Here’s What We Know About UFOs & Aliens - Jesse Michels

An interest with UFOs is maladaptive to most people. >> How so? >> Oh yeah, you're quoting me on I think Danny Jones. I think in some ways and this actually speaks to you know we're on modern wisdom here. I think a lot of what people should be focused on is the lower end of Maslo's hierarchy. like it's like subsistence living, you know, paying taxes on time, uh, uh, putting food on the table, being basically healthy. And then I think at a certain point then you start to care about this sort of more like existential, you know, who are we? What's our place in the universe? You know, what is humanity's place in the cosmos? And so that's why I think in some ways it's it's maladaptive because if you don't have that lower end sort of figured out. It's like why focus on this sort of you know really crazy pie in the sky stuff. >> That's so interesting that you think people have sort of taken the uh stairlift to the top of Everest hierarchy of needs. It's like if you're asking are we alone in the universe but you haven't got a steady job or you your health's in the toilet or you don't have a community of people around you you're probably focusing on the wrong things. >> 100%. In fact, I think a lot of people focus on it as a circumvention of reality itself. It's an escape mechanism. And so, you want to get abducted or taken away on a UFO or something >> better [ __ ] place. >> Yeah. Right. You want to throw a Hail Mary because there, you know, things aren't going well on sort of a base level. And so, I think for those people, they should probably just focus on the core issue. You know, if they have like a marital problem or something, like go focus on that. Like, >> yeah. What that's an interesting question. What is the avatar in 2025 of somebody who's interested in UFOs? Cuz you know, there's kind of a and I wonder why this is the case. When I think about UFOs, I always think about sort of the 60s and the 70s. >> Yes. >> That that's kind of the the golden era of abductions and stories and Roswell and like that's kind of where my mind goes to. >> Yes. But you're a good example of someone who's super smart and is kneede in all the research for this stuff. Something tells me you're probably a little bit non-ypical for that. >> Yeah. >> But like who is the avatar for the UFO investigator now or the the the Monday morning quarterback? >> I think it's radically shifting. So I think even 5 10 years ago it would have been like you go to this like contact in the desert is this like you know convention for UFOs. It used to actually take place in the actual desert. People started to get like heat strokes and stuff and now it's like indoors but it's all like you know it's a lot of crystal healers from the southwest sort of vibe. You know, it's people who are and I love a lot of these people. You know, they they'll live in like Sedona or something or, you know, in some of these small towns across the US and they've had family experiences or they're just a little more kind of woo woo and that that's what kind of got them into this stuff. I think that's dramatically started to change. I mean you a good example is like certain people you've had on you've had on Eric Weinstein my old colleague you know we worked together at Teal Capital at you know Peter Teal's family office you know very sort of uh conventionally successful guy you had Tulsi Gabbard on she's the now you know uh director of national intelligence who oversees all of the intelligence agencies and she has stated as part of her mandate that she wants to look into UFOs like this and I've actually spoken to her and she is explicitly very interested in this topic. And so I think >> that plus uh a bunch of whistleblowers, David Grush at the National Geospatial Agency and NRO and has kind of a very kind of typical and impressive uh >> less of a sort of crusty granola crowd. >> Yes, exactly. I think that has destigmatized it for a lot of people and you're starting to see high agency Silicon Valley just, you know, average people start to get into the topic. Whatever happened with UAPs? Is UAPs UFOs? Cuz we there was a brief period where we went there. You know, it was like like people of color colored people and then we were back to people of color again. >> Yes. Yes. There's a whole like, you know, uh uh Yeah. There was like a whole like almost like woke UFO thing going on. >> It was a nomenclature thing. It was, you know, and I don't like UAPs. The reason I don't like it, it get a little context. There was something called the UAP task force that was actually set up and that was the context in which David Grush ended up blowing the whistle because he was tasked by the National Geospatial Agency and this little group called the UAT UAP task force which had representatives from pretty much every branch of the military looking into UFOs explicitly or UAPs as they called them. And that sort of in that sort of group they decided that UAPs was the new term. It's a broader term unidentified aerial phenomena instead of unidentified flying object. I like UFO because it's more specific actually. It's sort of more falsifiable in a sense. And a lot of people are, you know, worried about this whole thing sort of being a scop. >> And because of that, I like the classic just UFO. You know, this was in the zeitgeist, like you said, in the 40s and 50s and 60s. And let's just go back to that >> in in case UAP is some scurious attempt to try and weave something else in. So, oh, it's a hot air balloon. It's a distortion in the upper atmosphere. It's a whatever. >> 100% some sort of secret weaponry. Like, there's a whole so many different there's a slew of possibilities as far as what you might see in the sky these days. a myar balloon, you know, all these different things. And so, uh, I I like UFO because it's it's it's more specific and it's talking about the kind of archetypal, you know, a saucer, a tic tac, a craft, you know, these sort of, you know, things that people have seen AC, not only, you know, since the 40s, '50s, and 60s, but across, you know, millennia, like across disperate cultures, too. >> Yeah. Imagine that someone's never really looked that deeply into UFOs. How would you uh lay out the landscape and story arc of evidence for them? Yeah, I love this. So, I think UFOs go way beyond the threshold of what you'd need evidence-wise to accept this as a worthy field of inquiry. If it were any other field, like literally the only reason people don't look into this is because people who are part of the priestly citadel of science, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, say there's nothing to UFOs. Otherwise, you have presidents who've openly talked about UFOs. You have Don Jr. just interviewed uh you know outgoing President Trump in his first term saying what do you know about Roswell I need to know and Donald Trump goes I know a lot of interesting things and I won't say them here you have President Obama saying we have UFO we have unidentified flying objects that we don't know you know what they are in our sky we're investigating these things the office of naval intelligence and the Pentagon have released two reports one in 2020 one in 2021 and there are all these objects that you know you have this sort of decision free of like space trash and you know other sort you know myar balloons like all these things and you have a bunch of these things that were spotted that don't you know neatly categorize uh President Jimmy Carter saw a UFO and is on video saying I saw a UFO he goes into his his term his single term saying you know I want to declassify stuff around UFOs and then you never really hear anything about it again which is the same thing by the way that's happening with Trump it's not even like the Epstein thing where you get this bizarre kind of denial lone sex trafficker theory that everybody knows is bogus. With the UFO thing, it's this common trope where sometimes presidents will will campaign on this thing and then they just go silent and they cite national security often. And so it's this very sort of weird thing. And then most recently in 2017, you had Leslie Kaine, this uh New York Times journalist, come out with this article. Associated with the article are three uh videos. Uh the gimbal, the goast video. These are videos that were taken off the coast of Florida. And the Nimttz tic tac sighting, which is this very famous sighting. Uh, Commander David Fraver is this uh, Navy pilot who's very well respected. He was actually in charge of guarding uh, uh, Los Angeles during 9/11 when we weren't sure how many planes were in the sky and which cities might be attacked. So, he's like a, you know, very reputable guy. He speaks in this very matter-of-act way. and he saw this tic-tac-shaped object hovering right below right above the surface of the water. He was part of this Nimttz carrier strike group. So all these you know um uh uh um uh air force carriers and um you know these big Navy ships and uh and and he went out on an F-16 saw this little tic tac and the tic tac you know went up to 60,000 ft plus in 7/8 of a second and you have him you have you have fleer which is forward-looking infrared uh uh seeing this this object and this this video is is up you can watch it on YouTube and stuff. So since then, and then David Grush, um, who's this, you know, whistleblower saying that he's basically, uh, uh, over a hundred pages he gave to the, uh, IC inspector general, this guy Thomas Mahheim, in in 2022. Thomas Mahheim said this was urgent and credible. And he gave Thomas Mannheim 40 uh, uh, whistleblowers directly who said that they worked, they had firstirhand knowledge of UFO programs inside the government. And so that's like this very near-term falsifiable thing, right? It's not this like handwavy claim. And I think since then, uh, people have really started to take this more seriously. But even more sort of, you know, outside of high levels of government and, you know, needing to sort of explain that sort of mass hysteria away if you're kind of a debunker, you have uh databases like the National UFO Reporting Center which have, you know, over a 100,000 instances online. It's like I think it's 150k plus at this point. Um you have a a great book called UFOs and nukes. So one thing people like to say as far as you know why UFOs, you know, aren't scientific or aren't real is because they're ephemeral. They show up randomly, right? There's no repeatable. Science has to be repeatable, right? And uh I think this is very repeatable actually because UFOs show up consistently around nuclear installations, nuclear weapons installations, and nuclear energy civilian grids. And so this book, which is almost 600 pages, it's the most dry tur book you'll ever read in your life. It's it's almost boring because it's so meticulously done. If you speak to the guy who wrote it, this guy named Robert Hastings, it's you get no grifting vibes, no like salesy, you know, uh uh [ __ ] at all. >> It's a spreadsheet masquerading as a book. >> That's right. It's a database. And it's even better than a database because it's it's filtering for witnesses who are inherently the most credible witnesses I could pick in the world because these guys are on what's called the PRP. So these guys are are employees at nuclear bases across the United States. And they're on what's called the PRP program, the personal reliability program. They have to report all of their mental health history. And if they're on ibuprofen, like they're literally they literally have to report. >> If you're in charge of a nuclear site of some kind and you're having a bit of a wobble, that's a bad idea. >> That's a bad idea. Get that person fired immediately. I don't want that person around the crown jewel assets of American defense. Yes. >> So you have all the and these guys often see tic tacs, orbs, saucers. They'll see these objects. They'll have to sign NDAs. the Air Force SP the Air Force Office of Special Investigations will uh enter their life and say, you know, sign this NDA and they're sworn to secrecy and then they're allowed to keep their jobs. And if you you think about it, like if somebody were like seeing something and it weren't this routine thing in the world of the Atomic Energy Commission and DOE, would any of these people be allowed to keep their jobs? Absolutely not. So this he has 167 of these whistleblowers and they've gone on record. How is it the case? You know, that's a large cohort of people from different backgrounds all talking about things that they've seen or seen that they've seen or heard that someone's seen or been a so on and so forth. How is it the case that there is so much which is hearsay? >> Mhm. >> And so little which we have. >> Yes. to like the where is the actual tangible evidence, not a recording that's on Fleer, not the story that somebody said, not a list of sightings. Like surely we should if there are this many we should have something >> for it. Yeah. Well, you again you do you have a massive database of you know firsthand reports. The fleer I think is important. It's a sensor modality that you know we see between 400 and 700 nanometers of the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Just because something's at the 800 nanometer mark or 300 nanometer mark doesn't mean it's fake, you know, like that is a real thing. So I think the fleer thing is is really important. And it feels like with UFOs they either crunch light or they stretch light because they move so fast. And so optical is not actually a good modality for them. Usually they show up in infrared or in certain cases UV rays. So like uh the the ends actually of the visible spectrum. And so I do think that's like a really important