersed in a medium of representation uh and I don't see right now how you can Salvage any of those viewpoints I think that they all need to be interpreted in the ctmu in order to in order for their Good points to actually be validated I think that as it stands right now excessive claims

are being made for I don't think they live up to those claims I don't think that I think that if I were questioning any of these people I don't think that they would be able to justify their claims um there's just no damn way to you can have a non-generative display okay so that's once again we're referring to the reality self simulation Which can be likened to a computer there is an analogy it's a little bit more involved than you might suspect but nevertheless you can separate the display from the processor okay and these people

are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature of the processor and usually what they're trying to do is confine everything to the display okay and for various reasons this is not allow this cannot be you Can't pull that off all these guys are trying to do it bless their hearts you know they've got a certain amount of good Insight but they're just not pulling it off let's get to the next one how about Eric Weinstein's geometric Unity what are your thoughts on that Eric Weinstein okay geometric Unity that's where he's

got that's where he's got a triangle that has uh that has U the equation Spinners and uh and spin One a half matter particles on one vertex on another vertex he's got general relativity and on the other vertex he's got the standard model with uh su3 * su2 trans1 Gage did it right okay I think that Eric is actually he seems like a very bright guy I remember when he had his his I think isn't he the guy who had the mathematics encyclopedia up for a long time on on the web I think it was

Eric ju some guy named Eric juon had a math encyclopedia um up on the web And uh you know it was pretty impenetrable I mean if you didn't already know the map you wer going to get anything out of this encyclopedia this but nevertheless it was it was uh good but anyway here's the strength of of of his approach this geometric Unity basically he he seems to be saying it sort of occurs to me that what he's saying as well we're having a hard time putting together a toe you know a purely analytic algebraic toe

so let's look at The geometry of these theories of the derac equation and and uh and the standard model and and general relativity and let's see if we can put those geometries together and if we can merge those geometries then guess what we're going to automatically just be able to match it with a global formal Theory coupled with the geometry okay and this is this is it's really kind of a kind of inovative way to to approach it however it's the way I've been approaching it for decades uh the G the ctmu is logico geometric

it's a coupling of of logic and geometry but it's generative geometry okay which is a which is a fundamentally different kind than what I think Eric onstein is dealing with Steven wolfram's Theory of Everything the Wolfram project what are your opinions on that have you taken a look Steven wolver he he's obviously a very bright guy he's knows a lot about Mathematics um you know he's he's a he kind of an adorable character the way he what what he's done what it seems to me that he's done is he's tried to identify certain basic elements

and and rules of assembly and then like a bunch of Tinker Toys he's trying to assemble those into the overall structure of reality um and and I appreciate that and it's it's entertaining to read Steven's writing about it and there's a lot of insight there but it doesn't work because if You're going to have a theory of everything you need to start with everything all right you're not going to take a subset of everything and then and then put it together and and get something which is reality which is more than the sum of its

parts you're not going to do that you've got to start with everything which means you've got to start with cognition and perception in general you got to logically induce your theory from That okay and that's the way to build a theory um but as far as as far as Stephen's writing is concerned and the other aspects of what Stephen does uh I think he's a very bright guy I get a big kick out of out of reading what he writes but this is more or less right up front for me the fact that he's going

about it in the wrong way he hasn't seen the big picture he doesn't understand all of the criteria that have to be satisfed In order to have a toe that's where you got to start you got to start with everything nothing can be excluded either implicitly or ex are explicitly you've got to have everything you've got to have everything condensed or encapsulated somehow in some kind of process and for us human beings the process is cognition and perception you start with those and then you build your reality out of that what about Donald Hoffman have

you Taken a look at at his theories on Consciousness and conscious agents interacting and so on well no yes I did uh I did I think I watched a video with him and deac chop and uh and uh at one time and I found him interesting he he's saying he's saying that basically cognition is deceptive he's a cognitive scientist is call he's saying that some aspects of how we see the world is actually quite deceptive but at adapted other it's help It helps us adapt and survive to the world if we actually don't see it

correctly he's got this idea of a kind of a graphic user interface uh that that that actually allows us to have cognition that is deceptive uh but never the less adaptive and basically what Donald needs is he needs an overall framework in which to insert his guey his graphic user interface he needs the actual reality self simulation principle to make that work he's a guy who is very Much in need of the CTN of course he's an academic so he probably would insist that it come from another academic but if that were to happened it

would be called plagiarism so I doubt that he's ever going to get to the True Heart of things uh get really where he's trying to go simply because I'm not a member of the club to which he belongs and which all of this stuff comes to life okay how about David B so how your theory Compares and Contrast with David Bow's theories which I would like you to explain implicate order to me because I haven't had the chance to look it up and then there's someone named Henry burkson which is related to boam now I'm

not sure how they differ but you can elucidate me and the audience at the same time I B bergon is a he's a great philosopher so he one of the best and uh as a matter of fact some of what he had to say about manifolds I Find quite interesting because it very closely parallels what has to be done in the what had to be done in the ctmu with creating the the medium of reality um as far as David bom is concerned his reputation for seeds him there was a you know there was an

early bom and a late bom the early bom was bom and mechanics and then later on he came up with something called the Holo movements the holographic Universe I think he wrote a book on the holographic Universe with vassel Hy yeah it's vasel Hy anyway he uh has this uh this thing that he calls the Holo movement that basically takes an implicate order and kicks out an ex that is pure ctm okay this is this is that that process is what the ctmu calls involution it's one of you know just one aspect of the ctmu

but that aspect he actually captured very well with that Hol movement implicate and explicate order thing that he's doing with later bone as far as the earlier boming mechanics is concerned um that's a little bit let's dice it hard to make that look would the implicate order be associated with descriptive containment and then the explicit is topological containment or there's no relation explicit order is the display the terminal display or the ctmu semi Language L and the the other part is the ctm sem language LS which corresponds to the processor instead of the display that's

the implicate P okay it's implicated it's in implicate form there in a processor where things are actually getting non-locally combined and entangled and and tons are working to actually determine overall caic patterns that's where that's occur um you know it's all extremely it's very very Interesting Bo actually matured as a thinker a very great deal in the course of as well there a couple of things I don't like you know I mean I think B was a communist wasn't name right and that may be one of the reasons why Boman mechanics came out of favor

because it was as if you were supporting communism right well you know let's communism is a very Marxism is a very Bad theory of philosophy it's got a lot of holes in it it's it's it's just awful in certain respects so when you see a brilliant thinker like David B grabbing a hold of it and embracing this can't help his reputation you see and I think it I think bom suffered a great deal because of that but uh you can certainly understand why it happened yeah as far as Boman mechanics is concerned he's basically trying

to cotize everything he's got a He's got a pilot field you know that is actually he's got the the scer equation but he's also got this uh the the pilot field is actually guiding the particle to its destination but what is guiding the pilot field itself I mean there are a number of philosophical questions that could be asked about bom's theory that that reveal that it is indelibly associated with the terminal side of the reality of self- Simulation so in other words it's terminally confined in ctm terminology which means it's not really any kind of

