Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me, and he's got another thing coming. I mean, I'll just pluck his wings like those of a fly. Let's speak about the concept of hell.
Can you define it? Can you tell us how it's necessary? That'll 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 of 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 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 telically unbound and having your identity destroyed because it is unacceptable to God. See, God in the CTMU, 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 understand this stratified identity and understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now because that's a very unpleasant experience, everybody wants to cling to their identity in the end.
It's hellish. People create their own hell by rejecting their own highest level of identity. There's this phrase, I don't know where I got it from, but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside.
That's correct. Well, 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.
Where else would they come from? For someone like Dawkins, who doesn't believe in the concept of hell either, would he then experience nothingness? Okay, well, you're right.
I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell.
All right? Because he rejects, he will create his own kind of hell, and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to it. Okay?
He's 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 universe. You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect, because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect, and no one that I've met is perfect.
And no one that I've met is perfect. So does that mean that none of us are going to heaven? None of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded telesis.
The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time.
Things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. So 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. That isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of his 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 what you get punished for, 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?
Well, yes, basically. The problem, however, is that once you've professed atheism, now you've got to get God's attention again, okay? Once you've severed your soul, once you've put a cut in your soul, and you've actually cut God off, now you've got to heal that severance before God can see you again.
It takes a long time. It's not going to happen. Oh, well, I've changed my mind.
I've 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 hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that. Hey, honey, is there a light over there, you know, one of those lights, those wood lights over there?
Turn on that clamp light. I want to see how that influences the. .
. This thing is getting in my hands. What I'm getting at is almost the opposite of, not all those who cry, Lord, Lord, will be saved.
So on the one end, even if you claim to be a Christian, or you claim to believe in God, that's not enough. You have to also act it. And on the other end, one can say that even if one says that they're against God, but one acts kindly, one acts lovingly, then does that mean that they still can be saved?
Peterson would say, now he doesn't talk about heaven or hell, but he would say that you believe in God with your body, you don't with your mind, but the ultimate test is your actions. And what I'm wondering is. .
. By their deeds shall you live. Right, right, right.
So then does that mean to pick on Sam Harris, whom I may be interviewing at some point, so Sam, if you watch this, well, this is just for fun, to pick on Sam Harris, would you say that he, in your model, will be going to heaven or hell, assuming that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions, but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth? Unfortunately, your relationship with God cannot be faint. When somebody is doing good acts, it could be only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts.
They want the moral approval of other human beings. That's not good enough, okay? There actually has to be the acceptance of your own highest level of identity.
By the way, we have a rainstorm going on here. Now, can you still hear me? Completely fine.
Can't hear a thing of the storm. Okay, good. Have you ever found yourself questioning reality, and then all of a sudden you snap back to it, remembering that you have nothing planned for dinner?
That's where Hello Fresh comes to the rescue. They deliver pre-portioned farm fresh ingredients and seasonal recipes right to my door. What's great is that they have over 45 choices every week.
This keeps me and my wife exploring new flavors. They've got this quick and easy option that makes 15 minute meals, and time is of the essence. There's options if you're vegetarian, if you only eat fish.
An option that I personally chose was the pronto option. Their deliveries show up right on time, which isn't something I can say about other food delivery services. This punctuality is a huge deal for both me and my wife.
Plus, we use Hello Fresh as a way to bond. Cooking together is fun when it's all properly portioned out for you already. So, are you still on the fence?
Well, it's cheaper than grocery shopping, and 25% less expensive than takeout. The cherry on top? head to hellofresh.
com slash theories of everything free and use the code theories of everything free, all one word, to get free breakfast for life. That's free breakfast for life at hellofresh. com slash theories of everything free.
Don't forget, HelloFresh is America's number one meal kit. Links are in the description. 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 Langen explain the continued existence of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins? Well, they have a physical body.
They're basically cohering to their physical body and that's what's providing them with a continued identity. They've reduced themselves, however, to be a physicality. There's not much left of them.
They've actually cut off their highest level of identity and that will affect them when they are retracted from the mortal plane, when they no longer have a body here that holds them together, then that's it for them. If God could not have been otherwise, like with your model, there are these meta laws that govern the universe. So it sounds to me like there's a bound to God.
God is his own bound, God is his own boundary. He's his own origin and his own boundary. And both of those things are distributed.
This is part of the logical structure of the seeking. 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, none of the properties that we're entitled to. Who is or was Jesus?
Jesus? We cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that is written of him 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 mankind. All right, that's what Jesus is. He was the image of human perfection.
It is through a Jesus-shaped gateway that we can approach God. All right, we have to become perfect in order to unify with the perfection of God. So that's the way Jesus functions in the Christian religion.
The way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our friend through and far between, if you know what I mean. In Buddhism, of course, Buddhism has another central figure who is Buddha, Gautama Buddha Siddhartha. He is basically another kind of cat entirely.
He didn't talk much about God, right? You can infer, sort of infer, a conscious higher reality from some of the things that Buddha said. But he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God.
He was also a rich individual that was born into privilege and then went around traveling and meditating and ministering to the masses and so forth. But in several ways, he doesn't quite measure up to the image of Jesus. Jesus was born poor.