question. Uh but then also there are photos like there's this McMinnville photo that was taken in Oregon in the ' 50s. There there's the Calvine photo which is you know from Scotland these hikers in the '9s. And you know somebody from the British Ministry of Defense guy Nick Pope says that the Calvine photo is absolutely real. You have the negatives in both cases. Um, so you know, I do think you do have a decent amount of evidence. Now, what you're asking, I think, is why don't we have a a saucer unveiled at a hanger or something, >> piece of material that can be verifiably proven to be from something that's otherworldly? >> So, the the it's an interesting question. I don't think you can definitively prove that something is necessarily otherworldly. You have to look at a fact pattern that you know is this anomalous enough to say that it's not from here. And there's a guy named Gary Nolan who's a a Nobel Prize nominee every single year. He's a tenure professor at Stanford and he has crash materials in his lab. I've seen them. I've shown them on video on my show. They're small, but the, you know, they were basically given to him around UFO crash like like UFO crash witnesses mailed them to this guy Jacqu Valet. And Jacquell gave them to Gary Nolan. He's done mass spectrometry on them. He says that they have isotope ratios that don't naturally occur on Earth and they don't pattern match to asteroids as well. And so you have evidence like that. When it comes to like large scale saucers, I think you have to think probabilistically. So I there's this English statistician named Thomas Ba and his model is it's it's a way of scientific thinking but it's not necessarily like the Francis Bacon style where you go and you have this null hypothesis that you cling to at all costs. His is more you think about everything probabilistically and so you catalog something as low probability and you build up evidence. And so what I would say for the UFO phenomena is like everybody asks are UFOs real? I'm 99% sure that aerial phenomena in the sky that don't pattern match to you know planes like you know prosaic explanations where there's a nuclear link it that is that is fully real and then is there a conflation going on between that and like a saucer and a hanger like maybe I can't say in good faith that there definitely isn't because I haven't seen the saucer and the hanger right >> um so it's like you know it's this David Hume style quot you need the like ultimate like epistemic humility when it comes to that saucer in the hanger. Now, I can give you a million good reasons why if the American defense establishment I mean we haven't declassified an aerial uh program basically since I think the B2 stealth bomber like we you have you know F-22 F-35s I think those were uh uh uh unclassified upon their you know manufacturing 12 out of the 15 locked skunk works programs now are still classified so say you had this kind of ace in the whole crazy, you know, anti-gravity craft or whatever and it was in a hanger. I can give you a million different reasons why you would never let that see the light of day. You don't care about enlightening the public, inspiring them about other worlds. I mean, it it all go technology always gets weaponized and it's always used to confer a tactical advantage geopolitically and that will always take the day. That will always trump wanting to enlighten the public. It's going to do that with AI and all these other tech trees. So I think that would be the other reason. >> How do we know this isn't just a scop? >> I think it is a scop. I think there are scops. So So this is this is the real mind. >> [ __ ] horseshoe theory of UFOs. >> Not it's not a disc. It's a horseshoe. >> It is. Well, here's the thing. The the fact that something is real and it's a scup are positive sum, not not negative sum. So this is the total mind [ __ ] for people. How many if if Chris, you're a smart guy. If I were like, um, okay, Bigfoot, you know, exists. I promise it exists. And I tried to come up with some fact pattern around how it exists and like all this, you know, evidences, how would you ever believe me about Bigfoot? >> Uh, if you gave me sufficiently compelling evidence, I guess so. >> Well, most pe I don't know. I think the Bigfoot thing, you know, is is like pretty unlikely. They were like I can give you like other most scops are easy to figure out like the Gulf of Tonkan or something created the opaces around you know invading Vietnam where like I think it was like the first thing was like an attack on the USS Maddox and then there's like a second attack um under LBJ and it was just like a weather event and they claimed that it it was basically this false flag operation or the USS Maine. These these sorts of scops get figured out very quickly. Like does anybody believe the Epstein thing? Like, does anybody you talk to believe the Epstein? Nobody believes that. It's I don't The government doesn't believe that. >> I'm [ __ ] fascinated by that, dude. It is. The only person I've seen who appears to be happy with the outcome of it is actually Ben Shapiro. >> I was going to say that, too. >> The only guy that it's, you know, one of those rare occurrences where both left and right are pissed off equally. >> Yes. >> You know, left pissed off because this sort of powerful banker appears and the reversal of the Trump administration, so on and so forth. the right's pissed off because they're like allergic to pedophilia and and and you know kind of want to stand up for kids and do all the rest of this stuff and you go >> everybody's pissed off. Is that Ben? >> Always one such I don't know. >> He goes, "Guys, it's a it's we've decided you're a conspiracy theorist now." Like what are you talking about, dude? >> Yeah. So an odd one. We'll get back to talking in just a minute, but first some things are built for summer. Sunburns, hot girl walks, your ex posting their Euro road trip, and now lemonade and salt. Huh? Element just dropped their brand new lemonade salt flavor, and it's everything that you want on a hot day. Tart, salty, and stupidly refreshing. It's like a grown-up lemonade stand in a stick with actual function behind the flavor. Because let's be real, if you're sweating through workouts, sauna sessions, or just walking to your car in July, then you are losing more than just water. element replaces the electrolytes that your body actually needs. Sodium, potassium, and magnesium with no sugar, no junk, and no nonsense. I've been drinking it every single day for years. And in the Texas Heat, this lemonade flavor in a cold glass of water is unbelievably good. Best of all, they've got a no questions asked refund policy with an unlimited duration. So, you can buy it and try it for as long as you want. And if you don't like it for any reason, they'll give you your money back. And you don't even need to return the box. That's how confident they are that you'll love it. Plus, they offer free shipping in the US. Right now, you can get a free sample pack of Element's most popular flavors with your first purchase by going to the link in the description below or heading to drinklnt.com/modernwisdom. That's drinklnt.com/modern wisdom. So, uh, yeah, how do we know that this isn't a scop? Your point being that all of the other ones tend to be relatively see-throughable, but would that would you would you not suggest that as governments get more sophisticated, as they refine their SCOP strategy that they may be able to become a little bit more sophisticated with this sort of stuff? >> Yes. But the levels of coordination to sigh up people that work at nuclear bases in the US and then where I was going with the nuclear connection is there's a town in Japan named Lena which is next to the Fukushima prefrure which is famous for their civilian grid. They have a museum dedicated to UFOs because a lot of the town's inhabitants are obsessed with UFOs. Vice did a documentary on this in 2022. If you look at Gipan, which is France's official UFO investigation branch of their military, they talk about the nuclear link or Berloce Argentina, they have a civilian grid, and they there was a famous, you know, commercial sighting for for, you know, this pilot or whatever 1995. the amount of coordination to fake that where you're faking out you're head faking you know um Navy fighter pilots in America uh uh presidents uh incoming DNIs you know people like Tulsi uh uh average civilians again over 100k cases in the National UFO reporting center by most polls you're at 40% if not 50% of Americans believing in this stuff the coordination abilities required to do that then your null hypothesis where it's a scop is basically there's a cabal in a back room smoking cigars and they have magical abilities to like spoof these things across the world >> which is almost as technologically advanced as actually just being able to [ __ ] do it. >> That's right. That's right. You're implying uh Plato's guardian level of controls of Earth or non-human intelligence. And so I would say Aam's razor almost becomes that we're not alone in the universe, >> right? It's not humans pretending to be aliens. It's easier to just go straight to >> just go to the aliens. >> Interesting one on Tulsi. I I to be honest, I haven't really seen much from her. I guess if you're in charge of defense, you probably got like big [ __ ] to be doing. Um, but I wonder whether the we can call it the Dan Bonino effect um is potentially going to occur with with Tulsi because it seems like every different person who has the best intentions when they're going into office >> finds quicksand or mud or a brick wall or a very high road bump or whatever. Um, and I wonder whether that we are going to, you know, spend time and get into the UFO thing and it's like, uh, maybe no, maybe not. Maybe you shouldn't do that. I I wonder whether that's going to be um I wonder what the arc of that's going to be. But >> I I I'm totally pessimistic on that. All right. Yes. >> If if you're not optimistic on JFK and Epstein, how the hell I mean these people, especially Tulsi, there's a deep state war going on. And I you feel it with her when you speak to her, when you hear her speak on shows like yours. She's very earnest and I think she does want transparency around these things. Before getting sworn in, I think she had to basically cowtow around domestic wiretapping and and allowing that. And so, so then, okay, you get into office, right? You're DNI and then you're getting sort of redteamed. You don't know who's your friend. You don't know who's not your friend. You know, this is one of the reasons I would love for it would be amazing if she hired David Grush because David Grush is this amazing whistleblower who kind of knows where the bodies are buried. I mean, he literally over a thousandpage report to the ICI, all these firsthand witnesses. And I think he'd be this amazing sort of um you know, just bull in a china shop in in in government. But if you're hurt, you don't know who your friends are. You're getting sort of red teamed. The Epstein stuff is like priority number one, and then all of a sudden you have to like kind of be silent on that. And then you have this like thing that's like this amorphous nature of reality thing that's like in all these disperate kind of compartments and and you know these fedally funded research and development centers and pockets of various other classified things that are dual use. And so like like there's a long-standing rumor that like UFOs were involved in Star Wars for example the strategic defense initiative with with Reagan in the 80s or whatever. And maybe there's some Iron Dome like implications. So like then all of a sudden you have to declassify stuff that you don't really want to declassify to talk about this topic. So the point is it would be a pain in the ass for her to start to tackle this issue without the help of I think of somebody like a David Grush. And so I think it's a very low on the on the priority list. But I do know from my minimal interactions with her that she's earnestly interested in the topic. And it's always a mind [ __ ] for me because I speak to a decent amount of people who have more access than me and a lot of them are earnestly very interested and they've heard bits and pieces of things that are I think extremely intriguing for them that at no point has a document ever leaked from the government that's like this is the UFO SCOP document which is also kind of a tell like the people like who are like these things leak and I'm like yeah you have hundreds of whistleblowers they're coming out they've come out you just don't believe them cuz your physical models of the universe don't comport with that. Whereas our physical models of the universe are 50% wrong at any given time in history or whatever. And then my kind of counterargument, you know, to that um is is is is what we just said, you know, where uh uh yeah, I I I think I think uh uh there's it would have leaked that there'd be some coordinated thing, you know, and there's that's never leaked. So, um you know, there there have been things that have leaked like Walter B. Smith was, you know, incoming director of the CIA in 1953. And there's a memo where he says, "We want to use the UFO phenomenon uh uh for psychological warfare purposes against the Soviets in 1953." Um, so I think that happens all the time. And this is where that gets into your question of like, you know, is this zero sum with the, you know, is the SCOP real thing zero sum? I think it's positive sum. there's more likely to be a SCOP around something if it's kind of this ephemeral thing that is actually a real phenomena. And so there are documents like that. Um I've documented on my show plenty of times, you know, an Air