complete interpretation of quantum mechanics I've been told I need to learn more about Boman mechanics and Burks and if I'm going to be investigating theories of everything a lot of a lot of people really like buium mechanics because of it's strong points um and it does have strong PS uh but uh it won't really do in a Theory of Everything The Theory of Everything relies on bonum mechanics it's toasted there there's just not enough there to to pull it off um as far as bergson is concerned it's like I A A Fine philosophy okay how

about Douglas Hoffer's strange Loop idea of Consciousness you know girdle eer Bach I'm sure you've heard of that book yes yeah I think it was probably in my early 20s when I got a copy of that book the uh the strange strange loops and the pushing And the popping and all that stuff uh quite a quite an intriguing book very much in very much in fashion for a long time sort of a precursor to the reality self- simulation uh in in in some ways but yeah that was hste was definitely an intellect worthy of respect

people ask me who do I want to interview most Douglas Hofer is up there Penrose is up there and even Eminem Roger Penrose is brilliant brilliant where do you see Douglas Hoffer's Theory lacking and what Do you like most about it so what dislikes and then likes Pros then cons well you know he relies a lot on computational principles and I I think he might be you know nevertheless even though he's relying on a lot of advanced logic and you know powers of metal languages and levels of computation and so forth he shows no sign

of being anything but a physicalist in the sense that it's all computational and computation is a mechanical process so It looks to me like it might be like his Outlook may be basically mechanistic right um right which uh you know I can't agree with because that's not what reality is CTN now Penrose seems to agree with you in saying that there are many paradoxes associated with thinking that Consciousness comes from something that's computational have you heard much about pen Rose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction and so on with Hammer off yeah yeah yeah Hammer off

is on a lot of these dist or at least was on one time on a lot of these distributions that I find myself on a and uh you know there is something to and I mean you know Hammer off identified microtubules cyos skelet as being a place where Quantum coherence might actually be able to function in the brain um and there are other ways that quantum mechanics can ass itself in the neural processes as well um but of Course he he he relies on on Penrose for most of the physics and actually you know figuring

out where it's all coming from Penrose has this idea of a platonic realm or you know this platonic form of reality it's a triar Ty form of reality this these mathematical truths that exist as you know these fully formed mathematical objects in platonic realm and uh uh He you know he he doesn't have the ctmu Roger Roger Penrose doesn't have a fully formed theory of reality but he's he's just very hard not to appreciate because he's so brilliant I mean the guy can you know it's just His Brilliant SW as Flor you sometimes when you

read some of the things that he writes um mathematically he's a brilliant mathematician he's a brilliant physicist uh and you know this idea of his that that Basically it's not just computation that there is something that is undecidable going on in in human thought but basically you know what what what gell Theory implies he says there's no you've got a system you know there's certain you know a system that actually is capable of transfinite induction and is truly interesting um can actually there are truths that cannot be derived from any finite set of axium in

such a system okay so basically what Enos is saying He's saying that human thought somehow generates undecidable theorems that are true on a metamathematical level but cannot be derived from any Theory this is exactly what the CTN says I started publishing in the same year I I think he came out with a book I think his his his biggest theoretical statement was the emperor's new mind recognize that title that's correct okay that was 1989 which is when I wrote the resolution of new's parado so we started publishing it about The same time he got a

hell of a lot farther than my did in that amount of time then again he wasn't cancer you know teaching in Oxford you know does a very great great deal for you when it comes to disseminating your work how about Thomas Campbell and his my big toe have you heard of that um I've heard of my big toe but uh let me refer to you you probably know more about it than I do what does it say exactly it's a strange Theory Essentially that there's another realm when you mentioned that there are thoughts and sorry

that there are data points that come to us instantaneously in this non-terminal realm Thomas Campbell also says that that's the mechanism by which psychic phenomenon work that it occurs to instantaneously we think that it has to travel some distance in the same way that it would have to travel in our SpaceTime and there's a finite speed he Says no that this other realm where Consciousness operates is well that sounds very he also has a he calls it a which you call unbounded tesis he has a unbounded absolute Oneness or or absolute unbounded Oneness is is

that supposed to sound like all no it just well as far as I know it's a coincidence anyway he says that that's the fundamental constituent this place of complete Potential yes that's that's that's that's cdmu consistent yes although he says this which I disagree he says that unrealized potential is trying to do is to create order and to decrease its entropy and I quibbled with them because I don't think that order and entropy are what people claim in common parland entropy and Order and disorder are not actually High entropy doesn't mean low order in the

way that most people think and it's obvious because if you look at A coffee cup with some milk and you create some turbulence that looks completely disordered and then when you stir it then it looks uniform it looks ordered but that actually has the highest entropy you see You' seen those little machines where you turn the crank and these two you know this these chaot seemingly chaotic patterns are created between two different two differently colored gelatinous liquids but then when you turn it in the other the crank in The other direction it's restored to a

complete state of Separation it sounds like Maxwell's demon it's it's amazing to watch that's Thomas Campbell okay reminds me of yours though yours is more rigorous yeah I mean I mean mine actually has structure mathematical structure to it but but uh it sounds like what he's sounds like he's coming up with some good ideas that are on the right track and can be successfully Interpreted in a true theory of he also had out outof body experiences and he would suggest that people who are younger are more in tune or more naturally in tune Like You

Get Out Of Tune as you get older with this other realm and so you can go and what you think of as thought space is actually a real space but it's another space it's it's I wouldn't use the word Dimension but it's another realm let's say a primordial Realm right it's another terminal realm like like I say that's always a possibility you can create you terminal Realms that are not identical to physical reality and that may be related more or less tenuously to it but on dependent okay how about Nome Chomsky what do you agree

with him about and then disagree with him about well you know I back when I was first developing the ctmu Chomsky was one of the people I had a correspondence with him it was Very brief a couple you know maybe three or four emails and uh he didn't understand what I said even though I was using you know his his theory of uh of grammar generative grammar right generative grammar hierarchy nevertheless actually making a metaphysic out of that was something that n couldn't wrap his mind around I don't know whether it was because I was

just explaining myself poorly or whatever but I I you know gnome was a Big nothing burger for me I couldn't you know even get a conversation started it seemed to be you know he has a certain perspective on language and it's all about you know where does it come from you know how do we get it and uh uh you know that's his focus and when you try to you know broaden the the focus um I think that sometimes uh gnome just doesn't pick up on it you know what I'm saying that's and he's a

brilliant guy um but you know that was my experience With him the other guy was John Wheeler who pretty much loved the ctmu oh wanted to meet with me he wanted to meet with me we asked to meet with me at Princeton but I had a couple of jobs and I couldn't I couldn't get away so I just was a mistake I should have you know given up the damn jobs and just gone to se wheeler anyway but it's not the way it worked out with regard to chsky not understanding your theories I think that

