A Scientist Says Nuclear Bombs Are Firecrackers Compared to What's Outside The Simulation

We have not yet modeled the observer that's collecting the data in science. So, under Newtonian physics, you ignore the observer. In Einstein, you talk about the observer because but the observer is reduced to clocks [music] and and measurement pointers. In quantum theory, now the observer becomes front and center [music] because there are two different regimes in quantum theory. There's a unitary evolution when no one's looking, when you don't observe, and then there's what they call the collapse of the wave function when you observe. So, all of a sudden in in quantum mechanics, the observer comes front and center. But quantum theory has no universally accepted [music] model of the observer. And we haven't had it for now a century. >> You've started saying [music] something incredibly provocative and very interesting for me, which is that if this is uh a simulation-like thing inside of a headset, then we might be able to edit the code. And if we think of physics as being the pathway to editing that code, then you've said even things like a nuclear bomb would just be firecrackers compared to what we'll be able to do in the future. So, do you really believe that the code is editable? And if it is, have we already edited the code? >> First, I agree that space-time is not fundamental. And I'm a cognitive scientist and it's really of course up to the high-energy theoretical physicist to say whether or not space-time is fundamental, right? Not a cognitive scientist. But they've been doing that now for for quite a few decades. They've said >> Saying that it's not fundamental. >> not fundamental. So, uh Nima Arkani-Hamed at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton says that flat out. He says space-time is doomed. It cannot be fundamental. And also quantum theory. So, space-time and quantum theory together are going to have to arise from some deeper framework. Um there are others as as well, many many other famous physicists. So many now that are working on this and making progress that the European Research Council has a 10 million euro initiative um on what are called positive geometries. >> Mhm. >> And there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of mathematicians and theoretical physicists who are now starting to look for structures entirely outside of space-time that can make predictions inside space-time. And they're finding them. They're finding these things that are called positive geometries. >> Okay, really fast cuz I think people get lost at this and my promise to the audience is that I'm going to try to simplify this stuff to the point where if you understand just a little bit of the concept, it begins to open up a metaphor, if nothing else. And so I've always said regarding my belief that we're in a simulation is that it may just be that that's the best metaphor, that it's not literally true. You and I both agree, whatever we say here, over in the fullness of time, will be proven to be incomplete at a minimum. >> Sure. >> Um but I think that the idea that we're living in a simulation is such a profoundly accurate metaphor um that it's very useful. So when we talk about them discovering these um positive geometries, my understanding is basically you have Richard Feynman >> Right. >> who creates this like really brute force math equation to describe what happens when particles collide. And it's this just ridiculously complicated math equation that people will spend an entire career on a single equation. >> Right. >> Then you've got Arkani-Hamed. I forget I can never remember >> right. >> Thank you. Uh he realizes, oh wait a second, these can actually be simplified into a single geometric shape. And when you calculate the volume, >> Right. >> uh of that simple shape, all of a sudden, in a very fast way, you can figure out how particles will interact when they collide. >> That's That's exactly right. When you let go of the wrong framework, and space-time is just the wrong framework for principled reasons that we can talk about that are very, very simple. It's It's actually very straightforward to understand why space-time cannot be the fundamental base level of reality at all. >> it. >> The first step is that space-time is just a scientific theory. Right? And every scientific theory is just a theory. It's not the truth. Every scientific theory starts with assumptions and it says, "If you grant me these assumptions, then I'll explain all this other stuff." >> Mhm. >> Uh but it can never explain its own assumptions. So, we got space-time by making certain assumptions, like Einstein assuming that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames and so forth. But it doesn't explain its own assumptions, and so you we will always need a deeper theory to explain the assumptions of a previous theory. But the new theory will always have its own assumptions. So, So, science is a very humble enterprise in in a way. We always know that our assumptions are not the final word. Now a great scientific theory gives you not only the tools to explore what it can explain, at the scope of what it can explain. It'll also give you the tools to explore the limits of its own assumptions. That's what a great theory. And it turns out that Einstein's space-time together with quantum theory, so quantum field theory and gravity together give us the tools to show where their assumptions stop. So, their assumption So, what they show is that the very notion of space-time itself has no operational meaning at all at what's called the Planck scale, 10 to the minus 33 cm, 10 to the minus 43 seconds. And so, that means that space-time is a wonderful framework. Uh brilliant. And Einstein's contributions are So is quantum mechanics. There's nothing wrong with these frameworks. But we knew a priori that they can't be the final word because it's just a scientific theory. Theories are just theories. And so but in this case the theory is so good. It says this stops at the Planck scale. It has no meaning, no operational meaning. If you want to to be very very clear about that. If you want to measure things that are smaller and smaller and smaller, you need to have smaller and smaller wavelengths of light or radiation. Right? To resolve them. So your microscope is using smaller and smaller wavelengths of light to resolve things. To but Einstein and and quantum theory together tell us that as you get smaller and smaller wavelengths, the energy is going up. And as the wave energies are going up, Einstein says energy is mass, mass is going up, curved spacetime is being curved by the mass. Eventually, the mass is so great that you create a black hole. And so the very thing that you're trying to measure gets destroyed in a black hole. And if you get frustrated and say, "Well, I'm just going to try put more energy, make it a smaller wavelength." The black hole just gets bigger and bigger. So it really means that the very notion of spacetime has no meaning operationally at all at 10 to the minus 33 cm, 10 to the minus 43 seconds. We know it's over. Now most physicists don't need to worry about this, right? What they're doing is within the normal range of physics that that we can do every day. But the high energy theoretical physicists are the ones for which this is a serious issue because they're looking at the very very high energies and they're looking at at the at the limits of the current theory. And they're the ones that are that the European Research Council it are is funding with the 10 million euro initiative to say, "Okay, what's next? We knew that spacetime stopped at the Planck scale." >> Because they really want to get beneath that minimum size. >> We need a deeper theory. There has to be some deeper scientific theory that gives rise to spacetime. So spacetime that sense will be emergent from a a much deeper framework. And we already get the hint that that's happening to us because we're finding these positive they're finding these positive geometries that make the computation simpler. >> Okay, so do you see actually okay, I I have a follow-up question there but I I really want to ground the audience who isn't technical on why I think at a minimum the metaphor of the simulation is going to be so helpful. >> Yeah. >> Um so this all started clicking for me when I started doing video game development and all of a sudden you're making all these decisions and you start looking at the universe and you're like wait, I'm having to create physics. So you're looking sideways at the real universe and you're like I'm mimicking all of these things that I see in the real world to get this thing to function and then you start getting to rendering. And once I realized I've got to put all this thought into how the game world renders and then you find out that there was a Nobel Prize awarded for proving that the universe is not locally real, which is a fancy way of saying that the universe only renders what is being measured or interacted with. So you could say if you look at the moon, it renders because you need to for that uh perceiving agent. It gets very tricky how you want to define that cuz it isn't just about conscious agents though this may be where we disagree. But I would say it's anything that needs to interact or measure that thing. That's how the universe actually works. That's also how a game actually works. And so I started going whoa, the fact that the universe effectively only renders what it must render and that it is always seeking computational efficiency. I was just like, yo this is too weird. So when we start talking about the Planck scale, if people just go oh yeah, you don't render anything beyond that scale because you have a pixel size. Now, metaphor sure, I'm fine with that but if you recognize that, oh, one of the ways that you can tell that this isn't base reality, let's say, is that it has this finite size that happens to map exactly to the idea of a pixel size or a tick speed in a computer, cuz when you're doing a game, there's a speed at which it checks with the code. And so, the fact that the real universe also has a tick speed and a finite pixel size is just too wild. And so, if nothing else, even if that ends up being proven like, up, there's something that I'm missing and it gets you part of the way there to understanding it, it still gets you a long way to understanding it. And so, as we talk today, I'm going to try to anchor the audience at a minimum in that metaphor to help them understand why this kind of thing stops people in their tracks when they start hearing how the universe actually operates. >> Well, I'm on the same page with you, completely on the rendering only as you need it. But, I should be very, very clear that physics today is divided on this issue. So, some physicists, mean, they all recognize, the high-energy theoretical physicists all recognize that space-time is doomed at the Planck scale. So, that's that's not in question. What is in question is what to do about it and what to do with quantum theory. And so, there are so-called primitive ontology approaches where they still try to have something that's there all the time, whether you render it or render it or not. So, the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum theory, for example, has a particle that's run writing on the quantum pilot wave, but there really is a particle all the time and it doesn't get rendered on the moment. So, I So, I just want to be very, very clear that even though you and I are on the same page, the physics community is divided on this. There are others who will say um that the quantum wave function really is the like for There's a a a called cubism, so quantum Bayesianism that says the the quantum wave function really just describes the degrees of belief of the observer. And nothing else. So, it's completely >> of belief >> Degrees of belief about what you will see. >> Interesting. >> When you when you observe what what what you will find when you observe. >> We'll get right back to the show in a second, but first let's talk about how your brain actually works. Your brain can run on two fuel sources, glucose and ketones. Most people only ever give it glucose. Think of it this way, [music] you would not put regular