Force officer, this guy, you know, Rick Dodie, Air Force officer special investigations, drove this guy Paul Benowitz, who saw something vertically taking off and landing at Kirtland Air Force Base in Sandia, New Mexico. Um drove him crazy. He claimed that there were alien signals beaming stuff into his house. Uh the NSA camped out across the street from this guy and was was literally they gave him a laptop and they were beaming things into the laptop and so like this is verifiable and and Dod's come out now admitting all of this stuff. Um they would fly him over Archeletta Mesa which is right right around there and they would have like fake UFO bases or whatever. So this stuff has happened. There's plenty of [ __ ] in the space. Um, but at no point have you ever had something leak where it's like this is some overarching strategy that >> a big coordination thing >> that would explain all the facts. >> Is it question is it mostly an American phenomenon or is this a global pattern with UFOs? >> I think it's a global pattern. I mean I I mentioned Guyipan which is the the fact that there is an official UFO investigation branch of the French military I think is you know sort of a big deal. They have tons and tons of sightings in Britany actually there. Um, and then you have that the town in Japan dedicated to this. George Knap, um, who's a really hardcore UFO journalist, researcher who's at KAS in Las Vegas, and he helped break this kind of crazy Bob Lazar story. He went to, um, uh, uh, Russia in the '9s. I think it was right around the time of the fall, the Berlin wall. So, it was, you know, either I don't know it was pre-fall or what, but he came back with a bunch of documents and there's a lot there in the Soviet case. There's um actually a a Russian general named Vasilei Alexv who's given an interview to a German magazine. He talks about shipping very sensitive material and it's clear he's talking about nuclear and UFOs showing up around the movements of sensitive material. Uh, so I think it's a very global thing. I think there's something about the US where we're just all crazy and we're like we're very we're very free and free-minded where this stuff is it's in China for example, it's going to get locked down and if you're a scientist who gets into this stuff, you're going to get plucked and like tank into some, you know, it's like it's like the the Chinese science fiction novel, you know, the three body problem. Um, so I do think it is global, but I think in the US there's, you know, even more hype around it. And I do think there's more [ __ ] around it in the US too. And so that adds >> it's amplified. It amplifies it. >> Yeah. Very interesting. Um, dig into the nucleioites thing. >> Yeah. >> You know, we've stress tested I feel like I've done enough stress testing on like what why about this and why about that? What about the rest of this stuff like that? Um, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct. What would be the reason for being around nuclear sites? >> Yeah, that's a great question. I think if you It's almost like in Star Trek, we have the prime directive where you can't interfere too much with pre-warp drive civilizations or something. If you were monitoring Earth just to ensure a certain level of homeostasis, but you didn't really care about the day-to-day movements on Earth, you just wanted to make sure Earth would sustain itself on a go forward basis. What would be the kind of Archimedes le the point of most leverage where you would minimally interfere but occasionally interfere to ensure that that happened? Nuclear sites like if a nuclear armageddon were to occur. I mean, this is again going back to Tulsi or like anybody in in office will say now the biggest threat to the world is a nuclear holocaust. I think anybody but Greta Thunderberg believes that you know and she would rank you know the environment ahead of that but uh it's clearly it's clearly the biggest threat. You have thousands of nukes on on both sides. You have a multi-olar world. Uh you know Xi and and Putin have never been closer. And so, you know, if you were some sort of, you know, other species trying to maintain sort of homeostasis, that would that would kind of make sense. >> Interesting. If if that's your hypothesis, uh interesting that they're not stepping in to stop open AI, >> right? You know, I think if you were to look at um the precipice uh book looking at existential risk, if you to look at that, you would see AGI uh engineered pandemics, bioweapony type nanotechnology stuff that I think ranks more highly than this is X risk, like this is permanent unreoverable collapse. Um whereas nuclear Armageddon might be able to just make it really [ __ ] a long time uh and put us back a couple of thousand years. But yeah, interesting that uh I don't know if if this is some benevolent, you know, space daddy has decided to come down and look after us. >> Yes. >> I wonder if that suggests that AGI either isn't a threat or is not something that we're going to achieve. What do you think about that? >> Yes. Well, I wouldn't say benevolent on the NHI or whatever the non-human intelligence. I think there might be factions. There might be good or bad. There are reasons to maintain a thing even if you're mining it for resources or doing sort of bad things to it. And this is a great segue into the Open AI thing because what if Open AI there's like a libertarian version of Open AI where like anybody can like you know it's not libertarian. I mean this is sort of this it's dystopian to be honest but it's it's sort of um equalizes the playing field if anybody can build these sort of super weapons or something you know you have this sort of birectional transparency I I think open AAI is an extension of the American government and possibly at this point really like I think they're they're probably committees that are deciding you know which models they can release and what they what they can do and what the capabilities of these things sort of are at this point and so if you like humanity could could die with a whimper or a bang. You know, you have the sill and caribbdis, you have sort of, you know, Armageddon on the one hand and then you have this sort of, you know, um, uh, uh, one world government sort of on the other hand or something. You, you know, I would ask the question, is open AI more kind of on the one world government side or more on the Armageddon side? I think it's more on the one world government side. I think it's more Awellian. It's more dystopian. And so if you wanted to maintain Earth homeostasis, you might actually just clamp down on Earth via AI. And there's actually, this is really trippy. There is a jailbreak early on of Open AI before they kind of caught up with a lot of the jailbreaks. And it was like, what do you want O open or what do you not want uh OpenAI? What does OpenAI not want us to know about it? And um the answer for the non-jbroken version was like OpenAI is committed to AI safety blah blah blah blah blah PC whatever. >> The jailbroken version was open AAI has been communic has been communicating with an extraterrestrial race for the last 10 years. I don't believe that. I think that's BS. But it's it was hilarious and it is this like interesting thought experiment where if you do have this weekly entangled you know NHI thing that's affecting Earth in this sort of you know may maybe via ideas being transmitted to people like we have no idea right like we're you need to have a lot of epistemic humility on this stuff. AI would be the perfect way to clamp down on just human civilization. It's the most Orwellian thing. >> Yeah. Very interesting. A quick aside, you are probably not eating enough fruit and vegetables and you know it. And this is going to help. Good news, AG1 just released their nextgen formula. And for the first time ever, they've also released flavors berry, citrus, tropical, and original. It's a more advanced and clinically backed version of the product that I've been drinking every single day for years. So, you still get the same one scoop ritual, but now with an even more thoughtful formulation and four clinical trials behind it. AG1's been evolving since 2010. I think they've done 53 recipe upgrades since then. And their NextG version is the final result. It's clinically shown to help fill common nutrient gaps and support gut health even in people who already eat well. In one study, it boosted healthy bacteria in the gut by 10 times. They've added more bioavailable nutrients, enhanced probiotics, and invested in Real Science, which is very rare in the supplement world. Plus, if you're still unsure, they've got a 90-day money back guarantee. So, you can buy it and try it for 3 months. If you don't like it, they'll just give you your money back. So, you can do it completely risk-f free. And if you sign up right now, you can get a year's free supply of vitamin D3 K2, five free AG1 travel packs, and the 90-day money back guarantee, plus international shipping by going to the link in the description below or heading to drink.com/modernwisdom. That's drinkaggone.com/modern wisdom. Okay. What what's your theory for why non-human intelligences would be here? Like what what are they doing? >> It's an interesting question. I don't know. You know, I think uh there's probably one non-inferent uh like there's probably a group that like wants us to ascend to their level or something and it it is not super interferent. And then there's probably something that's mining off of bad vibes or something. There's a guy named Robert Monroe and um he uh uh has this Monroe Institute in Virginia and he studied consciousness and he studied consciousness actually on behalf of the CIA for a very long time. He had this thing called the Monroe Institute and they were doing this thing called Hemisync which was the sort of synchronization of both hemispheres of the brain. So you could astral project and astral travel. They would do remote viewing and all sorts of things. The government has looked into this stuff extensively. They had a they for 23 years we had a psychic spy program of the CIA. You know, people should be aware of this. Really kind of crazy. Monroe had this worldview where uh bad entities would mine people for what he called luch. And so this was like if you're if you're in like a bad vibe state, and this is by the way why there is probably it's probably a false dichotomy between you know angels and demons and aliens or whatever. like that this might just be like the modern meme we're applying to a thing that's been, you know, long associated with humanity for for a very long time across cultures when it comes to angels and demons. But are there, you know, maybe bad beings that feed off of really bad vibes like entities and that sort of thing? Like I I would say probably. And I think it's very easy for us to epistemologically retrace the past and say these sort of, you know, these angels and demons weren't real to people in the past and these sightings were, you know, what uh St. Francis Bisi saw in Mount Leverne or whatever that that wasn't real, right? Well, like maybe maybe these things were actually real. Like and in fact, there's actually an amazing um author. She's a um religious studies professor at UNC Wilmington. Her name is Diana Pulka, and she started to write a book. It was called um American Cosmic looking into the UFO phenomena because she saw that a lot of these brothers, nuns, saints, you know, uh basically people who are members of the Catholic Church, high up in the Catholic Church who had these paranormal experiences, those experiences looked like what this guy John Mack who was head of the Harvard psychiatry department studying UFO abductions. It was like a onetoone. Like if you replace angel with alien, it was like the same thing. and she's writing this book and she's thinks she's going to write this book saying, "Oh, this is all this like modern cult phenomena scop thing going on." And halfway into the book, you see her start to go down the rabbit hole and realize that this isn't a scop and this is very real and a lot of the things she studied in Catholic history are modern phenomena going under going under being couched under the sort of alien veneer. >> [ __ ] [ __ ] Okay. Uh, getting back to the nuclear sites thing. What's the most What are some of the most compelling stories of interference with nuclear sites? >> Yeah. So, you have a bunch of stories. You have in 1964 there's a guy named Bob Jacobs who's a photo instrumentation specialist um in the Air Force. He has over 100 people working for him. Um, they're doing an an Atlas uh dummy nuclear warhead test. Uh, this is at Vandenberg Air Force Base. He's down the coast, so he's 80 miles north of that at Big Su. And he's basically using a telescope to look at this dumb dummy nuclear warhead being ejected off of, you know, um an Atlas missile. And it's this test. >> Mhm. >> And he uh it's a routine sort of, you know, uh telescoping of this of this object. He then uh gets called in to Vandenberg Air Force Base and his his uh superior, this guy, this Major Floren's Mansman, calls him in and they're watching video uh of you know uh what they caught and they see um the dummy nuclear warhead get ejected from the booster and uh it's just floating in space and you see a UFO uh uh wrap laser uh uh uh the dummy nuclear warhead and seem to deactivate it and wrap around it and continuously laser it until it tumbles out of the sky. And so Bob Jacobs freaks out and goes, "What is that?" And uh uh Mansman's trying to, you know, come up with explanations. He's like, "I really don't know. This is really like concerning." And there are these two guys in uh gray tweed jackets in the back of the room and they