you overestimate the intelligence of the Average person trying to understand your theories and or you're too close to it and that leads to frustration on your part and the people trying to understand it because they feel you you think I overestimate their intelligence or underestimate I think you overestimate by thinking that it's simple and the reason I say that is Eric Weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory he doesn't seem to get that the way that he explains it is Esoteric and I wouldn't call it oppos it's almost like obscurantism though

he's not trying to be and I'm not accusing you of that please don't take this as any slight I'm just just saying that I think you may be too close to it to understand the frustration of people who actually want they're not trolls there some of them are but they genuinely want to understand and they feel like it's impenetrable the reason I say this is because it's hard for me to Understand too and I actually have a contact on your side speaking to him on a daily basis so I'm glean I'm lucky that I have

some physics and math background so it's it's easier for me than the average person but I still had a difficult time with it and uh what is the name of the person with whom you've been communicating his name is Sam Thompson ah yes Sam is a is a mathematics student he's actually pretty smart yeah I love Sam me and his Sam Have been speaking almost each day I actually had to get him on WhatsApp so I could speak he's a big tall kid with red hair I don't know if he's tall I only spoke to

him through a webcam and then but he's a he's such a nervous person but he's a sweetheart and he's extremely insightful and he understands your theories almost inside of he a mathematician I mean you he smartness K okay we'll get on to the next one Jordan Peterson where do you Agree disagree so it could be with either his biblical interpretations his psychological book called maps of meaning order versus chaos and so on well you know Jordan is a I think he's managed to do some good I think that a lot of people get a lot

of of insight out of Jordan and uh so I think that he's you know he's he's actually doing some good things um but as far as toe is concern he doesn't have one he's not even in the running to have a toe um as I recall his position on the existence of God is well you know I'm not going to say whether he exists or whether he doesn't but I will say this it would be better if we all believed he did all right which is not which is kind of a copout but I don't

think that he has the kind of philosophical um uh understanding that would enable him to put together a a basic theory that actually serves as a foundation For morality for example and and Jordan is a he's really kind of a moral philosopher so he needs that kind of foundation I don't think he has it um he probably knows who I am I mean he's a psychologist right he's a canadi he's a North American psychologist he has certainly heard of me but I've never heard from him as a matter of fact I think there was some

guy some agent who was trying to set up a meeting between between Jordan and me but Jordan you Know never responded or something or ni to or something I don't know you know but anyway he had a chance to meet with me but did not so remember we were going through this exercise of stating a seemingly complicated sentence with terminology we didn't that wasn't articulated to the audience and then articulating them specifically so let's do that once more metac causation and other metaphysical criteria require the standard physical conception of SpaceTime be superseded by a more

advanced physical conceptualization that is logical geometric dual to the linguistic structure of the triolic identity okay so before I move on to the next sentence metac causation let's define that metac causation is it's a basically the the there's another dimension of time called meta time that leads from the display to the processor of the reality self- simulation and that is What we mean by meta time and cause causation is pre real prec causation that occurs in the processing section of the realtive self simulation other words metac causation is really what causes things to happen okay

it's the real processing that is going on in causality and by the way that can be mathematically demonstrated um causality doesn't have much to it the reason is the structure of the manifold the ordinary fixed real manifold that Physics uses or even the Le Lex manifold or any ectomorphic manifold uh that doesn't that doesn't do the trick you just said that it goes from the screen to the process that's meta time does it not go from the process to screen let me just put it like this causation is distinct from the concept of origination right

you know when something is originated it's originated from scratch causation there always has To be a prior cause right so you can go back in an infinite sequence origination means actually being able to originate something that is what metac causation is it's what what Ordinary People would call origination and this happens in a specific way in the ctmu there's something called a distributed origin which exists everywhere in the non-terminal realm and that is where metac causation occurs and how it occurs Is through cons spansion and telec recursion this sounds like Free Will is associated here

somewhere yes it certainly is because it's the starting of a loop well it's a loop but it's not a loop that is fully resolved by physical law there are there are gaps and holes in the causation that's why there's something called Quantum uncertainty or Quantum indeterminacy the laws of physics are not sufficient to determine How a Quantum wave function collapses more is required okay that's metac causation there's a process called IC recursion that is actually a non-local feedback among the resources available in the semi language Lo which allows causation to occur it actually refines causation

and res resolves the holes and gaps in physical causation and this allows it to occur okay then the next word is logical geometric Duo okay when I hear that I Can't help but think of stone Duality like some generalization of it basically Bas basically it's the same thing it's in intention extension Duality between predicates and sets Okay it's it's logico geometric it's right there in the name logic is being coupled with geometry they are dual to each other okay therefore you've got a a self Duality when you couple those two things in every Quantum of

reality all right in other words where you view reality in Terms of identification events involving syntact this is what you get you get logico geometric Duality between the sides between the syntactic data type and the input data type that you're accepting from the external environment physical input and then internal processing with internal metal states that go into your behavior okay the last word is triolic identity so what's meant by That the identity of reality is triolic uh the identity of reality of course we've been through that that is called the global operator descriptor okay it

has Bas it has syntactic structure okay it's a give me that term again trial identity okay it's trial which means that it serves as its own object its own relation relational structure and its own operational structure okay it is at once an object a relation and an operator that's what Triality is okay it's as it's as simple as that you can also phrase it as you can triality can be looked at in a couple of other ways as well as basically The Coincidence of space time and object all of those things are everywhere combined can

also be looked at as the combination of language universe and model all right which is and that is implicit in the title of the ctmu cognitive theory is a language OKAY Model is a model and universe is a universe okay so triality is inherent in the very title of the ctm triality another way to understand it is that there's dualities which people can understand two Notions that are dual to one another now you're saying that there's three is it as simple as extending two to three oh yeah all you have to do is put space

and time together and now you've got two things you've got one medium and one object so Your triality has become Duality right there there no there's no mystery about it I mean you basically you've got space time and object right or object relation and operation right or or Universe model and language okay you've got those three things and those three things all have to be combined in every identity in reality and every identity in reality is a coherent image of the global identity which is a global operator descriptor okay is that also related to Hology

the concept of hology well here's here here's here's here's the thing with in the generative Universe you've got syntax you've got a universal distributed form that is in every syntor that means that every point of reality is automatically covered by the UDF or by syntax as it is created in other words the UDF or the universal syntax of reality is invariant with respect to rescaling you can re arbitrarily rescale reality because it's generative because It's constantly being generated because the universe is expanding right and syntax doesn't change under under that rescaling oper consp passive rescaling

operation let's get to some audience questions and then we'll wrap up we have we have an audience there's no one here watching right now but I've asked for questions well then where did the audience oh I posted your face before on my theories Of everything commity tab said hey I'm interviewing Chris Langan in a few weeks let me know what questions you have for him oh okay okay so this person his name is DAV he actually translated your publication to French writes a question here DAV says I made a French translation of your two Publications