unleaded in a Ferrari. Your brain is like that. It is the most complex machine on the planet and most people are fueling it up with the cheap stuff. And the Department of Defense believed in this enough to spend $6 million developing the technology behind today's sponsor, [music] Ketone-IQ. Ketone-IQ delivers pure ketones directly [music] to your brain. They cross the blood-brain barrier and fuel your neurons at the cellular level. There's no caffeine, no sugar, no crash, no stimulants at all. For me, I use it when I really need to be sharp. [music] So, if I'm about to do an interview or something that I'm writing that really takes a lot out of me and it carries me straight through. [music] Ketone-IQ contains no artificial sweeteners or fillers and comes in delicious flavors like peach, green apple, and raspberry lemonade. >> [music] >> If you're ready to fuel your brain properly, visit ketone.com/impact [music] for 30% off your subscription order or visit your local Target to get your first shot for free. Now, let's get back to the show. It may be a good time for you to define what you think is base reality uh and then I'll make a confession about what I think about base reality, which is the right way to say it. Um and and so we're going to need to keep those things apart. So, um really fast tell people what you think is outside of the headset. >> Basically the idea is something that live minutes proposed in his monadology. He said we need to start with the observer. He called them monads. He said we need to have monads in some kind of pre-established harmony. >> No one knows what a monad is. >> Yeah, so it's just an observer. It's just an observing entity. And John Wheeler who was Feynman's um PhD advisor. John Wheeler came to the same conclusion. He basically said we need to restart physics with what he called observer participants. We need to have some kind of mathematical model of those and show how >> they need to be conscious? >> My own personal view is yes, that they need to be conscious. But the mathematics that I'm working on allows um a non-conscious interpretation. It wouldn't be a problem. >> Okay. >> So so I'm I'm personally thinking about it as as as conscious. But when you look at the mathematics, you don't have to say conscious. You you you can just say the the appearance that something is like consciousness or something like that. It's so it's really when I think about what I'm doing, it's it's a model of the observing process. And the reason that that's really critical in science is if you think about what science is, it's a bunch of people that are looking at the world carefully with experimental equipment. But we're looking at the world. We're talking with each other. And we're comparing our observations. What kinds of observations do you get? What do I get? What structure of the world would explain our observations? So it's we're not removed from this whole thing. It There is we have to understand how our observations interface with the theories that we're trying to build. And so that's the the critical thing. And what's happened in science is we in Newton we ignored the observer. >> Let me ask, do you think the universe was rendered prior to biological life? >> The distinction between biological life and non-biological life and non-biological entities is an artifact of the headset. I I don't think it's a principal distinction. So So the answer would then be I guess yes. >> Okay. >> It's prior to biology. I I think that the distinction between living and non-living is not principled. I think that it's an artifact of the limitations of our perceptual headset. >> remind you that you said that when we get to artificial intelligence cuz I heard you say things about artificial intelligence that would have made me expect a different answer there. Okay, so um we You haven't said the thing yet. So I take the headset off and what's there? What is the fundamental structure? >> What's really there is a bunch of observers interacting. It's It's really >> that you would call conscious agents. >> I I Yes, I'll call them conscious agents, but if someone I should say if someone doesn't like to have consciousness fundamental, then I would just say observers. Just call them observing agents. That's all you need. >> Okay. When I think of the words observing agent, I think most people are going to conjure like a thing that is maybe not conscious, but either is an AI entity, is a frog, is a human, is a mosquito. Like they're going to have some sense of like that or a ghost or an apparition or a god. Like they're They're going to be so trapped in the words and images that they've seen that I I fear that the metaphor is going to keep pulling them back into the headset and they're going to have a very hard time getting to a more foundational truth. So it I'll give So yours is conscious agents. Final answer? >> Yeah, or or or or >> What do you believe? I get >> I think the thing that I should say that would probably be the most understandable to the widest audience is just simply I have a mathematical notion of an observer as the foundational notion. >> Give me the most obscure for of an observer. >> So all By the way, an observer is very, very simple. Um Imagine yourself sitting at a stoplight. And you're focused on the stoplight, and you can see red, green, or yellow. >> Yep. >> Here's a very, very simple observer that can see three colors. And for a while you see red, and then maybe it turns to green, and maybe it turns to yellow. So, for me, an observer is just simply an entity that can have a range of experiences like red, green, and yellow, and those experiences change. And that's literally all I mean by an observer. >> concrete that the light is shining on an observer? >> Anything that you experience is an experience. That that itself is The observer is the capacity to have experiences and have those experiences change. So, anything that you see, like this table or my hand or or concrete or a street, those would all be experiences that an observer can have. But but the observer is really an entity that has the capacity to have a range of experiences, maybe three, maybe a million. In the case of >> Do Do we agree that a photon detector is an observer? >> So, now we have to actually say what's an observer versus what is a headset representation of an observer. So, when I have >> Well, so we're talking about the headset is off. This is what I'm trying to figure out. >> Oh, okay. >> Um and so, you take the headset off. I When you say conscious agent, I think I understand his position. I don't agree with it, but I understand his position. When you start going into the caveats, I then I'm projecting onto you. Now I'm like, oh, he's trying to get to what I think is the fundamental thing. Um but I won't know until I can pin you down on >> Right. So, so the fundamental thing is abstract. The fundamental thing is literally a set of possible experiences >> Uh-huh. >> and a matrix that says what's the probability of the changes of experiences. That's it. >> Okay, so that's a Markov chain. >> and it's abstract. So, when you talk about a photon, a photon detector or something like that, >> Yep. >> that's a different thing. That's now >> are already inside the headset. >> That's already in the headset. That's right. >> but I was just trying to figure out if you would agree that that is uh because okay, um let me briefly say what I think it is and then let's >> Okay. >> do battle and see if we can figure something out. So, I think the universe is computational and I said I had a confession about when you take the headset off or when you exit the um simulation, I think the second you exit the matrix, in my language, you have to confront the only question that matters. Why is there something instead of nothing? >> Right. >> That that is quite literally every science, every inquiry, every question, what are God's thoughts, all of it is going to wind up with how is it possible that there is an unmoved mover? Something that always was and always will be is just there. Like it is very hard for us to grapple with. My only answer is I have no idea. >> Right. >> So, I'm I am only attempting to grapple with I'm in the matrix. >> Right. >> I don't think there's any way out. I don't think there is removing the headset and I will attempt to convince you of that >> Okay. >> uh >> in our time together today. So, for me, part of what I'm trying to figure out is there's some set of assumptions that you have that make you interested in this whole conversation. >> And I think the ability to edit the code is part of what drives you. >> Whereas for me, the thing that drives me is understanding how the world works so that as a human, I know how to make the most of this experience. And it >> anyway, period. So, my confession about the what's outside the headset is so I can get people to understand, okay, we're we're in the matrix, we're in the headset, and the only thing that matters is that the universe is computational in the exact same way that a video game is computational. >> Yes. >> The reason the universe is not locally real is for the same reason that a video game world which feels gigantic to like think about how big a Minecraft world is eight eight times the size size of planet Earth once you take a measurement inside the game. Say this is a meter in the game, and then compared to the size of Earth, it's about eight times bigger. So, the world is just staggeringly large. Uh yet it's all processed on one or two chips. And so, it's things that feel disparate in the game are actually being processed in the exact same spot. So, getting people to understand that, I think, is precisely why we're like, wait, how could this gigantic thing called space-time communicate over distances that would require it to break the speed of light, but it's not actually because it's all being processed in the same place. So, that is where I think if you come back to that, that this is literally functioning like a video game, and video games are basically a simulation inside of a simulation, >> Right. >> then it will all start to make sense. But the second you ask, what's outside the simulation, and can we access it, then I'm like, that doesn't It doesn't even make sense. >> First, I would say, yes, I like your idea about computation being the driver of the interface, and the Markov chains are computationally universal. So, anything that can be done with a universal Turing machine can be done with Markov chains. >> And really fast, I just want to explain, I had to look all this stuff up. So, for anybody that's like, Markov chain, what the hell is that? >> Right. >> I feel your pain. Uh a Markov chain is the mathematics that explain how one thing transitions to another. >> That's right. The I guess the direction that would be be helpful right now would be to point out that in the video game say Grand Theft Auto or something like that, right? >> Yeah. >> You have a car that you're driving, you see a steering wheel, you have an avatar, you see your avatar hands gripping the wheel, you see other people driving their cars, you see their avatars. But you are not your avatar. You are outside the game altogether. You're sitting somewhere with a Coca-Cola or something like that playing the game. But the avatar in the game is not you. It looks like you and if you get immersed in the game then you can identify with the avatar temporarily. So you do want to learn how to play the game well to be if you want to be an expert in the game, but you can also step back and say there's a world entirely outside the game. And in the in the metaphor I'm pushing here is it's not only possible to say that, it's possible to actually look at the code. There is software outside of the virtual reality game and science is eminently up to the task of getting that software and figuring it out. So that's what I'm up to. I'm saying, yes, I agree with you, Tom. We should learn how to live in the simulation to live good lives, enjoy ourselves, but it's not at all hard to to think about the possibility that we can step out of this because I am not the Hoffman avatar. I transcend that. You're not the Tom avatar. You tran- Whatever you are, the Tom avatar is a trivial headset projection of something far more