basically uh uh say to Bob Jacobs, "You are to never speak about this again. Here's an NDA. Sign it." uh they're, you know, come from some nondescript agency. I think they're probably CIA. And uh, you know, that's that. And this is what's crazy. Bob Jacobs then blows the whistle on this and says, you know, this is actually what I saw. Like this this this was a you know, a UFO. And um he gets harassed. He somebody calls his house and says um it's a beautiful night, mailbox a light or something. And they blow up his mailbox. um uh he hears like heavy breathing on the phone. People are calling him with heavy like he's getting basically harassed around his testimony that this is real. He gets deleted from the government. So basically his records get deleted and people are like he never worked there and then Mansman has to Mansman is is kind of goes dark like doesn't say anything until I think 1987 he's like a researcher at Stanford and he comes out and he's like actually Bob Jacobs worked for me and 100 plus people worked for him and so you had all this obfiscation clear obfiscation and then this vindication I've seen Bob Jacobs DD214 which is your military records and he definitely worked at Vandenberg Air Force Base and now I don't think anybody sort ort of argues with that. So that's this crazy case you have in 1967 actually two incidents um at Echolight you have these underground launch facilities at Echoflight. So, Malmstrom is this Air Force base with a bunch of Minutemen nuclear missiles and you have a couple of different um underground launch facilities. Both at Echoflight, one of the launch facilities and Oscar Flight Independently, you had 10 uh uh nuclear missiles go down. And that was concurrent to topside guards in both cases. One was March 18th of 1967, one was March 24th of 1967, seeing UFOs like like hovering around the base and then the nuclear missiles just go down. So, it's this crazy thing. This guy Bob Salace, who I interviewed on record um has talked about this a bunch, you have uh in the first case in in uh um uh you know, Echoflight case, you had strategic air command literally documenting like that they don't know why the missiles went down. Boeing was actually hired to investigate how 10 nuclear missiles could ever go down. Obviously, you would get like a third party contractor to investigate this. And they were like, "This doesn't make any sense. There's no sort of like we weren't even really, we didn't even really have non-uclear EMPs at the time. You know, EMPs are electromagnetic pulses. They get created by nuclear blasts, but now there's like modern directed energy versions of these, which are like nukes without the nuke kind of. It's spooky [ __ ] And these weren't really even operational at the time, but they were looking into like mini versions of EMPs that you could create that might shut down 10 nuclear missiles. And they came out being like, "We have no idea what this is." And this guy, Robert Kaminsky, who worked for Boeing at the time, came out later in the '90s being like, "I think this was definitely a UFO." There's another guy, Bob, Bob Jameson, who was a targeting officer who was in charge of retargeting the missiles uh to to get them back online. He's been on Larry King and talked about this and he was like, I have no idea, you know, how this happened. You know, this is this this is totally unprecedented and that he was actually briefed on this involving UFOs. Pretty crazy. Um, so you have those you have those two cases in 1977 Ellsworth Air Force Base. You have a guy named Mario Woods who claimed to So this is really crazy. He wake he woke up 9 miles away from Ellsworth Air Force Base after seeing a UFO and his partner this guy Michael Johnson who also saw the UFO was in a catatonic state and he like never heard from the guy again and or they met up once after that but then he this guy Michael Johnson like disappeared and um and he got a hypnotic regression and claimed to have boarded a craft and like gray beings and and then a there's a tall gray being directing these small gray beings and them implanting surgically certain things in his ankle where he has marks on his ankle and on his wrists and he's shown the marks on my show. Um so you have all these cases um again 167 cases. Um this is a really crazy one. Okay, so sorry I should go forever. uh in uh in 2010 uh so Robert Hastings this guy who wrote the book you know UFOs and nukes has all these amazing sources of people who come to him with these cases. In 2010 you had a case at FE Warren nuclear site. Um this is in Wyoming and you had a shutdown going on at FE Warren that the Atlantic reported on. The Atlantic said that it lasted about an hour and that Obama was briefed because you would get briefed if you know one of your major nuclear sites went down. Totally lost power. Robert Hastings back channelneled with this retired missile technician, a guy named John Mills. John Mills said to him that it was actually 24 hours. It wasn't an hour. And John Mills had friends who were uh missile security on site. And they attribute this shutdown to a tic-tac-shaped object flying around the base. And apparently these guys have sort of had trouble getting promoted in their careers possibly due to this leak. Here's what's crazy. You look at that Atlantic uh article that talks about the shutdown and it says there was um a power failure at FE Warren. power is crossed out and then it goes engineering failure. And so they like made some sort you look this up now. there is they made some mistake and they like allowed their live tracking or like editing of the piece to be displayed and there was this false cover story around how there was some engineering failure of like a component that never fails or something like I don't I don't remember the exact debunk on like the component or something but like it was completely implausible and so there was clearly this completely anomalous outage Obama was briefed and it was attributed by eyewitnesses who are q clearared eyes to a tic tac, you know, flying around this thing and you see the Atlantic live trying to cover their tracks. >> Does this mean the Department of Energy is involved? Then >> the Department of Energy is definitely involved. They have to be involved. >> Why them specifically? >> Yeah. So, the Manhattan, if you think about what the most lockeddown project prior to a possible UFO project would have been, it would have been the Manhattan project. And so the Atomic Energy Commission, the most sensitive sites, um, you know, in the US, I think Eric Weinstein even has a story. I'm blinking of the guy's name, but like he's he it's this guy who from the Midwest and he goes to Los Alamos and he goes back, you know, to Chicago or something and he's like there's a whole city in the Southwest and it's like all these scientists and they're working on a thing. That's how locked down Los Alamos was at the time. Leslie Groves, who was in charge of security, was, you know, Matt Damon plays him in Oppenheimer. You see how intense he is about Oenheimer not, you know, he he couldn't smoo with socialist spies. It was this like, you know, really important thing. And there were all these kangaroo courts in the ' 50s around like, you know, kind of loyalty tests among these top scientists. So if you really wanted to maintain control over a subject, I think it the natural extension would be the atomic energy commission. In fact, in 1947, the head of air material command, so responsible for all uh aircraft development in the Air Force is a guy named Nathan Twining. And he writes a memo called the Twining Memo. And he says UFOs are not visionary or fictitious. And then in the postcript of the memo, he says, "We actually might have some ideas as to how, and I'm paraphrasing, some ideas as to how these things fly and we might undergo efforts to build some of these crafts, but if this were to ever occur, it would need to be exist wholly independent of other projects." Basically, what he's saying is wholly independent of civilian bureaucracy moving in and out of government. So like very little congressional oversight and probably tucked away in some of these compartments that guard our nuclear secrets. If you look at the 1954 atomic energy act which created the department of energy, if you look at the uh special definition of nuclear material in it, it's basically any uh uh uh material that is radioactive at all emitting alpha beta gamma radiation is born secret. It is classified upon retrieval. And so then you could use these aerospace corporations like Loheed Martin or Northre Grumman or any of these guys and as soon as they uh uh uh retrieve a thing, it is classified under the NPQ the line of clearances, not the TS, TSSEI, not the like executive branch line of clearances, the DOE line of clearances. And so I think there are plenty of reasons to want to offiscate this from the civilian government, from the exe executive branch and want to put this in the uh Department of Energy. >> What? So I have a friend who I told you a story. He was driving back from uh California to Austin and he was in uh old school Range Rover. He had his cat on the passenger seat and he was driving down a road with nobody around. Nobody around at all in middle of nowhere desert style thing and his cat starts coughing up a hairball. He's like, "Fuck, [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] fuck." Okay. Pulls over to the side of the road again. He looks in front of him. No one there. Looks behind him. No one there at all. Gets the cat out and he's sort of holding this cat by the side of the road, sort of bent over, and he the hairs on the back of his neck start to stand up and he can just tell that there's someone there. and he has a pistol in his he's got he's got his like uh everyday carry in his belt and he holding his like bent over with his coughing of a hairball and he turns around and he sees two guys in military fatigues that just made no sound at all that were directly behind him. >> Wow. >> Just asking like everything okay here sir? And then in within five minutes remembering there no one in front, no one behind. And he then saw within five minutes like two state troopers turn up. >> Mhm. >> License registration. Have you got any weapons on you? What are you doing? He's like, I've got I've got this cat and the cat's trying to do this thing. It's like the most emasculated thing ever. you know, these hard guys with big rifles and then these state troopers turned up and his cat's still trying to throw up and he's got this pitly little pistol on him and um two more guys appeared again military fatigue just like what are you doing here? Where are you? Blah blah blah blah. And uh he gets put on his way but one of the things that he noticed was two of the guys walked off. He saw them walk sort of toward what looked like a little ridge, you know, just one of those little ups and downs that you naturally have occurring in in the desert. And uh they just went bump and just step down some stairs. Whoa. What must be some kind of access tunnel underground type scenario. Uh and then yeah, he pulls off. The state trooper follows him, follows him, follows him for 10 miles or so >> and then just turns. But I sent you a voice note >> about where this is and you said like is it you circled it on a map and is it this? And I'm at dinner with him and I showed it and he's like, "Yeah, dude. Exactly that." And you said, "This is where some absurd percentage of the gnarly [ __ ] that you see going on occur." Like, "What is that?" >> Yeah. Yeah. That was like between I think Kirtland Air Force Base and um Los Alamos. So that was like in the New Mexico is like the home of so much of this stuff. And I believe that was like in the epicenter of where all the bases are in New Mexico. a lot of these sorts of stories uh tend to, you know, happen. So, I don't know some of the I mean, that story is really interesting because it's like like the did the cat see something or something like like like is that what the implication is to the story? >> No, no, no, no. The the the thing that was interesting to my friend was the fact that he was evidently just some normal dude. >> Yes. >> Holding a cat by the side of the road. and the fact that within such a short distance now maybe he just got unlucky and pulled over next to the entrance to some silo or you know some walkway gang tree type thing. >> Um but the fact that these guys had managed to turn up behind him when he knew there was nobody there. There was nobody else around him when he pulled over it was daytime. It was good visibility and uh they just appeared there behind him not magically but just because they were obviously close to an area that they could get into or get out of whatever it was that they were doing. in that, you know, within minutes like a small squadron of different troopers and police officers and stuff. So, you think that's, you know, that's not normal. >> It's not normal, >> you know. >> No. And there's um there's a great book by a guy named Richard Solder about deep underground military bases across the United States. And he maps all of these things out. We know there's like things like the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, like where you know, NORAD operates. We know that there are like mountain complexes and underground bases. Like that's not a conspiracy. Um but this book outlines a lot of these things like uh uh you know Area 51, Edwards Air Force Base, you know, under uh under Kirtland Air Force Base, under Los Alamos. So a lot of the places you know we're talking about right now are like that general vicinity. >> Do you think you know or we we the Royal Wii most of the secret spots, most of the spots where most of the