ctmu and the introduction to ctmu I plan to release I plan to continue what's the best way to stay in touch with you on this Matter well obvious ly that would be you know through the mega Foundation what is what is our email address at the mega Foundation honey what's that info Megacenter info@ Megacenter do org okay so DAV you can email at info info@ meac center.org info meac center.org okay DAV thank you Dev I appreciate your translation efforts of translation and please do stay in touch DAV has questions here he says in the Context

of the afterlife processing the sum of information of an individual's Consciousness in your opinion to what extent could the continuity or syntactic relationship between several iterations of existence be established could it be that there are Pathways over several lifetimes for identifiable units of individual Consciousness so I assume what he's referring to is do we carry with us our memories but in the language of the ctm Is that possible yes but you've got to have something that encodes your memories and will actually instantiate them you got to have something like a brain that serves as an

antenna for the Tor and actually realizes cognition that is determined by Tel recursion okay so yes the answer to your question is yes but basically goes back to what I was saying about always having to have aside from the Tor something approximate A terminal body that you use which is you know while these religions talk about an afterlife and having a new body a resurrection body uh Etc you know reincarnation you always have some kind of terminal body for your dellic aspect of your existence for the for the purely metaphor aspect of your existence to

be instantiated in okay then you can have specific memories and things otherwise you you are a syntactic entity you're a group of impulses and and uh and desires And canus instincts you're all of those things and you're an ID okay but you don't necessarily have specific memories unless you create a site for them and unless a site in which they can be coded so that's why this uh this Duality between your soul and your body exists I haven't gotten to any questions on Consciousness but your theory how is consciousness defined and where does it fit

in every Quantum of the universe is Conscious because it's a syntactic a synor is a generalization of a computational acceptor it's a protoc computational gener generalization of what in computation theory is called an acceptor okay an acceptor is just a a a a processing unit that accepts input from the external environment applies a kind of syntactic filter in it to decide what gets through and in what form and then you know processes it and returns it to the Environment that's basically what it what it comes down to and if you took a take a look

at the in the structure of the syntor because it's performing that recognition function okay it has to be conscious every Quantum of the universe is conscious okay but it's a generic form of Consciousness that it inherits from the global operator descriptor right we have a more complex form of Consciousness because we have more inherent complexity in our terminal Embodiments and more self-modeling capacity because of that we have a very complex brain that encodes all of our memories and thoughts and everything else and allows us to separate and resolve them okay so that's how that works

DAV also wants to know have you heard of the work of Jonathan M in particular tractatus logical cionic which proposes an exploration of ctmu in the matter of in the manner of viin well I I've never met Jonathan but I know who he is and I know he's done some writing on the ctmu he's an intelligent fellow and uh he's you know he's actually written a book or two and uh as far as I know he's still a member of our of our groups but it's like I said I've never met him we've had a

few conferences I would have liked Jonathan to come to a couple of them but he did send me a copy of his book DAV again has another okay would You be willing to have a discussion with Kurt so theories of everything with Kurt with personalities like Bernardo castrop Thomas Campbell or Eric Weinstein uh yeah I'm open to uh to whatever you might have in mind but there are you know there a couple of people that are probably on your list of interviewees with whom I have had you know peripheral reactions or interactions in the past

and some of these people have I I think As I recall Bernard castri was pretty darn for snicky he was on I think he was on one of Jack sarfatti's lists and there was a kind of a an antagonism going on there and uh I made a couple of comments and uh got a couple of what I regarded as pretty pricity responses at Bernard and uh I remember being slightly rubbed the wrong way by it but you know that's water under the bridge so sure I participated in a discussion that bernado was in yeah he

didn't he start Running for Scientific American or something that atheistic rag I don't know but I do know that he's a sweetheart and I don't think I think if he was picking a fight with you then it's I think you may be thinking of the wrong person I don't think do that no I'm not okay I'll look for the I'll look for a copy of the email if you want to see it but but but anyway when I when I say picity I'm not saying that he was Insulting or that he was especially nasty I'm

just saying that he was a little bit disagreeable that's all I see I see oh well that's what you want in an adversary I think it's because he' become you know embroiled in some kind of argument with with Jack or somebody else in the distribution Steven molik asks I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and operate equally regardless of Substrate that is whether it's material or Consciousness essentially idealism materialism is a false dichotomy okay that's not a question question read the first part read the first part

of that comment I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary information and logical what rule set oh logical rule set okay okay so I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components And they operate equally regardless of the substrate so whether it's Consciousness or material information and logical rule set are primary so then he's saying that even so he's saying essentially that idealism materialism is a false dichotomy so what are your thoughts on that it's not a question I just want to hear

what occurs to you well you know it is a false dichotomy in the sense that all of those Things are coupled you know uh information and logic there is no information without a logical rule set language is the medium of information and language has syntax and that's a logical rule set especially where your language includes the language of logic itself so those two things are are very closely coupled you can't separate them dualistically and put one on one side one on the other and say we've got a complete dichotomy here in that sense He's right

about their there being a false dichotomy um as far as reducing all of reality to just information and logical rule Set uh that emits a lot of structure that probably deserves mention but it could just be that he didn't have the time to write it all down what would be an example of a structure that's not captured in information or logical rule set well You' got all kinds of read the CTN there are many many pages of structure that are missing from that Characterization um but one thing that can be said for it is that

that information mappings are also captured in these little quat these these these State transition events of syntact of syntactic operators and telic operators uh it can all be be captured there uh and so it's not really admitted okay Karan Dudley says great choice of guests number one so he's referring to she or he is referring to you number one In your opinion which of the major philosophers came the closest to discovering and expressing the true nature of reality came the closest okay uh well there were a number of very very good ones I mean if

you look back uh just so many Pythagoras came up with something that looked a little bit a little bit like cesis and and uh Aristotle followed up on that and uh liet also had there was much to be said For what he did um Whitehead with his process philosophy also uh very good bergson had some good ideas is you've got uh there are just a number of philosophers out there that uh you know plotinus had some good things going for him Plato of course uh just all kinds of them I mean heraclitis s and Dudley

same person number two as you know girdles and completeness Theorem say that they apply to all sufficiently expressive formal System so why should one think girdles theorems don't apply to the ctmu they do apply to the ctmu that's that's why the ctmu is formulated the way it is okay to get around that's why it's generative you can generate new axim in the ctmu okay you don't need to derive uh everything in the ctmu from some finite set of AXS it's exactly what Goodell's theorem say so there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what

the ctmu Actually says can the generative grammar introduce an uncountably infinite amount of axioms yeah it can it can introduce an infinite set of axioms if that's what you're asking and uncountably infinite is what I'm wondering anything anything in which the elements can be distinguished is countable you can count them one by one count count count okay the fact of the matter is real numbers are uncountable because you never have To complete one of them you never have to write out all the little decimal spaces if you want to be able to distinguish things they're

countable okay just like you know counting you know peanuts okay 1 2 3 4 5 all right that's the that's the respect in which the accountable uncountable distinction is actually mathematically valid and if you've got separate axioms that are distinguishable obviously they are countable and if you have an infinite Potentially infinite or unlimited number of them then they are countably infinite Timothy O'Brien asks please ask him how live nids is moned all ol relates to the ctmu well mon you know monads are it's an old Greek concept that goes back quite a ways and and