interesting, far more powerful than the little Tom and the little Don that are sitting right here. These are little avatars stuck in the rules of this game. We transcend the game and it's possible because we transcend the game for science to transcend space-time and to actually find the first layer of software that's rendering this headset. And so the theoretical physicists are doing this right now. They're finding the positive geometries. They're still scratching their head, what does this mean? We're just starting now. I'm proposing a Markov chain approach to this, I'm which I'm saying this is a mathematically rigorous framework that will give us the software that can exactly render curved space-time of Einstein, quantum field theory, um non-locality, comp you know, the all of these things will come out of a deeper layer of software and it's eminently within the power of science to rigorously write down this first layer of software outside of these uh outside of this game, outside of this VR game, and show exactly how this VR game is rendered. And I want to do that simply because I'm a geek scientist and I just want to understand it, but you can easily see the technology that would come out of this. Cuz if you are the person So, if you're a wizard in Grand Theft Auto, you know how to drive the car as fast as you can in the rules of the game. And so, you're the wizard in the game. But if you're just someone who can't drive very well, but you wrote the software, right? You couldn't actually play the game very well, but you wrote the software. You know the code. You can do stuff that's miraculous to the wizard. You can take the air out of his tires. You can take the gas out of his tank. You can make his car turn into a donkey and have him going at you 5 miles an hour. You can do anything You can do miracles because you're not stuck in the game. You're not the avatar in the game. You transcend the game. And so, that will be one of the big evidences from science that you are not your body. When we can actually transcend space-time and play with space-time like a game writer can play with the game that they've written. So, that's what I'm after. I'm saying And then, you can't think big enough about the technologies that will come out of it. Like um if you can play with space-time, uh you're not stuck with inside the rules of space-time. So, Einstein's laws, you know, can't go faster than the speed of light. That's true in the headset. It's not true if you're writing the code. You can do whatever you want. And if you can start to play with time and space because you know how they're rendered, then you can do miracles. So, that's why I say all the technologies we have right now will look completely antiquated as soon as we get the first layer of software outside the headset. And there's absolutely no reason why science should be limited to space time mathematics. Absolutely none. And the reason is because you are not stuck in space You're not an object in space time. Your mind, your your abilities transcend space time because you yourself are rendering space time right now. So, the proof of that will be when we actually write down the code, show how the space time is rendered, and then start to play with it like we're playing with a toy. >> Okay. That will really show. >> We'll return to the show in a sec, but first, let's talk about the difference between winning and losing a deal. Your competitor responded in 10 minutes. You responded in 3 hours. When a customer reaches out, every minute you wait is a minute they're considering other options. Slow responses don't just frustrate customers, they cost you revenue. And if your team can't see who's already handling what, [music] response times get even worse. Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2 with over 3,000 reviews built for how modern teams actually work. More than 90,000 businesses rely on it because it's designed to keep you fast and responsive. When money is on the line, say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free, plus get 20% off your first 6 months at quo.com/impact. That's q u o.com/impact. Let's talk about [music] the gap between having a great product and actually building a great product, and actually building a business. >> [music] >> You're the designer, the copywriter, the marketer, the inventory manager, the customer support team, the shipping department, and that [music] alone is five jobs that you never applied for. Shopify is how you change that equation. It's the commerce platform behind 10% of all e-commerce in the US. Their AI tools write your product descriptions, sharpen your headlines, and enhance your product photography, so you don't need to be a creative team [music] by yourself. Built-in email and social campaigns mean you don't need an expensive marketing [music] agency. And when a customer finally decides to check out, Shopify's [music] Shop Pay button is the best converting checkout on [music] the planet. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, >> [music] >> Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com/impact. [music] Now, let's get back to the show. >> Before we go further, we have to define you, cuz this is one of the areas that when I'm listening to you talk, I always want to be like, "Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. We got to We got to define that, cuz I want to know what you mean." Um okay, so we're going to do this in, I think, a very specific way. So, there's the vision of the Matrix, and you've got Thomas Anderson inside of the Matrix, but the him that's outside of it is literally in a pod. He's bald, he hasn't moved his muscles ever, he's never used his eyes, but he's in a knowable location, and you can go and find him. And that's the real world, and when you take the red pill, you send a disruption signal that they can track, and they can go get him. So, that would be a A version of you, which is startlingly similar to the you in the headset, but you're outside the game. Then you've got my version, which is you're an NPC, you are um a program, you're pure computation, um you're hard-coded, you have no free will, like you're you're just doing NPC video game stuff. It feels like you have free will, I got that. >> Right. >> But nonetheless, uh and so there is no you outside of the game. The idea of outside of the game plus you is literally nonsensical. So if you think of a character in a game >> Right. >> that character only exists because there is a program that is running that person and person in quotes of course. If you tried to take that character's code and run it even in a different game on a similar engine, it wouldn't work. If you then tried to take it and run it out in the real world, it's literally just like code. It would just sit there on a piece of paper. It It You wouldn't even have a sense that it represented an NPC. It would literally just be lines of code. >> Right. >> And so then we've got a third option, which is what I thought you were going to say, which is um consciousness is fundamental. It is one thing. There is one consciousness, which in my defense I've heard you say a gazillion times. >> Right. >> And if there is one consciousness, it is basically broadcasting into the headset these experiences for whatever reason. And I've heard you and many other people say it's the universe trying to understand itself from all these different angles. >> Right. >> Uh which if that is the final take, then we can go down that road. Um okay, so those feel like the three options of you. >> Right. >> So one being distressingly close to how you see yourself in the headset, one being there is no you, it's your the you in the game is it, period, end of story, there's no taking the headset off. >> That's your view, right? >> That's my view. And then there's the well, it's sort of you, but consciousness is one fundamental thing and the you in the headset can't really be experienced outside of the headset. That's a headset only exclusive. Um and so I've heard you say dying is removing the headset and realizing that you're part of the one. >> Right. >> Okay. Uh Does one of those accurately reflect your view or is there a different one? >> I would say that you the third one is the closest to my view. >> Okay. And but it's only close. It's not precise. >> That's right. It's it's well put it this way. It's it's the closest that I can come right now to saying something precise about what I think. >> Okay. So you know there's something wrong but you're not yet sure what that is. >> In in this in the following sense that every scientific theory is always provisional. But my view is that every scientific theory starts with assumptions and you know that that can't be the final word. So when I say I'm going to assume as a scientist I'm saying I'm going to assume that there is one consciousness and that it is usefully described by an infinite set of different kinds of Markov chains that are all related in a way we can in a way we can talk about. So that's so that's going to be my theory. So there is one consciousness and it has all these complicated um branchings into subconsciousnesses and even smaller subconsciousnesses and that whole thing is is the fundamental layer. And then from that I can create our space time you know three dimensions of space one dimension of time. I could create one with with five dimensions a billion dimensions of space. I could create things any headset that you can want. >> Is right now and I'll trust you cuz I'm not sure what the answer is going to be but is right now the right time to go into how consciousness gives birth to the mathematics that give us the artificial but useful within the headset space time. >> Sure. This is I >> Perfect. >> going to be easy but it's it's not right. >> But so we'll put let's really pin down. So the closest thing that you can get to right now is that to take off the headset is to return to the one one consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. There is nothing else. >> Right. >> Um everything else is a layer on top of that. Now, um before we get to the mathematics, do you believe that the metaphor of the headset is meant to communicate something that is inherently computational? >> I would think that's that's perfectly fine. The The idea that I've got is that there are all these conscious agents, but we can write down mathematically what how how we're going to describe them, and that mathematics allows us to think of them as computational. We don't reduce >> Well, so computational is a very important word to me in that computational is making clear that this is being run on something, that energy is somewhere being consumed in order to run the um all the code that is going to say the Donald Hoffman inside of the um headset has all of these different pop properties, the way your cells divide, uh the way that your DNA comes together to form your physical structure, that you're a part of the human species, like all of that has to be computed, and then there are things like um physics and weight distribution, aging, like all of that stuff goes into the you that's inside of the headset. So, to me, when I say computational, that's what I'm talking about. It's mathematics, it's energy to run the computations, and you're taking inputs, which have been coded somehow some way, so this in your If you say yes to this, what you're saying is consciousness writes computer code. And once that code is written, then it can be run, it can be computed, quite literally, and that's why it has to be um efficient, because so much effort from my thinking is that goes into making it efficiently computed. Does all of that feel true or did I get something wrong? >> That's all true from a perspective. So so the idea would be that the very notion of computation of a universal Turing machine, a universal notion of of computation. >> Well, when you say a Turing machine, do you just mean inputs become outputs? >> Well, it's in in in computer science there we we have the notion of automata theory and formal automata and a hierarchy of them. And so we have a notion of the various kinds of levels of computational sophistication that you can have. And the ultimate is a universal Turing machine and which which can compute anything. And