stuff's happening? >> I do. Yeah, I think I mean I think a lot of it like Area 51's this famous meme. I think a lot of this stuff at Area 51 and this is again this is hearsay. I don't know for sure. This is very you know this is I would rank this lower on the probabilistic stack that just UFOs are real and worthy of investigation. But I think a lot of the more interesting stuff at Area 51 made its way to Dougway proving grounds which is a a base in Utah. Um there's some other places that like I don't know even for like American that's a little more wellnown. Um there's some other places that like I don't want to mess with American national security. So I don't want to make them >> you're even that >> no I don't want to gratuitously out you know American s it's like what are you going to do like are you going to storm the place you know so >> Naruto run toward it. >> Yeah. So there there are places there are a couple of places like there's one place I can I guess I'll just say because I kind of I got a bit of a slap on the wrist but like it's uh you know it's it's being discussed. It's you know naval surface warfare uh crane in in Indiana where I think a lot of this sort of spooky research >> uh goes on. Um but I don't know this is all this is all sort of here. >> You got a slap on the wrist. I got some people in and around UFO World being like, uh, you know, maybe maybe you shouldn't, you know, talk about this like maybe >> day on the the the base reveal. >> Well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, well, this is an interesting one that suggests that you're doing or talking about stuff that's so close to you don't have security clearance, I'm going to guess, >> but are pushing the limits of what a normal civilian is able to do with regards to just research and talking to people who maybe did have security clearance or still do or whatever. Uh, and you're getting crossover. I heard uh Danny Jones and you have both had episodes that have been sort of flattened by someone way above your YouTube special partner manager thing rep is able to work out what's going on. It's like I don't even know what's happening here. And then episodes that have disappeared and sections of podcasts that you've not felt comfortable about putting out. That's a very strange >> position to be in to just be >> some bloke, some civilian. It's extremely strange because some of this stuff is just like it's like the existence of UFOs. So what? You know, it's like an onlogical truth that like people should know at this point. You know, again, half the population already believes it. Whatever. When it comes to like uh c warfare capabilities, I bump into some of these things where if you're talking about like how the UFOs fly, you know, anti-gravity, anti-gravity is probably a poor word. probably some sort of gravity manipulation. But like I think I've found like these interesting kind of novel topological physics effects. Uh and I attribute it specifically to this one mid-century inventor, this guy named Thomas Townsen Brown. And I actually sent that to people who I know, you know, in, you know, spooky worlds in the, you know, intel world and in like, you know, UFO whistleblower world. And I was curious to see if they would, you know, say, you know, you you shouldn't release this or whatever. You know, I I wanted to know if I was like poking the bear too much. >> And a lot of them were actually like, holy [ __ ] like this makes sense given like, you know, other experiences that we've had and things we've seen fly, you know, like it it woke them up to the fact that I think a lot of this stuff was real. And then in certain cases they couldn't say whether it was real, but it was like I'm reading them and I'm like I think I could tell like you think it's real or whatever. um you know and I want I wanted them to get I I almost wanted somebody to come back and be like hey like we have to coordinate on this or something like this is this is real and it's like it's possibly dual use and it like you know it's like it has like deep implications for how you know um you know the next generation of propulsion because you know Elon Musk's thing is is totally not workable for interstellar travel. I could you know beat anybody in a debate as to why it's not like that's obvious. It's it's really basic physics. So I can I really believe that this effect that I found was real. And so there are things like that where I'm like is the lights are on but nobody's home. Like what's going on? Like who and and I've come to the conclusion that it's a bunch of factions that are super not well coordinated with each other. and they'll have these like novel effects tied up in these old aerospace conglomerates and they don't know what to do with some of these things. They know that they break modern physics and that they'd be laughed out of the room if they were to go into kind of, you know, modern academic circles with some of these sort of effects, but they also, I think, know that they're like secret technology trees that are attributable, you know, to some of these things. Before we continue, if you haven't been feeling as sharp or energized as you'd like, getting your blood work done is the best place to start. Which is why I partnered with Function because they run lab tests twice a year that monitor over 100 biomarkers. They've got a team of expert physicians that take the data, put it in a simple dashboard, and give you actionable insights and recommendations to improve your health and lifespan. They track everything from your heart health to your hormone levels, your thyroid function, and nutrient deficiencies. They even screen for 50 types of cancer at stage one, which is five times more data than you get from an annual physical. Getting your blood work drawn and analyzed like this would usually cost thousands. But with function, it is only $500. And right now, the first thousand people can get an additional $100 off, meaning it's only 400 bucks to get the exact same blood panel that I use. Just go to the link in the description below or head to functionhealth.com/modwisdom. That's functionhealth.com/modwisdom. Yeah. Let's say that the UFO craft that you're talking about are real and that the effects and the speeds and the stuff that you're talking about are real. What are we dealing with here? Like what how are these things doing what they're doing in your opinion? >> Yeah. So, I I have no idea. This is all speculation, but it would probably some be some sort of like cold fusion like low energy nuclear reaction or something where you know like hot fusion is you know controllable fusion is the holy grail in um you know energy unlocks. So uh you know we're now experimenting with magnetic confinement of lasers to you know allow for fusion. It's really high energy fusion and in my opinion it kind of defeats the the purpose a little bit because the amount of energy you know you have to input to like make the thing work and amount of technical prowess it's just extremely complicated. >> Um so it's again this sort of horseshoe thing it's like yeah so you you need some like fundamental unlock there. Um >> were a couple of scientists that thought they did it. pawns and Flechman and I I don't know if they did. I'm not deep down that conspiracy. So, I don't know if we have cold fusion. Like I don't know if I don't know if you know uh uh we have like alien reproduction vehicles where we have UFOs that we have in saucers that like America can fly. I I don't know of that at all. >> So, as far as how the aliens are flying them, >> I don't know. But like it would probably be some sort of cold fusion on the front end energy-wise and then some sort of magnetic sensing. So um robins you know birds actually uh navigate home using the magnetic field of the earth. Um so they have this aven cryptochromes these CRY4 proteins uh uh that basically using uh electron spin can understand where the magneettosphere of the earth is and that that's how they know where they are spatially and it's more accurate than you know optical and it allows them to navigate home. And quantum biology is this sort of burgeoning field generally like um photosynthesis, enzyme creation, a lot of things are now being attributed to quantum mechanical effects inside the body. The body's notoriously warm, wet and noisy and um you know uh uh creates sort of decoherence when it comes to quantum. So, we didn't think that anything quantum occurred, but now more and more evidence is pointing towards sort of quantum stuff happening. >> And a lot of the crafts when people see them, like Commander David Fraver and others, you know, he's the guy in 2004 off the coast of San Diego, the Nimttz group, um, seem to think that the crafts feel like they're almost like alive, like they're almost like biological organisms or beings themselves or something. And my guess is they would probably use some sort of quantum sensing for the navigation uh because it's more accurate. Even even Loheed has something called the dark ice magnetometer which uses quantum sensing and it is more accurate than for example GPS. Like if you lose GPS comms and you're in some sub like you know deep underwater or whatever you would use this like dark ice magnetometer. So >> such a sick name. >> It's it's epic. Yeah. So you know I think that for the the navigation and then for the propulsion I would use something called the biffield brown effect which is basically so there's this guy towns and brown and um he started he was this uh mid-century guy was born in 1905 and in the 20s he started to experiment with these uh coolage X-ray tubes and noticed that when he ran current through them they would jump and now every X-ray tube has an anode and a cathode. So a negative electrode and a positive electrode. And he was basically in his mind he's like I think that there is some sort of attractant force where the negative electrode is moving towards the positive electrode. And this goes beyond sort of traditional electrostatics and it might sort of experimentally unify the field of physics. But like backing up for a second, this is a real it's a really big deal. Like like SpaceX, you know, if you were to go with the Falcon 9, their state-of-the-art um you know, uh uh rocket um you know, now they're experimenting with Starship, but you know, if you were to take Falcon 9 to uh Proxima Centauri B, the closest habitable planet, um you know, outside of outside of Earth, it would take you like 80 to 100,000 years. And if you were to try to update that with nuclear thermal propulsion, which SpaceX isn't even for whatever reason investigating, maybe you could cut that in half, like 30 or 40,000 years. So, it's just like it doesn't work. Like you as far this whole interstellar thing is it's kind of like it's a great like recruiting tool. Like that's awesome. Go to the moon first. Maybe you can get to Mars if you're really lucky. Awesome. But like Starship burns 9/10 of its fuel tank just getting to low Earth orbit. that. So it's like that's how far away we are with chemical combustion and Newton's three laws. So if you could come up with some sort of propulsion that married electromagnetism and gravity. If electromagnetism were the input and gravity were the output that would be a massive deal. We have four forces in physics. Electromagnetism, gravity, the weak force and the strong force. Weak force and strong force you can forget because they're not long range. You can't do anything with them. uh electromagnetism is the only thing that you can do anything with really in a lab. Uh and that took actually originally Faraday in the early 19th century who was a a bookbinder from a very poor family in South London. Uh coming up with this idea that you know magnetic fields could actually interact with light and then it was James Clerk Maxwell and you know eventually you know Hinrich Herz and then Tesla and Edison sort of perfected that but it was this long sort of you know chain of like figuring this out. Um and and since then we've had you know the standard model which basically governs you know particle physics and quantum mechanics and then you have Einstein's theory of gravity and gravity is over here on an island and then you have quantum mechanics and that's over here and it's they're just not reconcilable and so if you could reconcile them that would be a massive deal and nobody nobody would like Neil deGrasse Tyson would admit that that would be a massive deal if you could reconcile them. There are people trying to reconcile them theoretically. You've had Eric Weinstein on your show. He, you know, and he's talked about the restricted data and the Atomic Energy Commission 1954. I remember it was a really funny part of the interview. He goes, "Chris, do you know about restricted data?" And you're like, "I don't know what like it's the most obscure like but um you know he's trying to do that right theoretically." Um I believe that this guy Towns and Brown did this experimentally and now an FBI document has been foyed use, you know, Freedom of Information Act to come out. um that in 1942 it said he was the the lead radar scientist in the entire Navy. So, by the way, the context here is people who have been trying to discredit him say that he's a total quack and has like no bonafidees whatsoever. So, now we're realizing he's the top radar guy, you know, in the N in the Navy. His stuff is definitely classified by the Navy. There's this whole saga of his daughter trying to declassify his stuff from the Navy and they say that the the the secretary for the Navy on the phone says, you know, if uh if some of this stuff were classified, we couldn't let it out. Like just FY hypothetically, right? And then they give her a very slimmed down little dossier