uh livets um you know he had a he had a good there's actually some logical Complexity to laus's monadology that I should you know I could actually write a paper about it but let's just put it this way it is it is well it's excellent philosophy I'm actually you know modad liet is one of the philosophers for which I have uh the most respect let's just say Ike freden says Kurt this may be a useful question what role do the requirements of the existence of difference relations play in the Metaphor reasoning of the ctmu the

metaphysical requirements of difference relations did you say yeah okay he has a bracket which says well that would be synip anesis would be the metaphysical requirement of difference relationship that would be that it be that the difference relationship be defined within a cionic relation okay which means that you need you know basically the ctmu to to make sense Stephen olis has a great question That's more General are there any Arenas where Chris feels dumb or average you know it all depends on there sometimes I roll out a bed for feeling pretty stupid about nearly everything

um my mind is not always you know functioning in Peak efficiency so there are times when I feel pretty much incompetent no matter what I do but there are times when uh all the mirrors are you know cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on then I Sometimes feel as though I can pretty much handle anything so it just varies with the time of day I guess you'd have to say have you done any meditation or Tak New Tropics like fenel not that nootropics are all drugs I mean they're just neutraceuticals or

whatever you want to call them but uh I usually haven't I haven't really experimented with how about psychedelics well you know I spent time on an Indian Reservation when I was a Kid it was the Wind River Reservation and we were when we stayed there it was usually in proximity to friends of the family uh the big road family there was a guy named Mark big road he was a shaman uh arapo I think but he could have been SE Shon I don't rightly recall but he was a shaman and there would be uh you

know meetings prayer meetings um the the North American church we Wei and uh one other kind of religion but anyway Mark's Prayer meetings were such that you took uh the the attendees took musculin at these prayer meetings so uh you know I suppose that it probably got some of that although certainly I don't you know I mean I don't do drugs uh have I ever done drugs yeah I've experimented a little bit with drugs but I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to mess with drugs too much because it interferes with what's going on

up here and I don't like that it's Generally a feeling that that bothers me in some respects um the the psychedelics I think that they have great potential for being being beneficial psychologically beneficial if they're used in the right way under the right circumstances however it's easy for them to get out of control you can have a psychotic break on psychedelics right this is something that you always have to be careful of right there was a lot of this stuff Going on I me my you my family was involved in the counterculture both in the

in the Beat Generation the beat Nicks you know that thing when the whole thing started the whole counterculture mve M got started and then with the hippie generation we were the ones who actually there was a Tepe it was a big deal there was an Indian Tepe erected in Berkeley by a guy named Charlie Hartman your stepfather coined the term beaten it correct that's correct yes he someone From the New York or New York Times stole it Langan was a journalist parttime journalist he was also a Stringer for API AP and UPI but he worked

for both The Examiner and the chronicle in California and herc worked for the chronicle Jack was running a bar called the place in North Beach and uh herb used to come in there because that's where you could rub elbows with Jack kowak and and uh and uh Neil Cassidy and and uh Alan Ginsburg lawence Filling Getty and all the rest of these these beats these beat figures and Herb liked to do that it was a columnist you know he was staying urant he was actually you know rubbing elbows with the right people and uh Jack

told a a joke you know about how you know in the something said you know Russia seems to be you sending up satellites look they've got Sputnik while we seem to be able to produce his beat Nick well herb occurred that it appeared like the next day in the in the chronicle under herbs by line and I can remember my stepfather was Furious over was not the kind of guy he wanted to get furious around but I remember it was a big deal so that really pissed him off but you know the place was the

center of beat you know culture in San Francisco there was something called blabber mouth night that was invented by by Langan there was something called There was a guy named Barney Google who wanted to have a beer geyser coming out of K tower that was Lang and it was a genius of promotion more or less getting back to psychedelics you were mentioning I was wondering personally did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight that you then took to the ctmu what I can remember from my days on the reservation are a feeling of great

affinity for the planet I thought it was Alive I could look at it and I could see it living that's the thing that hit me that becoming aware of the life of the earth they talk about the the uh G hypothesis and they talk about Mother Earth it hit me viscerally that the Earth needed to be saved do you still carry that with you to this day yes how do you feel about the Environmental degradation destruction that we do I feel pretty poorly about it I think that a lot of is unnecessary a lot of

it is very poorly done but on the other hand people have to live the Earth is overpopulated we should not have so many people on it we're encountering all kinds of problems because of it already we're going to encounter many many more if it continues and we've got to start regulating our numbers and living Coherently living in in in consistently with the environmental limitations of the planet the planet is finite the resources are finite but human uh population is exponential Le it's exponential it's left socially governed by a logistic equation but when we get to

the peak of that equation okay that can be influenced now it's being pushed way ahead so that when we have a collapse it's going to be a doozy we need to get out of that right away that Being said the way the elite the the the oligarchs the people who run the world who have all the money and power the way they're handling this problem the way they seem to be handling it sometimes is not the right way we've got to put this in front of the human race and we've got to appeal to what

is best in mankind to make mankind voluntarily and responsibly limit their their own reproduction that's what we've got to do we've got to think about future Generations we've got To watch about about transmitting genetic diseases or disabilities to them okay people say oh that's horrible because now you're talking about Eugenics guess what it's horrible to be born with a genetic disability how can you sentence a child to that we've got to do something about the reproductive situation it is too easy for us to live too long on this planet at at this point to be

reproducing indiscriminately I don't have any children I probably have One of the world's highest IQs yet I have no children because I couldn't afford any any children then you've got these filthy rich Elites that have all of this money and all of this power why are they doing that it's idiocy that is not the way to help Humanity regulate its population it's evil it has to stop okay this person named snord grimstead is a huge fan of yours it looks like this person has read plenty of your work do you have any Views I'm going

to paraphrase this question basically he or she wants to know if the ctmu can concretely help someone who's going through a psychological disorder like schizophrenia or depersonalization or he just mentions those two yes it certainly can as a matter of fact we're going to be setting up a program for uh for people that can actually help them do this the whole Idea of stratified identity and and knowing the structure of reality is we do we can uh make inroads in terms of psychological and sociological integration and that is something that we're going to be concentrating

on we already have plans for does the concept of sin def fanis necessarily connect to a self-distributing top- down model of reality okay so there's that necessarily yes everything NE necessarily connects to a top- down distributed model of Reality namely the ctmu which is the structure of reality okay no ctmu no reality and the universal relational structure of the ctmu is synesis so the answer is yes this question is there a sense in which one still has to understand reality in an experiential sense even after one understands the ctmu absolutely AB abolute you've got to

understand Reality by actually living in it that's what's so dangerous about the Predicament we're in today the people who are running the world are filthy rich people that live in bubbles these people have never worked an honest day in their lives they don't know what it's like to miss a meal you understand we can't have the world run by people who don't understand it and who don't understand what it feels like to actually live in it on the ground floor absorbing its slings and arrows at all times The people who are running the world are