He didn't start out with any advantages at all. He lived like a normal man, like an ordinary human being, absorbing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at every turn, which is what we have to do. That's what we're expected to do.
Therefore, Jesus is an exemplar for us. Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from reality and have a meditative existence and 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-like characteristics. Instead, we recognize him for his strengths, what he was, which is considerable. Jesus is, or Buddha is not a lightweight in terms of religious figures.
So he doesn't suffer at all for his non-resemblance to Jesus. But if we want the ideal of human perfection, that's Jesus. Let's get to some other intellectuals.
Like I mentioned, for me, I love hearing academics 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 gonna 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 Clee Irwin? Yes. Are you presenting Clee as an intellectual giant?
Yes. I'm wondering what you think of Clee Irwin's theories. Clee 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, Clee seems like a smart person.
I don't wanna say anything bad about Clee, but I will say that Clee has a lot of ideas that are very CTMU-like. And the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before Clee did. And I actually had to force Clee to cite me in his most recent, it wasn't in that paper, Reality of Self-Simulation Hypothesis, okay?
Anyway, Clee, 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 Leacy's E8 theory.
Right. It's a certain symmetry group that he used. But there are other aspects that are straight, pure CTMU, okay, and I was simply not mentioned.
Now, I understand sometimes people don't know any better, but at one time, I was on every major news network in the country. There are probably relatively few people. who are above a certain age who never heard of me.
A lot of them have forgotten that they heard of me, but nevertheless, I was still there. I think that a reasonable literature search should turn up something about the CTMU if you undertake it. If you're actually doing your job and looking for other ideas that are comparable to yours, you're probably going to bump into it.
So Clee's theory is, to the extent that it resembles the CTMU, it's great, okay? Other parts of it are questionable, but here's the key part is, Clee is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self-simulation hypothesis and a reasonable TOE, Theory of Everything. He's missing certain key ingredients that are built into 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 mentions language in his theory and coding.
He mentions a lot of things that I introduced with the CTMU, which was the first language-like theory of reality. He mentions a lot of things, but then they're kind of haphazardly glued together and it looks like he kind of made a snowball out of them and threw it up in the air to see what would happen. And let me, 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 Clee is at. I don't want to detract from Clee. I think he probably, yeah, probably thinks he's doing a good job.
I do know that forcing him to cite me was not easy. I had a long string of correspondence. It originally happened, he introduced his paper, his new paper, and he put it up on RxEve, I guess, in this, it was one of, it was an email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known people.
And he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his reality self-simulation hypothesis. And I'm like, what the hell? 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, Clee, I've been talking about reality of self-simulation for years, you know, you're going to have to cite me. I've looked at your paper.
I don't see you mentioning me here. You know, you've got some of the same ideas in there. Went back, you know, quoted a lot of self-simulation quotes from me.
The problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he was responsible. It wasn't. And in my estimation, he, in some ways he's got it right, and in some ways he's lashing it out.
Okay, and I don't want people confusing his idea of what a reality of self-simulation would look like from what it really looks like, which is the way I describe it and have been describing for the last two or three decades. So I guess the final analysis is Clee seems to be, you know, on the right track, but he's got some problems. What about Joscha Bach and his ideas of consciousness?
Joscha Bach, like Daniel Dennett, is a physicalist. You cannot explain consciousness with physics or in a computational system. Okay, the CTMU makes use of a concept called proto-computation, which is even more general than quantum computation.
I mean, there's a universal Turing machine, there's a quantum Turing machine. The CTMU actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a proto-computer, except that it's the entire CTMU. All of that structure has to go into this quantization.
Okay, and then the universe is self-similar on that basis. Every part of it mirrors the whole. Okay, so you can't, I mean, it's a metaphysical system.
You cannot explain consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need. Okay, your consciousness is coherent. You are a unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts.
You feel the unity of your consciousness. That's what I mean by coherence. A machine is not coherent, it doesn't have that coherence.
All right, you've got to figure out some way of getting that coherence in there, and that's a tall order. Okay, Joshua Bach doesn't have that. Daniel Dennett never had that.
I mean, there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned. These guys, they have some good ideas. I mean, I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done.
Everybody has remarkable insights. Dennett writes well, I mean, but he writes like a philosopher which is almost opaquely at times. You read some of his stuff and people think I'm opaque.
I think I'm a marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennett sometimes. He talks around things like a lot of philosophers do. I mean, that's a skill that they develop in academia.
Joshua Bach is better than that. He actually tries, makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennett ever did, but still, you know, still he's not really getting to the root of what consciousness is in my opinion. And even if they're wrong, they're extremely inventive, both Joscha Bach and Daniel Dennett.
I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points. I'm not trying to, you know, these are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that they're trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem and their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused their solutions to go awry.
If you enjoyed that clip, then the full podcast is out right now. You can click around here, enjoy. Subscribe to Theories of Everything to get notified of upcoming podcasts as there are new full-length podcasts every week on the topics of mathematics, physics, consciousness, free will, and AI.