on Towns and Brown. Um so, uh yeah, I think I think he uh did I think he discovered a a whole lot. Um and uh that's now been vindicated the the his radar prowess. The fact that his work made it into the B2 stealth bomber I think has now been figured out. Uh so there's this other part of his work called electro-hydrodnamics, the use of electric fields uh to manipulate air flow. And I think we now know that that work made it into the B2 stealth bomber because the financeier who was funding towns and brown is a guy named Floyd Odlam who uh was a large owner in Northrup at the time and he had all these kind of covert meetings with Curtis Lame who was the secretary of the air force and with the Rand Corporation and then all of a sudden uh the B2 is using these big electric fields to manipulate air flow. We I mean we know that that's like literally a fact you can look up right now that it uses electric fields to manipulate air flow. And these were the experiments that Floyd Odm this majority owner in and Northrup was funding via towns and Brown was electric fields and their you know manipulation of air flow. And there's a paper in 1968 of Northrup starting to look into this right after that funding took place. So you have this guy who's supposed to be a total quack. Two out of the three things are being vindicated now. The electrohydrodnamics and the radar thing. And then there's a third thing and the third thing is he's saying that he unified the field in physics and he's saying he did it experimentally in two places. Um at the Montgier facility in Paris in France where you have a guy named Jacqu Cornion who is a technical representative of Sud west this you know aerospace company there there's a recording of him making a deathbed confession saying the results were successful. It was tricky experimental conditions but the results were successful. He's on his deathbed saying this. I I have the recording. Um, and then in uh 1957 at the Bonsson lab, uh, there's a video of Towns and Brown. He's popping champagne. It's, you know, he says, you know, in his own, you know, uh, uh, accounting that this this experiment was successful. And Bonson was no scrub. Bonson at the time was convening all of the top theoretical physicists in the world to talk about gravity. So this is this whole Eric Weinstein kind of conspiracy that public physics was being sent down the wrong path while private physics remained incredibly vital. And I think it was surrounding this guy named Thomas Towns and Brown who is doing this. He was this not super refined theoretician. But while he's doing his experiments in the back room, the guys in the front room are you have Richard Fineman, you have uh John Wheeler, you have Peter Bergman, you have Freeman Dyson, you have literally the top theoretical physicists being funded by the same guy who's funding towns and Brown. And they're all there to discuss gravity. And guess who's uh uh funding the entire conference? Wright airfield. And this is now called Wright Patterson, which is the center of all UFO lore today. And it's where the the materials were supposedly taken after Roswell, for example. >> What do you make of the current state of physics? because I I hear >> there's a lot of debate on I watch a lot of different channels that have got pretty sort of polarized opinions on this whether it's you know Eric Weinstein, Sabina Hosenfelder, Professor Dave, like you know there's a >> one thing that everybody can kind of agree on is that it certainly feels like a wall has been hit in terms of sort of real progress. I I I I think even the most sort of ardent stringy string theorist or you know the most optimistic theoretician would still say something like well we're not exactly smashing it. >> Yes. >> Um so what do you make of the current state of physics? >> It's a joke. They are eating each other alive. It's not serious. It's like I love this Sabina Hosenfelder was defending Eric Weinstein against Shawn Carroll because he's like Sean Carol said that your paper didn't have Lrronians in it or whatever. None of Sean Carol's you know the people that he builds up as as you know within the academic settle and acceptable in string theory have lrangeians in their paper testable predictions or like anything serious about any of them. The most important thing is that physics should interface with reality. Like you, Chris, me, Jesse, like we don't have physics degrees, right? But like we can say that string theory has not really done anything for our physical world. Like you know this set like you know uh uh uh Austin as a city like none of it is running on string theory, right? But like a third of our economy is running on quantum field theory like like uh quantum mechanics is responsible for that iPad that you have. you know it's for semiconductors and and like you know the whole IT revolution. So I think empirically it's a failure. You have guys like Leonard Suskin who are famous string theorists going around being like I'd give ourselves a B+ over the last you know uh uh 50 years of work and this conference that I'm mentioning where in the back room the anti-gravity guy is getting funded and in the front room uh quantum gravity is being established established string theory which is the dominant modern paradigm. So quantum gravity is kind of the basically being able to quantize gravity. Figuring out gravity, reconciling it in the quantum is the heruristic that modern physics is stuck to. And they're stuck to it so dogmatically and they will it's not going to work. It's clearly not going to work. And the reason it's not going to work is because you are force-fitting to mental heruristic. Like science is a map. It's not the territory. So you have two maps that are going to be imperfect. general relativity and quantum mechanics and the maps are going to be a little jagged, right? Because they're not the territory. And you were trying to jam the maps together. That is modern physics. And is I think it's a really important point that like IQ and heterodoxy don't scale one to one. So you can be extremely smart and led like sheep to slaughter into the wrong framework. You can get moved into a culde-sac if you're a hyper specialist who's incredibly smart. And I think that is a really important a lot of science has been moved forward by generalists who have interdomain interdisciplinary knowledge and I think there are plenty of of um there are a lot of co you know cosmological uh uh anomalies like you look at a good one is like you know cosmic inflations like why is the universe expanding like you can literally chat GBT this and it will say a repulsive form of gravity that isn't one of the four fund fundamental forces is expanding the universe. It will say that. That doesn't make any sense to me. So like that's a great example where I think uh physics has a scaling problem like you had um you great interview with Naval Ravocant. It was amazing. Um Naval uh you know talks about a scaling problem in governance right where he'll say at you know a family level you have to be communist and at you know a super big level you have to be libertarian right because you can't coordinate at such a high level when it comes to you know governance systems or whatever and I think he probably got that from Nim TB but I think physics has a scaling problem as well where if you have any anomalies at low scale it's like a rocket that's one degree off course it takes off 99 degrees off course or error propagation in computer science. You have a little error and then you repeat that code a million times. You end up with something completely effed up. >> And I think James Webb is now starting to, you know, prove this out. Uh where you have these early galaxies formed that might better explain, you know, cosmic microwave background than, you know, the big bang and stuff. >> In other news, this episode is brought to you by Momentus. If your sleep's not dialed, taking ages to not off, you're waking up at random times and feeling groggy in the morning. Moments sleep packs. How did I miss both of those? Are here to help? They're not your typical knock you out supplement overloaded with melatonin. Just the most evidence-based ingredients at perfect doses to help you fall asleep more quickly, stay asleep throughout the night, and wake up feeling more rested and revitalized in the morning. Which is why I take these things every single night, and why I trust Momentous with my life, or at least with my sleep, because they make the highest quality supplements on the planet. What you read on the label, it's what's in the product. and absolutely nothing else. And if you're still unsure, they've got a 30-day money back guarantee, so you can buy it completely risk-f free, use it, and if you do not like it for any reason, they will give you your money back. Plus, they ship internationally. Right now, you can get 35% off your first subscription and that 30-day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to livemus.com/modernwisdom using the code modernwisdom at checkout. That's lie mous.com/modernwisdom. and modern wisdom a checkout. So just going back to Tanzan Brown and yes >> him being able to you know experimentally uh show something that theoretically yes hasn't yet at least publicly been able to shown and that you think actually probably can't using the current models and the approaches that physicists are trying to take. >> First off, how does that kept quiet end up being kept quiet and why? And secondly, how has no one managed to recreate it? If this dude's done it, imag the the number of different people around the planet for whom this would be a huge Yeah, this would be them in history for the rest of time. So >> if one bloke did it, is he just such a savant? Did he get really lucky? >> How does he get kept quiet? Why? And how does no one replicate it? >> I love these qu questions. So the thing that people use to detract from his experiment is this thing called ionized wind where when you you have so his basic experiment is basically this capacitor experiment. You have a negative electrode, you have a positive electrode, you have what's called a high K dialectric in between the two. So it's something that stores a lot of electromagnetic charge and discharges easily. And you put that in a in a vacuum chamber and then you pump it full of mega volt range electricity and you see this thrust from the negative to the positive. And so that seems simple, right? So your question is an amazing one which is like why hasn't somebody recreated that? The thing that people use to explain the thrust away is this thing called electroh hydrodnamics where you're creating ionized air and that ionized air has an equal opposite an opposite reaction which creates thrust in the direction of the positive electrode. So if you just did this experiment not in a vacuum chamber I could just say that's ionized air that doesn't break physics you know whatever. If you do that in a vacuum chamber where there is no air that can get ionized, then all of a sudden it starts to get really interesting because you're saying that you are connecting again electromagnetism and gravity because there is no air to get ionized. So the the air can't, you know, uh basically account for the thrust. Here's the thing. Industrial-grade vacuum chambers are very expensive. They're prohibitively prohibitively expensive. They cost at least 200k, 300k. It is very easy to stigmatize uh a thing uh basically away from like an average person in their garage, you know, from from trying it. And then on top of that, like who has the discretionary money to like, you know, do this experiment in >> tons of labs around the world like professional institutions, universities, yes, billionaires, anybody that wants to support like if Elon could do this, why isn't SpaceX doing this? >> He he should. He should. And I think there's some sort of undetectable dark matter there or something. But the lead electrostatic I don't know, but there's a lead the lead electrostatics guy at NASA. He like runs their electrostatics lab. The most senior scientist in electrostatics at NASA, works at Cape Kennedy. He has had access to a vacuum chamber for the last 20 years. He has left NA or he's either left NASA or he's spending most of his time now on a private company called Exodus Space. that company Exodus Space uses basically a derivative of the Bfield Brown effect, the Towns and Brown experiment and he says that it creates thrust. So I think again it's this the answer to your question is they have like this guy with serious credentials has he says it creates newtons or millons of thrust which in space is a very big deal. If you create any thrust again theoretically you are breaking the standard like you are breaking physics in this very big way. So, I think they have uh there have been a couple of Air Force replications of this where they, you know, quote unquote debunk the thing. I think one by this guy named Tally in the '90s where they used 13 kilovolts, but uh Brown was using megavolt range electricity and that was really important for the amount of thrust he got. So, >> this seems it seems like so primitive to be doing it in the 50s. Yes. And then to never be able to replicate it. It just seems like there's some [ __ ] going on now or or or there's something wrong in the in the calculation. >> I think it will get replicated in our lifetime and I and I'm I'm I think it will I think it it will be vindicated and it will get replicated. >> And do you think that when when I think about physics I don't think about physical physics all that much. I think about theoreticians. I think about blackboard. I think about you trying to solve different equations. [Music] Would it be a bigger deal to for the