pampered coddled Elites that live in their own champagne colored rose-colored bubble of privilege this has to stop these people don't know what the world is not only don't they know what it is intellectually they don't know what it's like to live at and this is creating terrible terrible problems for us so what can we do as the general population besides understanding the ctmu let's just take that out of the bag Is one of the potential Solutions what can we do to ameliorate this problem given to us by or inherited to us from the rich Elite

as you put it well we have to utilize something called we have to engage in the political process to try to to try to stop the Elites from basically destroying our freedom destroying freedom and human dignity and uh and everything else that makes us human we've got to stop that by engaging in The political process we have to exercise Civil Disobedience where necessary okay and aside from that if that fails we have to go back to the Constitution and the Constitution contains a certain Amendment which says that we have to defend we are entitled and

have the duty to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic if they're going to take human freedom and human dignity and inv Validate the Constitution they have no right to be here if they want to go live someplace else let them go live there something that strikes me about your theory is it's derived logically that what that made me wonder in keeping with this question where he was asking is there an experiential element to reality that's not captured in the cmtu what I'm wondering is do you consider the ctmu to be or

even yourself to be rationalist or You have problems with the rationalists I have no problems with rationalists as long as they're competent which a lot of them are um a lot of people criticize me because well you know basically you're like those old Med medieval philosophers who used to you know pontificate on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin you're trying to derive everything from logic but really The World Isn't experiential it is the logic of Experience to derive the ctmu you start with EXP experience you start with with

kogo and Essie okay you start with with deart and Berkeley you take those you you take cognition and experience interesting you logically induce the minimum model the bare minimum that you need to make cognition and percept perception work then you form an identity incorporating that potential and you have the ctmu if you do it right Okay a true rationalist knows how to do that that right okay but there aren't very many of I love what you said the logic of experience I don't think I've heard that phrase before did you just come up with that

on the spot or have you heard that before first time I ever said that I've never heard phrase what I'd like to know is how is science as it's currently formulated limited well it's limited by the lack of an understanding of what a metal Language is back in the uh 19th century for example uh they thought there was something physical Theory contained something called The luminiferous Ether and uh that was basically uh mapped into physical reality as a kind of a space filling substance or perhaps as space itself um then when Einstein Einstein came along

with the theory of relativity he changed physical Theory so that luminous luminiferous ether disappeared it totally disappeared from the scene so The truth value of their of luminiferous ether exists had to be changed from true in the 19th century to false in the 20th century that involves the use of something called a metal language where you attach truth values to physical attributions physicists did not understand and still do not understand the structure of the metal language that they need to do things like that and it's called metaphysics in other words physicists actually need metaphysics They

need a metap physical metal language to actually make changes like this to to pass to to AIX truth values to physical attributions to change their theories to correct their theories and things like that the amazing thing is they don't realize this they still don't realize it they don't realize that that physics has actually absorbed metaphysics of necessity it needs metaphysical functionality in order to do this but most most physicists thinks Think that that metaphysics is some kind of woo or some kind of quackery that and it's just what it is is this logical ignorance they're

not trained properly in what a metal language is or what an object language is or for that matter how a universe relates to it they don't know anything about model theory in other words some of them may have taken a course in model Theory but they don't really know anything about it because of that now the ctmu is a is an advanced Meta language for science okay it's a metaphysical metall language and it's absolutely logically necessary you can't get bu without it so this is what's the matter with science it doesn't understand the language in

terms of which its theories are formulated or how they relate to the physical Universe it's kind of a hid and Miss Thing where we're following the scientific method where we're empirically inducing theories and we're sort of affixing them Or gluing them onto observations in physical reality but we don't know how or why that is happening it's some kind of Lucky break that we're getting right it's it's the the the uh the unexpected efficiency of mathematics of of of being able to actually use mathematical models on reality all right they don't have a metal language whose

structure actually tells them why that's occurring so this is uh this is bad news for science remains bad news I'm trying to help them Fix it some other ways people would say that are on the more Eastern end they may say that it doesn't incorporate enough experiential elements or that it's too mathematically defined that's part of the problem yes they don't understand that there is that there is actually a subjective as well as an objective aspect to reality okay they need a metal language to actually put those two things together that's the Coupling metal language

provides the coup the coupling for a subject of an object of reality and the lack of such a metal language means that they can't actually put those two things together that's what we're trying to help fix with the ctmu and we're getting a lot of bonuses you know there are a lot of things that you can do with the ctm for example businesss are trying to explain Dark Energy they're never going to do it until they have the ctmu the ctmu is the Offers the only viable explanation for dark energy and there are other things

Consciousness there are all kinds of things that cannot be explained without this metal language this metaphysical metal language and the admission on the parts of scientists and physicists in particular that metaphysics is already built into their discipline how they could still be ignorant of it I'm not quite sure I recall you saying that the Universe is not simply a sum of its parts I'd like you to explain why well it's synergistic basically okay if you if you if you put things together you're basically doing so you're you're it's like bolting a machine together you're putting

the parts together you're putting in the little screws and they're all in the right place and then you turn the crank and the Machine Works but if you take one of those little pieces out well the machine doesn't work anymore Okay it just sort of falls apart and and there is no coherence to it all right when you think you know the things that are going on in your mind they're all connected to each other you notice there's no division there's no there's no one thing is you know missing or anything like that it's all

there everything is coherent and machines don't function that way machines have a kind of mechanical coherence but that's not sufficient so what we need is higher Order coherence that's what ctmu also brings to bear as it has higher order Quantum coherence actually meta quantum coherence and this is something else that we need to make a viable theory of reality yeah you know this this idea that everything is just happening at random and it's just sort of all popping up at random and things sort of emerge at random this is nonsense total nonsense you can't build

a theory of reality that way you're just you're just Trying to glue Parts together and you will never get more than their sum and a sum of Parts is just a pile of parts that's it everything has to work together as a matter of fact it has to work synergistically and that is more than the sum of the parts why can't it be somewhat simple in wolfram's theories he has or in his classical theories he had those cellular automaton with simple rules adjacent neighbors signify whether you live or Die and then seemingly complex behaviors emerge

from that why can't it be like that emerge well let's let's let's have a definition let's have Steven's definition of emergence and how it occurs Stephen doesn't have one nor does anybody else so if you you have to have a theory of self-organization it's one of the reasons I had to come up with it is because there are a lot of deficits and holes for all of the inroads and Advances that science has made it's still full of holes okay we' have to try to patch some what would you have done differently in the development

of your theory so for example you would have spent more time writing with a pen and a paper instead of going for walks I'm speaking practically here or you would have taken more time off or taken less time off time off I've never had a vacation In my life you know and I don't quite know what time off means I think about the ctmu every day you know I get up I think about mistakes that I've made in the past I'm constantly questioning myself did I screw this up did I screw that up if so

what can I do to fix it and I find you know to be very honest with you I find that I have very seldom made serious mistakes it has happened but I always catching um most of the time I Don't make mistakes so what would you have done differently if you could advise yourself let's say 30 years younger I had the ctmu in in in in full form decades ago okay basically if I had to advise myself for something it would be would be how to present it and how to actually get people to pay

attention to it I'd advise myself to have actually tried to go to Princeton and meet with John Wheeler as I was invited to do for Example that could have changed everything all right but when you're raised like I am you know like I was my family got kicked out of houses when we were kids you know we found ourselves in the street and when I was in New York and I had these jobs and I you know I simply was afraid to lose it felt that I was going to be in the street again so