and so >> What makes something a universal Turing machine? >> It Well, so this is Alan Turing was the one who defined it. It it has a It's a machine that has a finite set of states and a finite set of transition rules, has a start state, a set of halt states. And you can show that if it has a certain level of complexity in the transition rules effectively and and if it has a potentially infinite tape. You have as much tape as you need for for what you're doing. Then then it's in some sense computationally universal. There There's everything that can be computed it can be computed by a universal Turing machine. And and also the universal Turing machine can sort of simulate any particular Turing machine. >> So basically it has the rules by which it knows how to run the computations. >> That's right. And and it's what Turing did that was brilliant was he he made this very very simple. He He basically had a set of small set of states and a start state, some halt states, and then a set of transition rules. And and and and in fact so when I said that Markov chains are computationally universal, you can effectively model Turing machines with a subset of Markov chains. So, they include Turing's notion of computation as a subset of the possible Markov chains. So, so it's Now, the notion that you were bringing up are very, very important physical notions about energy and time and and the effort that's required for certain computations. But, that will be now a headset specific aspect of the computation as seen through a headset. >> Yes, but remember we're we're trying to get to you. We're trying to figure out how you define you. And what I'm saying is the computation is necessary to have any intelligible sense of you that people will understand. I think part of the reason that people find this conversation interesting is it's dealing with death. And so, hey, if I'm in a computational universe, maybe I can transcend this. Maybe there's a way for me to get out of the matrix. Maybe there's a way for me to skip around in my code and be young again or whatever. >> Yes. >> Um I have a whole story that one day I will tell uh about a guy that is obsessed with figuring out if you can flip the database entry, for him it's on his wife, from zero, which means dead, to one for alive. >> Yes. >> Uh and I think this is all what haunts people and or what makes this conversation so interesting. >> Right. >> And where I always terminate is that there is no getting out of the quote-unquote matrix because at some point you have to accept, computational or not, we are biological creatures and I can completely disrupt who you think you are with chemicals. So, imagine what I can do with a chemical that can make your ego feel like it's dissolving. Uh Now, imagine how startling it would be to not even be computational in nature anymore. You're just one with the uh consciousness. Like, that would be so it wouldn't be you. Like, part of what makes you you is that you're scared of spiders or that you love ketchup or you know, whatever. All of that is gone. And so, what would it even mean to say you at that point? >> Okay. >> And that's where it's like I want to start drawing distinctions. One, because I think it makes the um the setup of what this is, what's possible, what's not possible, we can actually have the conversation. But then it also brings up the sort of finiteness of the you factor. So, for instance, some people will find great relief from death anxiety at uploading their consciousness. But once they really think about it, they'll realize they have no experiential connection with that duplication. So, it'd be the exact same as cloning you, but you can't experience the clone. The clone's going to go do its thing and be its own separate entity that has literally nothing to do with you other than from a starting point, you guys are identical. And so, that's where I want to really ground this. >> Very good. That great points. So, I I would say a couple things I'll put something out there that's sort of stunning to start off with. I'm a cognitive neuroscientist and I would I would claim that I have no neurons unless they're observed. The rendering thing that you were talking about before. So, my body My neuro >> Let me let me uh stress test that. >> Right. >> [snorts] >> I would say that you don't believe you have no neurons. Um I think what you really mean is they are encoded, they're just not running. So, the computation to make them turn an input into an output is dormant. >> And so, there we might disagree because I'm actually saying, you know, like retinal ganglion cells, that's a kind of of neuron that's that's in me. >> Yeah. >> Retinal ganglion cells do not exist unless they're perceived. They literally do not exist. There is >> Let me try one more time and see if I >> Okay. >> Uh when you think of computer code and that code turns into a character >> Right. >> I will agree that we're simulating eyeballs or we're simulating vision, we're simulating sound. And so you could certainly say that the eyes, they're not real at all ever. Um but what I'm getting at is are you saying that um those never exist? So those cells never exist and they are merely a simulated thing? >> That's that's right. They If some neuroscientist looked inside my brain with some kind of correct apparatus, they would see neurons. >> Yes. >> And that would be their perception. Those neurons would exist only in their perception and they were actually never my neurons. So so I'm literally saying the render is really a render and nothing is there. So the chemical We talk about chemicals in space and time and and so forth, neurons. I'm saying those absolutely do not exist except in the instant of a render. So if a neuroscientist opens a brain and looks, then that neuroscientist has neural experiences and that's all that neurons are. >> Do you think >> dealing with the something much different than neurons. >> But is the non-visual mathematics of the neurons firing still running and that's what makes you you? And it's just the visual layer that fails to render or are you saying that the the thing we call Donald Hoffman is entirely a broadcast signal that is received and that's what animates you? >> I would say that that Hoffman is a particular rendering program that other people can see and that I experience and that I'm not fundamentally I don't most of us identify with our bodies and with the things that are going through our head. But if you start in your a meditation process for example and you start to just go into silence and you just start to look at your emotions and you look at all the things that are so important to you and you look and you find that you can you can just sort of step back and say well I thought that that was me. I thought that the love of doing this particular thing which I still love was me. Well, no I can I can step back and I can look at that and say that is something I could do or not or not do but I am not that. I transcend that. So when you actually spend time just looking at yourself all the things that you think are you you can step back and say no I am more like the silence that's looking at all this stuff. I'm looking at my love of you know basketball. I'm looking at my love of eating you know whatever it is I like to eat some pancakes or something like that. I can look at all the things that I think are or you know I'm an entrepreneur and this is really really important to me that's who I am. I can look back at look at that and say you know what I did that. I can walk away from it. That's not who I am. So there is a sense in which when you go into complete silence and just watch all the emotions, watch all the thoughts and watch other people's emotions and thoughts you realize um yeah we're we're we're sort of lost in the game. That's not you. That's you lost in the game. And I can step back and just say okay well how is the game rendered? How am I getting sucked in? Um I'm not a little thing trapped in the game. I am capable of stepping back, looking at the whole game, disidentifying. So, for me, being a professor, and you doing all the academic stuff, very, very important getting papers published, I can look back at that and go, "You know what? I did that." That's not me. It was important to me. I thought it was me for a long time. I identified with it. My whole personal identity was a tied up with it. But, you know what? At one point, I was tied up with toys in the sandbox as a 5-year-old. And if someone stole my toy, I fell apart. I was I was destroyed because someone stole my toy. But, now I can step back and go, "Oh, no, that was just that rendering of me." And you know, I went through that render, and I can step back. So, even my most advanced scientific stuff that I want to do, that's not me. That's just me playing in the sandbox with some toys. And so, I can always step back. So, my idea is is really we transcend this so much that we can actually we're smart enough that we can actually figure out the code that that's rendering us and what we thought is ourselves in this thing. We can actually render that code. And if we do that, I mean, this here's the proof, right? I'm claiming a an empirical thing. We will be able to understand the first layer of software outside of space-time. We will be able to build space-time. We will be able to build um models that work completely inside space-time. And once we know how to do that, we will have technologies that will look like magic. We will not be bound by the speed of light. We will not be bound by the rules of the game because we now understand the software behind the game. We're no longer the players in the game. We we we transcend the game. We So, I'm claiming Tom transcends space-time. Whatever Tom is is not stuck in this body, is not stuck in the entrepreneur game at all. Tom transcends that completely. And but for some reason, this one consciousness chooses to go in with both feet, go into the avatar, get lost completely, identify with the kid in the 5-year-old in the sandbox and the toys and really cry when someone steals my toys, really cry when my paper doesn't get published, really cry when someone dies. Really So, I really I'm I'm in the game, but then I can step back and go, "Wow, that was a perspective on the deeper me. Whatever I am, I'm really glad I spent 70, 80, 90 years as Tom Bilyeu, but now I'm stepping out. That That was a That was a great ride. Now, >> memories of that? >> I don't see why you shouldn't be able to have the memories and look at them, just like I have a memory of being a 5-year-old um crying because someone stole my toy in the sandbox. >> What is the mechanism by which memories are formed? >> Well, of course, in side space time, we would talk about synaptic connections and so forth. So, in in the headset, we would use that kind of thing in neuroscience. Um in in the Markov chain model that I am working on, it would be um in the memory of the transition probabilities of these matrices. >> But, how would you store that memory? If I have a Ferrari and then I completely disassemble it and I make a blender, and if I go to the blender and I say, "That blender is a dope car, right?" The people would be like, "That's nonsensical." And I'm like, "Yeah, yeah, but it's the same parts from the Ferrari." And then people would be like, "Sure, but it doesn't drive." And so, the thought that those are the same thing, like, not really. So, for me, the one consciousness just is completely unrelated to these You're going to hate this language. These skin suits that it wears inside of the headset. And you may have an image of the one consciousness that is so radically different than what I'm imagining uh that we'll just never be able to really have the same conversation. But to me, it we are our biology. And so, the second you tell me I transcend my biology, I'm like, "Oh, it's not me." And while I agree with you on all of the like, we'll be able to do things that are magical, but for instance, if I went in and gave myself uh you know, 190 IQ, I'm not me anymore, because I'm not a guy with 190 IQ. And so, the second I begin interfacing with the world in that fundamentally different way, my personality would just be fundamentally different. And so, would there be remnants, would there be