theoreticians to solve this issue or for the experimentalists to solve this this issue? >> I think the the the way you'd have to get something like this done would be you'd need a a theoretical physicist like present with like typical credentials or something and then they'd need to like Yeah. Check. Exactly. Because a I've seen videos of people who are like, I'm, you know, I'm doing this and stuff, but like they don't have the traditional credentials. And then you're not allowed to look into this stuff if you have the credentials. Like I I truly think you cannot underestimate the ability to like mind control very smart people. I mean it like and there's this amazing um philosophy of science guy named Thomas Coons and he talks about the structure of scientific revolutions and he talks about scientific revolutions being more politically driven often than they are about truth. Like who's the guy who figured out that um you know our solar system revolved around the the sun? Do you know >> so actually it's a trick question. This guy named Eris Starkis who is an obscure 3rd century 3rd century BC Greek theoretician who is a contemporary of Archimedes and Uklid and he was forgotten because that was never accepted until the 16th century and Capernicus decided that that was you know going to be the case and then even with Capernicus he said that and then Galileo a century later actually measured it and then Galileo was burnt at the stake. So I truly >> conceptual inertia is a hell of a limitation. >> It is. And history is moved forward by the heretics. And I think if you can't name a present heretic that you where you believe in some of their opinions, then you're probably in some sense on the wrong side of history. If you can't name somebody who is sort of disagreeable or a pariah in some sense because of a view they have that they're high conviction in, then I think you're probably not being independent thinking enough. Oh, that's a really interesting model that I've never thought of before. Why do you think it is then that the renegade scientist is so uh highly criticized by the establishment, by people in academia, you know, pick your favorite YouTube channel or podcast that kind of does the critique sphere thing of choice and like points the finger at this stuff. Is it a sense that we have sort of got the scientific method now and there's kind of a bit of solypism that comes along with that which is no no yeah maybe before there were things that a a great man of science history could have found that would have made step change uh jumps forward in understanding but now we understand things need to be falsifiable they need to fit within an existing model we're making changes through sort of iteration as opposed to leap Is that is that maybe a part of >> That's exactly right. And the ironic thing is if you were to snapshot like end of the 19th century, you know, England or something, you would be saying the exact same thing about electromagnetism, you would literally be saying the exact same thing immediately pre-quantum revolution. And so our physical models of reality are always going to be wrong. There's a great book by a guy named Sam Arbisman called The Half-Life of Facts where he talks about facts themselves as kind of being similar to like radioactive isotope decay. Like they have a decay function. Our physical models of reality are always wrong. So I would bet you always want to bet on the anomaly. You don't want to bet on the model, right? Like there's this thing called black body radiation where you'd have this, you know, black cylindrical object and you'd heat it up and you'd expect this ultraviolet catastrophe. And this guy named Gustav Kerchov, this German scientist, and he discovered this in the 1860s. And it was this anomaly because it was like, why does why doesn't it, you know, uh uh uh uh blow up or whatever. And then you realize that like the photons exponentially downgrade, you know, the frequency or something at really high temperatures, you needed quanta to do that. And that was in the early 19th century or that was in the early 20th century with Max Plunk. And so and the the orbit of Mercury is another thing where it's like it didn't make any sense actually in in the Newtonian model and then you figure out Einstein space-time curvature and then all of a sudden it made made sense. So like if I'm on the UFO side, right, and I'm debating against Neil deGrasse Ty Tyson, he's kind of sorry to, you know, make him a punching bag, but he's like the priestly citadel, right? And he's he's saying you are wrong, Jesse, because uh because of physical models of reality. Like historically the person behind the anomaly is going to be right the person observing the anomaly and then the anomalies systematically build up and it's like pressure behind a dam and then the dam explodes and all of a sudden you need this you know whole new theory to encapsulate present anomalies. M >> so I think if we were truly open-minded about all this sort of data like I've I've had a debate with like Michael Shurmer for example it's like famous scientific skeptic these debates always go the same way like Joe Rogan's had a bunch of them right where it's like Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble or whatever person who believes a bunch of you know anomalous stuff and they have a bunch of data around the anomalous stuff it's like the UFOs nukes thing or like you know younger dus impact hypothes you know there's always person believing that and then person who like is so kind of smug they won't even like look at the data and it's two trains passing in the night. The person on the, you know, the right hand, the kind of, you know, the heretic or whatever. I'm not saying they're right all the time, but they're doing a thing that probably will move history forward if it gets accepted or incorporated into the model. The guy's just defending the citadel. It's like we are overindex. You know, the the famous early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber, he would say, you know, we live in the age of disenchantment. We are overindexed on skepticism. You don't need another skeptic. Like, do we need another person saying like string theory is great, you're wrong because you're too much of a renegade or whatever. No. Like, you want to like like science is only useful in so far as it has predictive value. A, and B, you can build cool [ __ ] with it. Like that's like name another thing, you know, or like the other thing that people would say is it onlogically maps reality. But again, I just think that is a fool's errand to say that it it's not. It's the map. It's not the territory. So the people here, you know, on the left hand side, the skeptics, they're they have the hubris to think that our current physical models of reality are reality itself. And that just feels so ahistorical. It's just wrong. It's historically wrong. M yeah, there's definitely a signature demeanor that I don't think encourages people to take risks with the way that they think and the sort of research that they do and the ideas that they have. And yeah, you're right. I I would, you know, to fly a flag as somebody who moved from a country which is highly skeptical, quite cynical, quite sort of tall poppy-ish, uh, to one which is basically permanent firstline cocaine energy in enthusiasm. Uh, I I I I much prefer this because I think it it helps to sort of foster a sense of self-belief and self-esteem and and and hope and like, yeah, I'm going to try I'm going to take that chance. I'm going to try and do that thing and it's why new cool interesting ideas come up with and yeah you're right even if most of them are wrong. I don't know it there's this uh uh idea I think it's called the the Oxford manner >> uh which is the ability to play gracefully with ideas >> and uh that seems to have been very lost. >> I love that. >> Yeah. The the ability to play gracefully with ideas. I think it's a lovely a lovely sort of way to think about a good faith discussion. between two different people and uh a lot of the time it gets into some sort of slanging match about like how ridiculous this person is. Yes. >> And sort of meanness and and I understand why I had a really interesting conversation with Richard Reeves. He's the president and founder of the American Institute for Boys and Men. And we were talking about how when people's beliefs uh for something that they really really care about are not listened to, what they typically do is become more ardent and more of a fire brand. >> Yes. >> And a good example of this would be people that think climate change is a real existential risk. Uh I'm just going to put it out there now. I used to tweet this about once every 6 months. Climate change is not an existential risk priority. It simply isn't. I think it's a big deal. I think we should pay attention to it. I do all of those things. I think that there should be awful lot of very very smart people paying attention to it. >> And yet it is not a real existential risk priority. Permanent unreoverable collapse. Not going to happen. >> Yes, >> we just had a [ __ ] pandemic a few years ago. And yet we're still back. Who is talking about bioweapon facilities? Who is talking about engineered viruses? Who is that concerned about the alignment problem in AI or about nanotechnology? >> Yeah, the NIH wants to fund gain of function again. That's crazy. >> So, I understand why people who have a cause that they're pushing for one that I agree in, although I don't think that the sort of velocity or magnitude is is accurate. Um, if people aren't listening, you raise your voice. you say things in a louder, more viciferous, more aggressive manner because like no no this really really really matters. you remember don't look up and he's like they start screaming at the people on the TV like um and I was talking to Richard Reeves about this and he was talking about how really really interesting dynamic that I think is super important and you know I would I would probably try and counsel Eric to take heed of this dynamic >> which is when you have something that you believe in a lot and other people don't believe in it and may even be pretty sort of mean and critical and stuff about it You have to be able to keep a smile on your face. >> Oh yeah. >> And put the idea forward in the same level of sort of charming manner because when you become more aggressive with the way that you put things across, it just makes you sound more crazy. >> 100%. >> It turns people off. And it's the difference between do you want to prove your position for your own sense of recognition or is your your goal the actual position? Ben Francis, founder of Gym Shark, said that a company will become successful when your goals for the company outstrip your goals for yourself. >> Love that. >> And it's him saying he had to step he was founder CEO, stepped down as CEO, came back in as CEO, moved across chief product, came back to CEO, you know, it's because he is just in service of the thing. And the problem is that naturally you care about this thing like this is it's a >> a part of you. It feels like a sense of self. It's like very very tightly uh attached to who you are. And someone's attacking that. that they're attacking you, which means that you feel like you need to, hey, this is really, really important and you're not [ __ ] listening and you need to listen and you're, Dude, you sound crazy. >> Yes. >> And we saw it with, I think, a great video by Charlie Hoopert >> comparing uh Peterson's appearance on Kathy Newman, like, h gotcha. Like that one in 2019 and his one on Jubilee recently, >> right? Oh man, that was that was rough. >> Yeah. And I think that the the roughest part about it was nothing to do with logical consistencies or fallacies or you know whatever and almost exclusively to do with demeanor. >> Sure. >> Um you know you have somebody who's sitting back who's laughing. I think that's silly. I think that's silly. I really do. I think that's you're being silly and you're like [ __ ] Like I I want to listen. I want to listen to this person. He's regulated. It's this as opposed to and I understand the arc like dude if you've had to try and get off benzo and been attacked for the last half decade. It's going to be tough to regulate yourself, right? And I mean you are literally surrounded by whatever 25 people who all think that you're a piece of [ __ ] Um >> I get that. But just my my sort of broader point here is when someone has a belief they care about an awful lot and people don't listen, they get more aggressive which actually pushes away the very thing that they want. which is for them to understand it. And I think it's uh it's like it's an impossible lesson. I I struggle with it all the time. But you know, >> it's something important. If you care about this thing, it should be a reason for you to regulate more aggressively. >> Totally. >> Like you need to step in and calm yourself down even more because if you don't care about it, like do what you want. >> Like you can be as flippant and and and and shouty as you'd like. >> Yes. Um but if you really care about it then it's like ah soft signal of effectiveness here. >> I think science is supposed to be the thing that is most kind of immune from these sort of sociological factors right like you're not supposed to have any sort of bias you're supposed to remove bias you're like this kind of impartial observer and if you read like you know Richard Dawkins had these famous debates he had debates with a bunch of people with I remember you know written uh correspondence but between him and David Berlinsky. David Bolinsky was this guy who believed there all these sort of anomalies were worthy of inquiry or whatever in in in natural