I didn't go and visit John Wheeler you know people thinkwell you know that's ridiculous there's always a job and There's always a source of money not for all of us there isn't and the way I was raised there wasn't there wasn't anything there was no one who was going to help you no government agency was going to step in on your behalf nobody was going to give you a house when you needed one nobody was even going to give you food when you needed I don't know where people get the idea that we're all privileged

and we all have all these privileges save it for somebody who Actually got the Privileges we didn't so so I'm I you know anyway if I had if I had it to do all over again I would meet with John weer there are people who are watching this who are developing their own theories and so it's almost like when I ask you what would you have done differently it's also couched in well what would you have done differently such that they can apply it so when you say speak to John Wheeler that's so That's extremely

specific first they can't apply it second of all not everyone was invited so given that now what is your answer what would you have done differently would you advise your 30-year younger self to do or not to do basically I would be you're kind of okay I've already succeeded in finding what I wanted to find all right so basically what I would try to do is make sure that I was not distracted and taken off the track all Right one thing that you must bear in mind if you are a young person who's trying to

figure reality out is that you cannot serve God and M God is is reality and reality is God if you don't like God you're sunk you're not going to get a true theory of reality you can learn a lot of math you can learn how to kind of put things together and Tack one mathematical Theory onto another but you're not really going to get to the identity of reality and that's how we Define the god that's what I was telling you about okay anyway you can't serve the godod and Mammon you want to be a

big shot you want to go out and be a hedge fund manager go ahead and do it but you can forget about your aspirations to reality Theory there are all kinds of of people out there uh Elites you know money bags of various kinds who think well first of all what I'm going to do is I'm going to get out there and I'm going to make a billion Dollars I'm G to make a lot of money and then armed with that money I'm G to save the world no you're not because you spent all your

Capital it's hard to get money okay it actually you really it really does kind of knock you out you've got to have the right connections you've got to have the lucky breaks if you immerse yourself in that goose chase okay if you if you totally if if that's what you live for by the time you get your money and you're sitting there and Now you're a big billionaire and you're going to do this and you're going to do that there's nothing left all you can do is put on a show this has been proven time

and time and time again you point me out a billionaire who's actually got some kind of big Insight or or or or you know some big idea about the nature of reality and that's nonsense okay I just anyway go ahead try it you know of any billionaires that really have any good ideas about reality well anyway That's what I would remind myself of don't chase money okay don't there is a cost for that you sell your people sell their soul for it and that has a very literal interpretation in the ctmu okay you're actually you're

subscribing to a telon that is designed to get you money and that ton Now controls your thoughts it's not going to let any distractions through by way way of reality Theory you're not going to you're not going to be able to keep those things in mind Anymore because it's all about getting money furthering the interests of the corporation right not falling running a foul of corporate culture all of these things are going to occupy your attention and you're not going to be the big genius that you thought you were going to be all right you

can you you make up your mind you're either going to be a genius or you're going to be a money Banks now most people give that choice will choose money bags all right But don't turn on the TV and see you know a billionaire who's saving the world and think that that's going to lead to anything for you because it won't okay if you sell your soul to Mammon you're not going to be the big reality theoretic genius that you thought they were what if someone says I want to be a philanthropist like Bill Gates

so you think Bill's a yeah that think think Bill's a philanthropist do You I spent a large amount of time okay when I was a kid you know one would think well you know why wasn't Langan if he's a big genius why wasn't he involved in the computer Revolution and why didn't why wasn't he Bill Gates well it was very easy you know I can explain that basically there was a there was one there was a a computer at Montana State University and I think it was called the sigma 7 it was uh I don't

know if it was An IBM 360 or what the hell it was but uh but uh anyway it uh was you know a Marvel of the time you know in the 60s here in the in the in the mid 60s they've actually got a computer up there that people can program so they offered to have a Cooperative you know class you know in high school you know where they could let high school kids program this computer I believe I mentioned that my family wasn't very popular in town well as it happened when when I was

when I Went to this computer class to actually you know sign up and learn how to program using Fortran you to program this this this University Computer the uh the I was recognized by Mr Chandler who taught the course as someone that he didn't particularly like he said well he said I count 31 students I only have 30 textbooks so I I'll just hand them out and then when I run out well then that person will have to double up with somebody Else I was the person who didn't get he walks around the classroom you

know following this trajectory and I'm the person the last person and he looks down at me and says what I'm sorry you'll have to double up with somebody else but when you're the least popular kid in class nobody wants to double up with you I just got up and walked out of his class all right so this is what can happen you get a couple of bad breaks no all right then you know I got or Eventually bought a computer an Atari computer and started programming in basic okay but that was a problem because then

Atari went out of business and I needed you know an IBM type you know Bill Gates computer they were all $2,000 for me that was four months rent I could not afford it so by the time it got around to where I could afford you know to get all the equipment that I needed to be a big computer Hotshot was too late I'm not going to waste my time On it now there are too many kids out there there you know apps this and apps and programs that and I'm going to be in the next

big shot they have connections you know the their families have money I'm not Bill Gates whose father was a millionaire and got you know his own little computer and uh you know was able to do it he had everything handed to him and most of these people do show me the billionaire who's self-made and I'll show you a BS artist there's simply no Doubt about it is there such a thing as philanthropy yes of course there is unfortunately most of these people you to be a philanthropist you not only got to have a lot of

money you've got to know to whom you should give that money you know who who should be the object of your charity these people would you say is a good philanthropist I don't know anything I mean when I you know there there are there are organizations that give grants uh the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the Templeton Foundation other people that give grants that someone like me should be eligible for well every time I have gone to fill out the application for one of these uh uh charitable organizations the first thing on the the you

fill out an application and they want to know what institution you're affiliated with namely what university you're affiliated with so if you're not a professional academic you're just out Okay that's it they ignore you this is not philanthropy this is a circle jerk okay and it's an unbroken Circle everybody links their arms and nobody gets in from the side okay so that's what it is and that is that is what these philanthropists are all about the the only people they will give to are people that come out of their own indoctrination Mills right that's that's

it nobody else is eligible for their charity and basically what they're doing Is they're just choosing the people you know that are going to tell them what they want to hear and they're doing it in such a way that they get maximum credit for that they look especially good for example the American Cancer Society donate to the American Cancer Society and you look good for doing that Bill Gates has done a lot of that kind of donating but now we find out that Bill Gates has parlayed that into an amazing amount of control over the