things that I recognize or somebody else recognizes? Maybe there might be overlap, but it's like that stuff if I'm a mosquito, I'm not me. Like, it's just the way that data is processed is so fundamentally different. So, that's where I'm like, mhm I don't think you remains a coherent statement in the same way that you say below the Planck scale, space-time is just incoherent. I would say the concept of you is incoherent outside of the headset. >> Well, I think that's a an interesting and reasonable point of view. I would just say that if you look back at your life, the 5-year-old Tom, 5-year-old Don had what they thought they were, things that were very, very important to them that if you said, "Look, you take these toys away from me, take my sandbox away from me, you've destroyed my world. And what else is there?" >> Have you ever met anybody with Alzheimer's disease? >> Yes. >> Do you think of them as the same person? >> I I think of them as someone who's had their headset destroyed. And they're not able to to use this particular headset. >> So, the headset version though, do you think of them as the same headset version? >> No, but then I don't So, I agree that they're not the same. Um but I also would would say that um whoever they are transcends their body and their Alzheimer's. Just like you and I transcend our 5-year-old and our 10-year-old and our 15-year-old versions of ourselves. All of those, when I was 15, there were things that were very important to me at 15 that were just not important to me now. Things that I would say were absolutely essential that I now smile and say, "Well, yes, you when you were 15, that was important. That was absolutely essential. It's not now. It is not It's not important at all." And and so the things that that I currently think are very important as an adult, um I I now think I've now arrived. No, I've not arrived. This is just another step along the way. This is the one consciousness looking at itself from an an infinite number of perspectives. I I think that's what's really going on. There is one consciousness. It transcends anything, so it just looks at itself from an infinite number of perspectives and goes, "Oh, let me let me really look at myself as a 5-year-old Don in the sandbox. Oh, now let me look as a a 15-year-old Tom doing a teenage thing. And let me look at myself in all these different ways and enjoy that, get lost in it, and then wake up and go, "Oh, I did that. I'm glad I did that. I learned a little bit about me, my my my transcendence effectively, by doing all those different things." So, I would put it this way, Tom. The way I look at it right now is right now Tom and Don, there's really just one consciousness through two different avatars. There's a Tom avatar and a Don avatar that are talking and and they're two different perspectives that the one is taking and it's enjoying the process of looking at itself through a Tom lens and a Don lens, playing with those perspectives. Um and at some point it'll say, "Well, I've done that enough. Now I'll do something else." >> Do you think the Don in the headset, the Tom in the headset have free will? >> I would say that the consciousness, the what the one consciousness is infinitely free. And the avatars then are are These are avatars and they're free in the sense that the the one consciousness is free to act through the avatars as it wishes. >> Okay, so because we are the one consciousness, we do have free will. >> Again, the notion of free will is a little complicated, but but if you want to say, "Don, do you think in free will or no free will?" I would have to go with the free will side of things in in this this context. Um As a neuroscientist, of course, I know about the neuroscience of um you know activity in the brain that predicts seconds ahead what you're going to do and and so forth. That that's that's that's all very well known, and I think that that's just no problem because again the neurons don't even exist when they're not perceived. It's so neurons So So, I'll be very very clear. I'm a cognitive neuroscientist. I love neuroscience. I've studied it heavily. Neurons do not exist when they're not perceived. We should study neuroscience. I'm all for studying neuroscience. It's very very important, but neurons do not exist when they're not perceived. They cause none of our behaviors, but we should absolutely spend even more money on neuroscience because neurons and our brain are just a headset representation of how the headset is engineered. That's That's I need to say It's a simple sentence, but it's a complicated idea. Your nervous system, the brain, the 86 billion neurons and trillions of synapses is just a headset representation of how this headset and this body are being rendered. >> Right, but they're really just Markov chains, right? So, it's >> Outside of space-time. >> It is basically a sequence of transitions from one thing to another, >> which is a Markov chain, as a reminder. >> Right, right. >> And in the right sequence, that's Donald Hoffman. In a different sequence, it's Tom Bilyeu. In another sequence it's a mosquito. >> Right. >> Um so what I'm trying to pin down is whether you think when we're studying um neuroscience, like what exactly are we studying? Are we studying Markov chain relationships? And that there that pattern is actually so detailed that it replicates the firing of neurons and all that. >> That's right. >> And then I would say, "Okay, fine. But where is free will in that? Like that Markov chain is the way that it is." And so I don't see how you exit out of that Markov chain with free will somehow to now change that Markov chain. It Yeah, I'll stop there. >> Right. As I I mentioned, we should spend more money on neuroscience because what we have to do is not only understand the neural connections in space and time. We have to reverse engineer them. We have to figure out what you were saying, that the Markov chains the first layer of just say the first layer of software outside of space time that's that's being used to render what we call brains and and neural activity. >> Yeah. >> So so neuroscience is much much harder than we ever thought. The 86 billion neurons, trillions of synapses is is hard enough, but that's just the data that has to be reverse engineered for us to understand the software. So neuroscience is going to need lots more money because we have to actually figure out the software that's doing this. >> And you think as we do that we will discover somewhere in there is hiding free will. >> Yes. So to to be simple, I'll say yes. In the Markov chains, there are probabilities. So every transition is typically a probabilistic. It's not just one or zero probability. It could be 0.3 or 0.7 or 0.8. >> Right. >> So as soon as you get probabilities in there, you have to ask, "What does the probability mean? Does it mean a free choice? Does it mean some physical event that just happens with some absolute probability, some objective probability? And so I view it >> But even if >> Yeah. >> Uh so, probabilities to me does not equal free will. Even the fact that the choices that you have are finite would say that you already don't have free will. >> If you want the best description I can give of this infinite I There is a way to do it and it's by something called ostensive definition. >> Mhm. >> And it it would take a minute to just talk about it, but might be worth doing this. So, >> Yep. >> Most of the things you know, almost everything you know, um is because someone pointed and said a word. >> Yep. >> Like that's a rabbit. This is a rabbit. That's the color green. And it's it's not like they gave you, you know, a a lesson in in 20 years. >> soft and they're fuzzy. >> That's right. They they just Your mom or dad pointed and said rabbit and at the right age >> done all the categorizing myself. >> And that's right. You already So, all you So, the all the colors, someone just pointed and named and you What And by the way, I don't know that Tom's colors are the same as mine. I just don't know that. >> They're not. Mine are way cooler. >> I I I might have to grant you that. So, >> [laughter] >> So, so, but if you think about it, almost everything that's important, the taste of chocolate, the feeling of heat, the smell of garlic, the feeling of love, no one teaches you those things. You have them. Someone just gives you a word to name what you've already got. So, they'll give you some way of pointing like, you know, I'll point and say cup. And and that's all I can do because I can't If you can't get cup, if I if I do that to a bacterium, say cup, I don't think the bacterium's going to get it, right? So, all I can do now is use ostensive definition to point as best I can to what I mean by the one. And the way I would point it is to say, we'll just be quiet for a minute and I want you to ask yourself the question, I wonder what my next thought will be. >> What happened? >> I have a go-to thought. So, I immediate as soon as you said that, I immediately went there, but of course that's all from my perspective. It's hardwired, pre-programmed. It is the result of my MPC-ness. >> So, maybe if I ask you again, um dropping that thought, what's the next thought that you will have that's not that thought? >> No idea. It will just appear out of nowhere. So, let's let's try that. So. I have one. >> Right. Was there a little gap there before you had it? >> Yeah, probably. >> And that's >> my pointer. >> That gap when you were completely silent between thoughts, that's the best pointer I can give to what I mean by the one. >> Okay. So, the space in which thoughts appear. >> That's right. The The awareness, the silent awareness. >> Mhm. But, do you think that fully and accurately captures the presence of the one consciousness? So, whatever that feels like, whatever that qualia is, if I were to take off the headset, that's what it would always feel like? >> No, I think that that's the best pointer I can give you right now. I think it probably transcends that that that you as the one consciousness transcend even that pointer, but at least that pointer is a step in the right direction. >> Mhm. >> It'd be the way I I think about it. >> That's interesting. Uh to a hammer every problem is a nail. To me, because of the dominant metaphor that I use of computation, being inside of a simulation, to me that's basically the you're in a rendering queue and you're waiting. And that's what it would feel like to be in the rendering queue, but it doesn't give me agency. Um >> Yes. >> It feels like the lack of something versus a thing in and of itself, which can be deeply pleasurable, especially if somebody has high anxiety or depression or whatever, right, to finally go to true neutral. I'm sure it would be a tremendous relief. Um so, I get why people chase that feeling. >> Right. >> Yeah, I get why people chase that. >> But eventually I think it even transcends even feelings. It's it's a matter of just being. >> To me it's the absence. It It is a render queue. You are waiting for something. >> Very interesting. Yeah. So I'm I see your your take on it and I'm I'm suggesting that that is So we we just differ on this, right? So where we agree is I think computation is critical for this particular rendering of the avatars in space and time. So computation I'm all good with that. I'm a computational >> I really do think that we're quite far apart. And when So here's why I think we're far apart. Um I am desperate to acknowledge that I I just can't imagine what the world is outside of my simulation. I make the base assumption that they're simulating something like what they know. And so even if that thing is simply the principles of evolution. So not humans. Maybe the humans were a super surprising life. And they were like, "Whoa, I thought we were going to get dinosaurs like us, but the dinosaurs got hit by a meteorite. That's so crazy." Uh so it's very possible that in sort of form and function we would not recognize it. But I don't think they would simulate something that wasn't interesting to them. But I you're always going to terminate it unmoved mover. But for me that metaphor of um this is a computational universe that's simulated for a purpose and the why it we're being simulated becomes incredibly interesting for me. >> Do you have an answer? >> Uh it's all guesswork. That's what I'm saying. Like people need to understand I fully recognize that A this may only be a metaphor. And even if it's not a metaphor, on the outside I've no visibility. I have just pushed the miracle one step away. And that's why I say this is all of the final question is why something instead of nothing. And since I can skip all the way to that and just tell you I have no answer for whatsoever. So I am a total blank. I cannot be of assistance. There I just no idea. That one is befuddling. But to try to draw a stark difference, at least how I feel when I think about this is how this is the metaphor I'm operating on or the reality that I have acknowledged and then the metaphor that you're operating on or the reality that you have acknowledged, there is this is bizarre, but I have like a ghost meets worm sense of what the one consciousness looks like. And so that is and the Markov chains for whatever reason are on a big board in front of me with like all these infinite but like tesseracty like so many different permutations and that's not what I imagine on the other side on my metaphor. So when I think about sort of the the ground reality of um there's a show called White Lotus. I don't know if you've seen it, but when I saw it, I thought of you. And so there's a moment in the end spoiler-ish alert, but a guy is having a conversation with himself. He's in immense emotional pain and he is talking to a Buddhist, I believe, and the person is describing that we're all just drops of water and it's the ocean splashing and for a brief second you're a drop of water and you're separated and you're having your own experience, but then eventually you fall back and you just become one with the ocean. And that's how I sort of imagine your when I get poetic about it, your vision of like the one consciousness is this big ocean, but for whatever reason it can pop up all these different mosquitoes, cockroach, you, me, everything in between all through human history, evolution, dinosaurs, whatever. Why it's doing it, I don't know. But that is a very different thought when I try to hold on to what I hear you saying. >> So, I think one way some people hearing this might say, "Look, they're they're now talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There's not much such What How can you tell these different views apart? What what What's Is there anything real here?" And I would say that there is something real that will be testable scientifically. And that is if the view of the one is correct and space-time is just a headset and there is a layer of software outside then the proof will be that when science actually writes down that layer of software and shows how the headset is built it will give us new tools that will do magic inside the headset and will open up new dimensions of perception that we hadn't imagined before. So, I'm I'm claiming that this is not just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is a scientific claim that we will and I think within a just a few years write down the software outside of this headset and we will show that this headset, three dimensions of space, one dimension of time, is actually one of the more trivial headsets that's possible and we got stuck with one of the the cheaper models and we will figure out how to reverse engineer it and we will build much more interesting headsets. And we already get little hints of that, for example, like in DMT research and so forth. You put in just this molecule in your brain that's endogenous. It's DMT is in your brain all the time. You just up the the quantity just a little bit and all of a sudden people who have mathematical degrees, mathematical training will say, "I'm in a higher-dimensional world. The three-dimensional limits of this headset were transcended and I'm now seeing in more dimensions than I've ever seen before. I'm seeing more colors. I'm seeing entities that I've never seen before and the resolution is in fact higher than the resolution of this Actually, looks now like a low resolution cheap headset. When I go to this DMT world, the resolution is higher, it feels far more real, and I'm seeing more dimensions. So, so But, that of course that is not the the proof. I'm just saying that's the kind of thing that would be consistent with the The proof will be when we write down the mathematical equations, and we show exactly how to build the headset, and we show exactly how, for example, the DMT molecule If we can reverse engineer this, we may actually show that the end of the software there is parameter and DMT changes that dimension parameter in our software, and that's why we're we're And maybe you even the resolution parameter instead of having, you know, you know, 120 million photoreceptors, now we're up to, you know, 500 trillion or something like that equivalent. So, that we get the higher higher resolution. So, so So, it's not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The The claim is if you pursue my approach, there is software that we're going to get probably within a few years. We'll be able to prove theorems. Space-time arises this way, quantum mechanics arises this way exactly. Here's the parameters, here's how we play with it, and here's how we beef up a headset beyond three dimensions to 10 or 50 or a million. So, it's it's not just hand-wave. This is So, in that sense, it's very different from the religious approaches that that just require faith. I ask for no faith whatsoever. I'm saying if we pursue this line of research, you will win, you will build the software, and we will transform this headset, period. >> What is the mechanism by which you edit the code? And so, this was my initial question was, have we edited the code already? And that was me fishing for, do you consider like the atomic age to be that first way that we have um gotten a hook into the code. We've been able to create something that is um able to just unleash a tremendous amount of energy or even GPS, which we probably don't think of in a super sophisticated way, but we had to understand the advanced mathematics of um the distortions that occur given relativity in order to actually do that accurately. Is is that the kind of thing that you mean when you talk about that? Or are you saying, "No, folding space-time, for instance, traveling faster than the speed of light, that's a fundamentally different thing. That's going to require us to, for instance, somehow, some way access the database. You said DMT maybe is somehow tweaking a database variable." >> [snorts] >> Um yeah, what's your vision for how the code will be altered? >> I think that what science has not done yet is what they what science needs to do. We have not yet modeled the observer that's collecting the data in science. So, under Newtonian physics, you ignore the observer. You don't even have to talk about them cuz we assume it doesn't affect what you're getting. In Einstein, you talk about the observer because but the observer is reduced to clocks and and measurement pointers. Uh In quantum theory, now the observer becomes front and center because there are two different regimes in quantum theory. There's a unitary evolution when no one's looking, when you don't observe, and then there's what they call the collapse of the wave function when you observe. And so all of a sudden in in quantum mechanics, the observer comes front and center. But quantum theory has no universally accepted model of the observer. And we haven't had it for now a century. This we've had quantum theory for a century. That's one of the biggest open problems in science, which is what is going on when we make an observation. And this is not a trivial issue. All of the data that gives us evidence for or against our scientific theories comes from observation, and we have no theory about what's going on in observation that's universally accepted. We're still So, the reason our science is still horse and buggy, I think, compared to where it's going to be, is because we haven't done what Leibniz said in 1700 we need to do. We need to have a model of the observation process. And how all the observations are tied together. He called it monads and um and pre-established harmony was his his term in English, pre-established harmony. So, what we have So, I think what science science has done >> on that? So, monads, an observer, pre-established harmonies, simple geometric shapes. I've no idea what he means by that. >> Well, and neither did Leibniz. So, so cuz Leibniz the monadology is a very, very small book. He and basically he doesn't know what else to say. And and and by the way, he was a genius, right? He invented the calculus as independent of Newton, maybe even prior, who knows. Um he did all sorts of So, this this guy was a genius. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Complete genius. But he and he realized that we needed to build science on the foundation of observation because that's the fundamental thing that's going on in science. It's you and me and other scientists looking. >> Was he trying to grapple with consciousness or something else? >> I Well, I think he had a spiritual point of view. So, consciousness probably absolutely. >> But is that it? That's what he's trying to get to? >> Well, I wouldn't want to say just that because he was also hard no scientist himself. So, so he had spiritual views and and >> Oh, did he articulate why he thought this was so important? >> Well, yes. He actually um he's very famous for his um parable of the mill, um which is he was basically saying our conscious experiences could not be built from physical systems. He understood that. So, what we call today the hard problem of consciousness, Leibniz knew it and he knew it so well that he figured it it only needed one paragraph as it of his attention. It was so obvious to him that no physical system could build consciousness that he figured any smart guy can get it in one paragraph and we should move on. So, he really So, what we're doing right now is what Leibniz dismissed so quickly that he only thought it was worth one paragraph. And he he just says that if you go into a mill and and make yourself small so that you see all the cogs and wheels of the mill, you won't see anything in there that would give you any clue about how how consciousness is made. He says it's the same thing if you go basically inside the brain and look how is that going to give you It's just another physical system. How is it going to give you consciousness? So, he he he clearly understood what we call the hard problem of consciousness back in 1700, roughly. And so, he but he didn't he invented so much math, but but we needed several more centuries of mathematics before Markov chains didn't come around till 1905. So, we've only had them for 121 years. That's So, he didn't have them. He gave us the mathematics a lot of the mathematics that let us eventually get Markov chains, but you can't do it all even you if you're a genius like him. So, so Leibniz clearly understood and and he couldn't say how to do it mathematically. So, he just said, "Look, there are things I'll call them monads, but they're they're these perceiving entities and they have to be tied together mathematically somehow. So, there's got to be a pre-established harmony." And all you can do when you don't have anything else to say, you know, God did it. But but clearly he wanted to do more because he but but we didn't have the math. Now, I I I think that he's right. What we have to we have to restart our science. >> What? Right about what? >> Just that >> That we have to start with observers. We have to start with observers and understand how observers are tied together. >> What does it mean to start with observers? >> So, I when I say that we're going to have these Markov chains and each one is an observer. So, either one So, it's like the three So, the observer that can see red, green, and yellow. >> Yep. >> That So, that the Markov matrix which says if I see red now, here's the probability I'll see green next or yellow next and so forth. That matrix, I'm going to call that an observer or an observer window. So, that's a monad. Call that a monad in in Leibniz's terms. And there's an infinite number of these monads. They can