world Health system so it's not as though it was just charity is it okay bill has now got himself you know has wangled a leading position in the you know the I mean you know what this amounts this entire vaccine thing was more or less previewed by Bill Bill gateson what was that event 201 was that what it was called I mean this guy has known what was happening all along it's as though it was planned previewed rehearsed in advance and Bill Gates is right in the Middle of that now I can't point the finger

at Bill and say he's definitely guilty he definitely did this he definitely did that but he's connected to too many people who are involved in this thing all right and you know of course about what happened with Bill in India and Africa right with his vaccine trials there right of course you do the last question is from me what advice do you have for me basically I'm on this mission to Understand different theories of everything it's autodidactic for various reasons so it's similar to yourself in that manner and I making sure that I'm not closing

my doors I'm trying to be open to non I used to be like as you would understand the standard academic who was materialistic and despised everything that even resembled mysticism but now I'm opening myself up to what people would ordinarily call woo like Free Will Consciousness God even uaps So what advice do you have for me as I go on this Mission other than Kurt just read the ctmu you've got to stick with it and you can't become discouraged obviously I'm going to tell you you have to read the ctmu and you have to try

to you have to try to grock it you have to try to deeply understand it remain open-minded but don't allow yourself to be unduly influenced by people just because they are persuasive there are a lot of very Persuasive people out there who will try to convince you that they have the correct perspective on reality when in reality they do not but a lot of people you know say well this person is so intelligent and they seem so confident what they're telling me about reality there's got to be something to it it must be true and

meanwhile they're talking out of the other side of their mouths disparity okay you don't want to let that happen Maintain a certain amount of skepticism regarding whatever anyone is telling you I think that what I've succeeded and doing during this interview is actually answering questions and actually making sense of some of this for you I don't know how successful I've been but at least I've tried okay there is I don't know of anyone who can actually you can actually push to ground you can actually tree like this and get straight answers about the overall structure

of reality From as far as I know I'm the only person like that so just don't listen to anybody who disparages me or my work that's my main piece of advice and also just stick with it man you need to know remember when you study reality when you're looking at when you're looking at the structure of reality you're looking at for the structure of your own ultimate identity that's what you get at the top that's what it all boils down to in the End if you correctly understand that then you can be salvaged I the

the Universal identity will keep you alive forever all right but you need to find it you need to come to grips with it and you need to keep on traveling up that ladder as far as you can get all right most people become discouraged I'm tired of this I'm so tired I can't do this anymore my mind just won't handle it this Is well it's death for a person like you someone who really needs to know who really wants to look in it's a lifelong thing Kurt got to stick with it no matter thank you

man you know when I asked that question I'm actually also asking on behalf of the audience because many of them are on a similar journey of explicating toes that's the whole point of this channel so I from what I understand read the ctmu okay I have and I will continue to do so second don't Listen to people who appear to have cogency or persuasive relevance but the criteria that you listed was if they dispar you so I'm going to ask you so what is an alternate criteria not just that because some people have made no

comment about you and also someone could just be simply mistaken so for the people who are listening who are also on a similar journey of self-exploration trying to understand the universe which seems to be intimately tied to Understanding oneself they're on this journey what other advice do you have for them besides reading the ctmu which I advise everyone who's listening or watching to do make an attempt to do so at least once per week which is a a cintilla of time okay so there's ctmu and then number two was to not listen to people who

disparage you even though they have even though they sound even though they they're captivating in some manner okay besides Disparaging you like what else should people be on the lookout for what advice do you have for people on a civil sometimes Clues come from the most remarkable places I find that when I'm trying to understand the structure of reality things are given to me are put in my proximity that would be very easy to ignore or to miss you must be attuned to them you must be aware at all times of how reality may give

you clues about what you're looking For that is a piece of advice that I think is very important for everybody to understand remain in a state of aw guard your awareness all right then you know life is very distractive it's easy to get distracted and just you know Bumble from one mental state to another don't do that maintain persevere maintain Focus maintain awareness remember reality is always trying to show you things let it show you things pay attention to it all right and I'm not Just talking about paying attention to the spectacular things or the

things that interest you or guzzling a beer and watching a football ball game I'm not talking about that kind of awareness and perception I'm talking about subtlety yeah give an example if you don't mind well for example in the morning when I wake up I'm thinking about something I might reach over and I might grab my my pad You know iPad or whatever kind of pad it is I might you know take it look at it and there might be a page there and I might go to my email and without even pressing the email

thing I'll see under the under the page I'll see a bunch of stories that are listed there by some mainstream Outlet like Google or something and then I'll look down the list of stories and there's something that catches my eye and I know there's something in there that I should pay Attention to so I click it invariably I find that it's there it's a gut instinct I have all right I can tell when there's something there that I can use I know when reality wants to show me something and I can follow those little bread

Trails those little Trails of crumbs that leads for me with great uh accuracy okay this is a special this is a skill you need to develop it okay and it's not something that everybody knows how to do right away but it's definitely there if You're looking for understanding this is what you've got to do this is your state of mind you're like an antenna and you are in you are attuned to what reality is trying to show you okay this is a it's a whole different it's a whole new way of life now that being

said we have we're entering very troubling times and you've got to be willing to get in there you know roll up your sleeves and you know develop some mental and physical muscle And deal with the problems we have all right we've got some terrible problems and it's they're they're very distracting too it's going to be tearing our minds away from what reality is but there's one something you have to know about reality and that is that existing in reality means that you're free you're an individual you cannot allow yourself to be enslaved you can't allow

yourself to be mechanized and programmed okay and when someone attempts to do that to you You must resist no matter what the cost you actually have to maintain your individuality if you don't they will control your cognition and you will never know the true nature of reality so you must remain willing and able to actually get in and fight for what you are Chris man thank you so much you're very welcome Kur it's been a pleasure I think that you there should be enough there that you can get some uh get a good I don't

know how long are Most of your interviews when you get done this one's going to be four hours how long have we been sitting here four hours been a while okay four and a half doesn't seem like that and yeah actually you made it very pleasurable so I thank you for that man Chris honestly I was nervous going into this like I mentioned because firstly I've been looking you up for a little while for at least a few weeks and I've known about you for years Though I haven't researched you for years and I heard

that you were a cat but at the same time from my from hearing that's from your wife and then I thought that you may be combative irritable cheric but from my experience with you it's you been such a pleasure man well thank you so much g i I'm glad that I haven't disappointed you in that respect you did an excellent job you are trying your your best I've seen you know Snippets of a couple of your other Interviews and I think this was this was one of your very best ones so thank you for giving

me the opportunity to to answer these questions and I hope you understand that there is a difference between me and some other interviewees in the sense that I don't Dodge your questions I try to answer them in a direct way and I can usually do that with a great deal of integration but where it appears to fall apart when you listen to this Tape there's anything you don't understand please just ask get in touch with me and I'll do my best to fill you in Chris have a great night eat some food get some rest

drink some beer whatever you got do I sure will