be as big as you want and you can have three, you can have a billion, a trillion. Go as big as you Markov matrix as you want. Go off to infinity. Literally countable infinity of states. And then look at all this whole set. These are all the quote unquote monads. So, there's an infinite number of them. And he wanted to pre-establish harmony. And >> Which is what? >> So, I I can This will take a couple minutes, but I can give it um what I think the pre-established harmony is. So, if I have a I mean, it's a very simple idea, actually. So, if I if I have a if I'm looking at the red, green, and yellow lights. And I could write down the probability Say it's a bad traffic light. So, sometimes red turns to yellow instead of green and so forth. So, it's a bad traffic light. So, but you write down the matrix of whatever this traffic light is doing, you know, how it changes from red, green, and yellow. Now, suppose I put on a pair of glasses where I can't see yellow. All I can see is the red and green transitions. But, I'm still looking at the same traffic light. Then, I'll write down a different matrix. It will only have two elements, red and green, right? That's all I can see is red and green. And so, I'll have a probability if I'm seeing red now, I'll see red next or green next. And if I see green now, green next or red next. So, I'll get a 2 by 2 matrix. But, since it's I'm looking at the three by the the the red, green, and yellow light, but I'm only seeing the red green. The red, green, and yellow transitions are, of course, controlling what I see in the red and green when I can only see red and green, right? This is clear. The all the transitions that I'm seeing there are because I'm seeing this bigger one, but I'm missing the yellow. It's it's it's hidden from me. That's the key idea. So, So, in mathematics, we say, if you give me the matrix for the red, green, and yellow, then I will tell you exactly what the matrix has to be for the red and green. Um there's going to be only one, right? And it's called the trace. And that's the key. This was discovered decades ago, um between 1905 and now, it was discovered that if I have a big matrix and I say, "I'm only going to look at a subset of the states," then there will be a unique in general a unique matrix. There are technical terms you have to be ergodic and so forth, but that's beyond what we need to do here. So, but I'll just say in general, but for those who know the math, if it's ergodic. But But anyway, so So, when I have a big matrix and I look at a subset of states, then I will get a a trace matrix, which is exactly the zero surprise matrix. >> What do you mean zero surprise? >> Zero surprise means that the probability transitions that I predict are exactly the probability transitions that I will have. So, this it's probabilistically exactly what I will see. So, the trace logic So, So, I'm sorry. The trace operation gives you a zero surprise. It gives you exactly what you will see. >> Because you have limited the options so profoundly that there's just a very finite number >> Well, because it's just a mathematical theorem basically that >> But wasn't it a mathematical theorem with red, green, and blue or >> So, So, So, I should be careful. So, So, with the red, green, and blue, you you can pick any matrix you want. Pick any any three There's There's an infinite number >> I reduce by one color, all of a sudden I get to a no surprise one. >> That's right. So, pick pick pick one of those 3 by 3 matrices. And if you if you fix that matrix, then if you only then if you restrict the red and green, I will give you a 2 by 2 matrix that is matched to that particular 3 by 3. If you give me a different 3 by 3, it'll be a different 2 by 2. >> Yep. >> Okay? So, whatever 3 by 3 you give me, when I take the trace, I will get exactly the right 2 by 2, which gives you exactly the transitions on the red and green that you will see if you can't see the yellow. >> Mhm. >> So, that's called that's called the trace and it's just a mathematical theorem that um >> What's it telling us? >> It's it's telling us exactly when you have a bigger system and you can't see all of its states, >> Yes. >> it will tell you exactly what you can see. >> Mhm. >> What it what exactly you will see probabilistically. Exactly. >> Why does that matter in the headset analogy? >> It turns out well, so this has been known for for many many decades. This And what I what I discovered about 2 years ago was that this gives us a logic on the set of all Markov chains on the set of all observers. It ties them together. It gives a pre-established harmony that unites all of these observers. It's so a logic I'll talk of first about a Boolean logic, a simple logic, a Boolean logic that we have in like in in you know, computer science. You can take things and take their ands and their ors and and the nots and and so forth. Um So, that's a that's a kind of of logic. Um And the logic of the So, the trace logic is not Boolean. It's it's more general than Boolean. It's a non-Boolean logic. It's but it's locally Boolean. So, if I take any particular if you fix a matrix, say it has a a thousand states in it, and you look at all of its possible traces, and there's you know, lots and lots of traces. If you look at just those make >> Traces are just subsets. >> Subsets plus the matrix, right? The the the subset and the matrix on that subset, which is telling you the transitions that you're going to see on that subset of states. >> Okay. >> Right. But, like when I went from the 3 by 3 red, green, and yellow to the red, green, I was telling you what's the probability of transitioning from red to green or green to red and so forth. It was so it was telling you exactly what those probabilities are. So, that's what I'm saying. You you fix any big matrix and then look at all of its traces, >> Mhm. >> and then the all of those traces form a Boolean logic. In a Boolean sub logic of the trace logic, but the whole logic itself is not Boolean. So that is the key. This is we now have a theory of an observer. Very very simple. It's a Markov matrix. We have the pre-established harmony, which is this trace logic. And then we can start to use these matrices to build space-time. So I'll I'll give you just a a concrete clue, just a concrete clue about how this is going to go. It's standard in Markov chain theory to have, in addition to the matrix, a little counter. Every time you change an experience, like from red to green, you just increment the counter. It's really as simple as I'm making it. So maybe start the counter off at zero. Now I'm seeing red. Oh, that's one. Now Oh, now it's green. That's two. Now it's yellow. Okay, three. And so forth. You just keep adding the counter. Notice what happens to counters now. If I have a the red, green, and yellow matrix, and then I can only see red and green. >> Mhm. >> Notice the red-green has its own counter, right? The the matrix has its own counter, but it doesn't count the yellows. It does because it doesn't see yellow. So the counter that's bigger on the bigger matrix, so the red-green-yellow, is going to count faster than the counter on the red and green. >> Mhm. >> That is going to give us time dilation in relativity theory. That's the precise way that we will be able to go from Markov chains to the time dilation that we see in Einstein's special and general relativity. >> What's missing that causes the counters to be different? >> You just aren't seeing everything. The idea is going to be the difference >> it mapped so specifically to the speed of light? >> So that's a good question. So, if I'm going to make this kind of claim, where does the speed of light come out in all of this, right? >> Well, maybe more of the computation of energy equals mass is probably what I'm asking. >> The speed of light is going to come out as the fastest way that you can transition among states um in in the matrix. And there's something that are called cyclic matrices. >> Mhm. >> So, a cyclic matrix for red, green, and yellow would say, for example, if I'm red now, the probability is one that I'll see green next. The probability is one then that I'll see yellow next. And then the probability is one that I'll go back to red. So, you cycle. And And that's going to be the fastest way that you loop among all of And that will effectively be That will That will correspond to a matrix that corresponds to the speed of light. >> Okay. >> But if we're For example, if I'm a different matrix that says I'm stuck at red right now, yeah, I'm not going to go to green with the probability of 0.5, but I might stay at red with probability of 0.5. Now, I'm going to be moving much more slowly around the states. So, there's a maximum speed at which you can you know, what In this case, you can call the commute time. There's a fastest commute time, smallest commute time, and therefore fastest speed. >> Mhm. >> So, you can use that for for starting to build up notions like like um time dilation. And then Now, it gets a little technical, so I'll I'll just hand wave a little bit because we don't want to go into the math. But there are then on the on these matrices, there are mathematical structures called Dirichlet forms. >> And Dirichlet forms? >> Yeah, d i r i c h l e t. Dirichlet. French French name. Dirichlet forms. That will allow us to use effectively how states diffuse in a Markov chain. If two states diffuse in a very similar pattern, we're going to put them close together in our space time headset. So we can build distance from Dirichlet forms on these matrices as well. So the counters dilate, the Dirichlet forms change because when you take a trace, the distances that you're going to get on these Dirichlet forms contracts. So we're going to get time dilation, length contraction from from this. Now That this is just top level. >> Why would the changes be so predictable? So there is a precision with which things change that could be mapped out very eloquently when you're talking about the speed of light as we approach it and how time and distance react very differently which allowed Einstein, and I'm perfectly willing to accept he was incorrect, but his approximation by calling it a curvature of space time allows you to very precisely measure this stuff. But if if I'm understanding him, Jesus, this is a big if, but if I'm looking at this gigantic matrices of all the different Markov chain combinations that there could be, and I'm saying I'm looking at now subsets of that, but there's still the sort of connective tissue of the whole of this matrices. If I'm looking at two different traces subsets, then the distance will appear to be collapsed, the time will appear to slow down, but different ones are going to behave differently. >> That's right. >> And so I don't see and this is just my ignorance fully accept, but uh I don't see how that no matter where they are, no matter whether we're going from 12 things down to two or 12 things to 10 or whatever, that it would collapse the distance in the same predictable fashion that would trick Einstein into thinking he was seeing the curvature of space time. >> And that's what we have to prove. So that's that's what >> But that's what you are saying. Did I actually understand that? >> saying. So we're not saying that Einstein is wrong. We're saying that you know, Einstein was >> Well, space time is fake. So you are saying that. >> Well, I won't say that space-time is fake. I will say that space-time is a is a wonderful data structure. It's just not the full It's not all of space-time is not the final reality. It's just a headset. But, it's a good headset and you know and what I have to do as a scientist, if I'm claiming that I'm using uh these Markov chains outside of space-time to to to get the next layer of software outside of space-time, I have to show you exactly how I get Einstein's special and general relativity. I have to show you exactly how I get quantum field theory out of it. >> Do you think that the um Markov chain is being consciously manipulated to create the effect of the bending of space-time? >> Well, so I don't I don't need to say that at all. I But, I can allow it later on. I should say I can get the curvature of space-time, I believe, um from certain kinds of Markov chains. So, in fact, what the way I think about it right now is there's a a wide variety of Markov chains and I think that there is this very special subset, probably um what we call a measure zero probability zero subset of Markov chains that can be used to build the kind of headset that we have. We have such a sort of a low grade trivial kind of headset that that most Markov chains just won't won't They're they're off doing other interesting things. So, but there is a subset of Markov chains that you can use to build flat space-time or curved space-time. And then there are others that will that will basically um that kind of smooth space-time just won't work for them. They they just won't. So, Markov chains give you the chance to build everything that Einstein has, but then infinitely more. >> Mhm. It's very interesting and I'm probably I very at risk of oversimplifying what you're saying cuz I'm hearing it for the first time and I may just not understand it. Uh and I've heard so many of these interviews where you can tell that the interviewer is like not quite tracking what's being said, so I run that risk right now. But uh I will say as you were describing all of this uh again to a hammer every problem is a nail, but when I look at this the metaphor or reality that this is code and it's simulated um would make sense because you really want to build procedurally. >> Right. >> But to build procedurally, you have to know what the um probability space is not quite right. What are all the permutations? So you get into this idea of the Is it decorated permutations? That's one of the concepts. >> right. >> So when I looked up what that was and was like, oh yeah, you guys are just trying to account for more variables. So if you're doing a um a procedurally generated world, not only do you have to come up with the terrain, but you've got to like place trees and stuff like that. So then you go, okay, what orientation is the tree? How tall is the tree? Uh roll, pitch, yaw, like you have to determine all of those different things. >> Exactly. >> Uh and so it feels like what you're describing with the Markov chains with the trace >> Right, with the >> elements You didn't call it trace elements, trace something. >> Trace logic. >> Trace logic, thank you. All of that stuff is still fitting within my layman's understanding uh of this >> Absolutely. >> simulated reality. >> it's we when we're if we succeed at this, we will have theorems that tell you exactly how to write the computer code and you could write computer code to do this. >> literally as you were talking, I was like, man, if this is going to be a breakthrough that I can use in my game, I'm going to be very excited. >> That's that's Put it this way. If I cannot give you a breakthrough that you can put in a game, then I'm wrong. This this is Fair enough. So that's what that's what We have this trace institute that we're building. That's the goal is within the next 5 years to basically nail down these theorems with proofs. The proofs will then give us effectively the ways to to build these algorithms and we're off to the races. So, that's that's the goal and the idea will be that once we figure out how to build this headset, then we can start to play with it. We can start to reverse engineer it and you know, using the trace logic, now we have um the ability to do some kind of magic. But, I should just put this in a a a framework. Right now, um there's a lot of work that's being done on um that's very very good work by Karl Friston and others on um the free energy principle on trying to minimize surprise and and and maintain Markov blankets for for self versus outside and so forth. And and this is very much similarly related to that kind of thing. The trace logic is related to the minimum surprise in the following sense. The trace logic is logic of zero surprise. So, it this is So, what what I'm claiming is that the pre-established harmony that Leibniz was looking for is this logic of zero surprise, the trace logic. And then it leads to a very different approach to maintaining self versus outside than the Markov blanket kind of thing. We we we get something that's that's broader than the Markov blanket. So, but one of the key we can go into the there's more more details if you want to. We can I can show you how we build agency by recursion of the trace logic. So, >> Well, before we we go there cuz I do worry that we're at risk of losing some non-technical people. One thing I want to talk about is AI. So, um when I think about the way that you describe like the neurons aren't real, this is all fake. Uh I go, well then why can't a an AI agent become conscious? Why isn't an AI agent already conscious? Like if consciousness is fundamental, what is it that stops AI from being conscious? >> Okay. So, it depends on how you want to frame the question of of the emergence of consciousness. If if you're framing it in this in the case where you're saying, "I'm going to start with a physical system that's not conscious. And my question is, what can I do with that physical system to make consciousness emerge?" Then I say, "You can't do that. It will never happen." >> But your take is that everything is already conscious. >> That's That's That's right. So, so I'm giving a So, you can see why we have to be very careful about our assumptions. Most of my colleagues are are starting with space and time as fundamental, and they're saying that they're of course they're not conscious, and so we're trying to figure out what neural structures or neural activities or properties are going to be required, what functional properties. >> conscious? >> Well, that's the kind of question they would have. >> What do you think? >> So, so So, I will I'll first say I reject that entire framework, that consciousness does not emerge from physical systems, that doesn't emerge from neurons or anything like that. >> But does the one consciousness The one consciousness does pop into Don, it does pop into Tom. >> Right. >> Why doesn't it pop into the blender? >> So, so I would say that no matter what I see, this cup, this table, >> Mhm. >> an ant, in every case I'm fundamentally interacting with a conscious reality, and my headset gives me more or less insight into that conscious reality. With Tom, my headset is giving me quite a bit of insight into what Tom is thinking, what he's, you know, reacting. >> Am I conscious though from your perspective, or are you materializing me? >> So, I would say that that um what I'm experiencing is an avatar uh that's giving me insight into consciousness. I'm calling that avatar Tom. Tom is calling this avatar Don. And I am getting some but not complete insight into the conscious experiences that Tom is having. By no means do I ex- expect to be, you know, knowing everything that's going on in your mind and your feelings and so forth. >> consciousness is stepping inside of us broadcasting whatever that is, >> [sighs] >> uh is biology the thing that makes it viable? Is a nervous system the thing that makes it viable as a place the consciousness would want to go? >> So So I would say that that way of putting it is is the wrong way to put it. It's That's assuming again that we're in the game of starting with non-conscious physical ingredients and trying to figure out where consciousness can emerge. >> But you said that that space where I'm observing the emotions or whatever is the indication of where the one true consciousness is. >> Right, because my my um experience in my headset, the avatar in my headset of Tom is is detailed enough to give me some insights into the experiences you might have. With my cat, I have less insight but some insight into what that cat cat might be wanting. Like I know when it's hungry and it's it's rubbing against my leg and so forth. I I can guess. With an ant, I'm getting less information. If I really studied an ant, I might be able to understand what it might be like to be an ant. But but it's If you If I turn it around and ask how much do I think the ant knows about my world, my consciousness? My guess would be I mean I can go up there to an ant and I can go like that and be ready to kill it and it wouldn't even know that I'm doing that. So how much of my world almost nothing. I would imagine that I mean as complicated as I feel I am, the ant its model of me is probably trivial. If if it has any model of me at all, it's pretty pretty trivial. So, take that insight and turn it around. Things that look trivial to me, maybe it's because I'm an ant to them. Right? The I'm trivial to the ants, not because I'm trivial, but because the ant can't see me. So, the things that I think are trivial, that may that's not because they're trivial, it's because my headset is just not smart enough for me to see the true complexity of that consciousness. So, what I'm saying is is quite radical here. When I see something looks as dumb as a rock, that's because I'm dumb. It's not that the rock is dumb. It's the best I can do is come up with a rock. What I'm actually interacting with, if I could actually understand what it was, I might fall down in in amazement before it and and worship it. So, but all I can see is a rock, just like all the ant can see of me is almost nothing of of of my complexity. So, we have to not mistake, and this is the I'm going to say this slowly because this is the key point. Do not mistake the limitations of the headset for an insight into the nature of reality. It's just an limitation of my headset, period. It's a dumb move on my part to think that because it looks dumb to me, therefore it is dumb. No, that's just you're not smart enough to realize that that was just a headset. And your headset's got limitations. What's really dumb is to think I'm seeing the truth. I'm seeing through a filter of a headset. What I need to do is be very very humble, very modest, and ask, what are the limitations of my headset? How can I understand the limitations of my headset? I think I'm seeing a world of space and time. Oh, space and time is fundamental. Really? Why should I believe that? I should be very very modest and say, "Space and time is what I'm first given in my my impressions." That's just [snorts] the first give. Let's reverse engineer. What's What's really behind that? So, and again, I think if you always think about what can the ant see of me? Almost nothing. Just turn it around. What When I see something looks like almost nothing, then I am probably the ant to that thing. That's That's the way to look at it. So, I'm an ant to this table. So, whatever I'm interacting with is transcendent. I'm just getting a table. It's not because the reality is stupid, it's because I have my limits in my headset. So, that's the the key difference here. So, the whole game of saying, "How do I start with stupid components and then build up consciousness?" is just the wrong game. The stupid components are just the headset giving up. They're not the fundamental nature of reality. That's the headset saying, "I give up." >> We could do a whole episode just about that. >> Donald, this was incredible. Where can people keep up with you? >> Uh I have um Well, presumably we're going to have a an institute called the Trace Institute coming out in June. Um so, if I'll be announcing on on uh X uh in a few weeks the the the website for for Trace. So, that that will be out. And I do have papers if you know, I've got um a book called Visual Intelligence, How We Create What We See, and also The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. So, there's two books, The Case Against Reality and Visual Intelligence. And my X account. And then there if you just Google, you know, on Google Scholar, if you if you're a scientist, then of course you'll know that you can just Google my name and and there's dozens and dozens of papers that are published. >> It's awesome. I love it. Thank you again for taking the time. I really appreciate it. Boys and girls, if you have not already, be sure to subscribe. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace. If you like this conversation, check out this episode to learn more. The odds that you're living in a simulation border on 100% meaning this, all of this is almost certainly not real. In October of 2022, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for proving