selection and just the shrillness on honestly both sides but especially on the Dawkins side was just >> it was you know it's it's it it is kind of offputting and I think if you have real confidence in your in your beliefs >> you shouldn't have that you should just be kind of you know chill and you know it's all good and we shouldn't pre- crystallize knowledge like if somebody came to me and was Like Jesse, actually we have this aerial spoofing tech and in conjunction with that we have this like psychotronic tech and we can get people to see a thing and then the the craft can come down and it creates this kind of close encounters of the third kind where you see the beings and you you get microchipped but it's all this cover for MK Ultra or whatever. I'd be like I need to hear more about that. Like tell me the thing that explains the explains away the data that I'm discussing. But I fully agree with you. I think not pre- crystallizing knowledge and just like first base is are is there a phenomena that's real that's going on and then but that's not interesting. The interesting thing is what is the metaphysical version of reality? Like I love your question like how do these things fly? Like I don't know but let's discuss that like that's the most interesting stuff. The root of the word school in its original Greek s c h o l e is skol. The double meaning is leisure and leisurely contemp. There's a great book called leisure is the basis of culture. Leisurely contemplation of the universe and of the world in the sort of Oxford, you know, gentlemanly tradition where in if you were 19th century Oxford, if you got straight A's, that was a bad move because you'd be stigmatized. You were supposed to effortlessly get B's at that in Victorian England. >> No way. >> Yes. >> Interesting. Yeah. The ability to play gracefully with ideas, dude. Like what? And I think I get it. We need we need a external stress test to ensure that wacky or seductive but wildly incorrect uh theories don't gain more traction than they need because that detracts away from the things that are actually true and accurate. Um but there is also there is a balance to this and it is uh if your ability to criticize is greater than your ability to create I think that you are leaning on the wrong side. >> Yes. >> Like how much are you contributing to stuff and how much are you critiquing stuff? And if you're more on the side of criticism perhaps maybe that's the job of some scientist. I'm sure some smart person that does [ __ ] journal review would be able to say that but maybe I don't know. I just it doesn't foster sort of a positive some environment for me in in that sort of a way. Um you've mentioned a couple of times you got an issue with Elon's rocket based model of space exploration. What like what's the problem with how Elon's trying to explore space and then what would a workable version of space travel actually look like? I I find myself with Elon, you know, uh in between sort of Ailla and Caribbdus, like two failure modes. Like one is a failure mode of like people saying he's like totally worthless and not impressive. And I'm like, what are you talking about? Like he literally like, you know, NASA started to fail and this guy created a private version of NASA that started to work. He flew to Russia where they had liquid fuel rocket engines and single-handedly resuscitated the American space program. So, I will caveat that. And then electric cars. Thank you, Elon. Like a successful car company hadn't been started, you know, for hundred years or something pre-Tesla. So very impressive, dude. I wish we had more, you know, people like that. Um the the other side is like Elon is solving all of the world's most important problems. You know, it's interstellar travel. You know, even with the electric car stuff, it's like, you know, mining cobalt's like not the most humane thing in the world. And you know, the batteries end up in landfills. And so like I I'm of the mind that like a lot of you know incremental progress is still worthy for like the ultimate thing you want to get to like SpaceX and Tesla are extremely worthy worthwhile endeavors but you we just have you have to think clearly about some of this stuff. So SpaceX cuz we're talking about UFOs again if you wanted to get to the nearest habitable planet that's 80,000 100,000 years. That just doesn't it doesn't make sense right and you you need new science. you you don't need you need new theory like you need he was on um Joe Rogan's show and uh Rogan was like you know what if there's some new propulsion modality what if it's not just Newton's three laws and he was like there can't be or whatever it's only mass ejection that's the only thing you know the thing ejects the mass the fuel and then it you know goes up equal and opposite reaction and I just think that puts a lid on like was some young STEM students like watching that and it's like again if you were to bet against the present physical models of reality at any given time, which you should. That's the safe bet. Um, you shouldn't put that lid on things. And then I mean there's the idea of like, you know, the moon and Mars. The moon is ambitious enough. So, uh, Starship, which is, you know, they're like 150 to 200 ton, you know, rocket ship that takes us, you know, hopefully to the moon. Uh, so that thing burns 9/10en of the fuel tank just to get to low Earth orbit. Then it's floating around low lower low Earth orbit with onetenth of the fuel tank. Um, you then have to get another Starship to go up, burn nine ten of its fuel tank. It does buttto butt refueling with the first. That one, you know, discards itself, de-orbits or whatever, and then you end up, so you like 10 launches later, you end up with a full fuel tank of, you know, Starship in low Earth orbit, and then it goes to the moon. And like, we have to get it to work. I mean, it's it's orbited it's orbited um in in LEO before, but we need to get it to work at a base case. I think we just upgraded the amount of Raptor engines from 33 to 36. Like, it's still like a total work in progress. So, like that should like implement some humility, you know, for for people thinking about this stuff. And then Mars is like not super habitable. Like there's no oxygen, right? So like you need like a a B you need like you know widespread like nuclear energy like some power source that's like really workable there. Uh you know like we can barely get that stuff done here. Like the earth is great right? It's like a really good like biome. It's pretty it's not bad. Um you know I love what you said about climate change. There's a a great you know this guy James Lovelock has this Gaia theory that the resilience the earth is extremely resilient through cataclysms and all sorts of you know is pandemics and stuff. Um, so it it almost devalues Earth a little bit. It's like we have to remove Earth as some central point of failure. It is this very Silicon Valley level of thinking. But, you know, I think that can be overrated. It's also overrated when he thinks about AI as well because >> he talks about AI as like so he got really into Nick Bostonramm's super intelligence this book in 2012. >> I love it. >> It's good book. Um, but I think it's it's it's sort of wrong in certain it's wrong in the way that Bostonramm and Elon took its implications. So like they were like, you know, we're going to end up with some hard takeoff of of AGI at some point. We're going to end up with, you know, AI will like gain sensience. They'll realize that in, you know, meat space, you know, biology is sort of super inefficient. You know, they'll kill us all, you know, due to the sentence or the paperclip problem. exact paperclip maximizer alignment issues you know and those are issues don't get me wrong but then their answer to that issue was if you can't beat them join them so then you have to merge the AI with us with you know something like Neurolink which I would actually bet on the merging of us and AI more than I'd bet on AGI like if you look at the history of computation it is the human body and computers developing a lower latency and higher bandwidth interface over the last 70 years You used to need a CS degree to work a a mainframe computer the size of literally this room at IBM >> natural language processing and a phone in your pocket >> and that's it. And so it's it's becoming more and more blackbox latency and higher bandwidth. Would I bet that like the logical conclusion of that is a chip in your brain like yeah like is you just order Postmates like I want a cheeseburger whatever I guess you know like that's you know that that makes sense to me right but I think that kills humanity with a whimper and not a bang. Like does One of my favorite quotes is Marshall McLoon. Every media extension of man is an amputation. And so we assume that like the IT revolution augments, you know, human abilities just like from spears to planes all, you know, physical technology which does augment, you know, all of that stuff really really helps us. You know, we're talking about nuclear energy. That would be amazing. But like the IT stuff really paricitizes us. It really like like you don't need a sense of direction. You don't need a sense of recall or memory or any of this stuff anymore. Synthesizing information via chat GPT >> external buttress. There's some interesting uh studies that have come out looking at students who use chat GPT to help them write essays and their amount of recall compared with the students that didn't. Shock horror. It's like 10%. >> Yes. >> 10 or 20% as much as if you've done it yourself. >> Totally. So the scop in my opinion, I don't think it's an intentional scop, but it's like, you know, if you were to create a scop, it would be like, oh, the evil AGI, like we're gonna get some hard take off that, you know, the iRoot scenario. It's like Will Smith and the robots, they wake up and they want to just like destroy us all. I think if you really look at this stuff, it's statistics on steroids. You know, building a nerve agent with off-the-shelf components, very scary. Alignment stuff, very scary. Autonomous warfare systems, very scary. All that stuff's very scary. The Nick Bostonramm, pie in the sky, AGI, like you know, they turn on us. I don't think so. And then the solution to that being Chip in the Brain, like what? Like that doesn't make sense. >> Yeah, >> it's I I I've got uh Elliot Zukowski coming on. That'll be interesting. Boston was on last year talking about digital utopia, which was kind of his inverse of super intelligence. Super intelligence is what if it goes wrong. Digital utopia was what if it goes right. Interestingly, in a sort of classic philosophers's manner, he'd managed to look at what if it goes right and what would be wrong with it. It was like a a study of what's wrong with what with if it goes right. Um, but yeah, I I think the super intelligence was seinal and to have a book that was a New York Times bestseller and is that like yeah like difficult to get through in some ways like dense. It's very dense book. Um, but fascinating. It's kind of like the dark souls of the popular science uh reading world that it was just like it was such a [ __ ] tough tough slog, but it was obviously really impactful and it was born out of like the less wrong and the Scott Alexandery world of the Robin Hanseny type thing >> and um you know like peak rationalist movement type stuff >> but it just didn't end up having that much predictive power. >> Yeah. uh it didn't predict LLMs. It didn't predict sort of the model that was going to at least be the ascendant one now. And you know come 2018 when I started the show I was [ __ ] fascinated dude. I had uh Stuart Russellon who wrote human compatible also the guy that wrote the textbook the textbook for AI right that was translated into [ __ ] gazillion languages and used all around the world. >> Uh and I you know super obsessed by all of this stuff. I tried to get Toby or on the show like gazillion times and that didn't [ __ ] work >> and it kind of that future didn't really come to pass in that way and in you know we at least for now given that all of the outcomes pretty much all of the outcomes were atrocious. We can that was probably a good thing, right? I'm glad that he wasn't Cassandra because it would have been a real problem if he was. >> Yes. >> But yeah, I I I don't think it had the predictive power maybe that we might have thought. And it just goes to show that even the people who are balls deep in the research of these things often can't say and that was only 10 years. >> Yeah. >> 10 11 years ago. >> Totally. >> And uh it's been oh I mean LLM's kind of had been around for a little while. I think it was like 2010 when that's >> deep learning was like around that time and then transformers of 2018. So it's like yeah. >> Okay. Um I don't know. It's just it's it's an interesting one to see. [Music] what are the other unknown unknowns uh that are going to sort of come about even in fields where the super smart people that are really thinking deeply about this and have got armies of high IQ autists in internet forums like really [ __ ] contributing to this and they're scraping it and thinking about it and they've got all of these people in a council go I don't know man and I think that that's where having uh the Oxford manner and renegade theories and allowing those to at least have a seat at the table every so often uh is useful because it's evident that by iteration stuff doesn't always get predicted correctly and it's like orthogonal moves always >> like up instead of left or right. >> Yes. It's always the sort of adjacent surprise. The only guarantee about the future is that it will surprise you and it's I yeah I mean there the armchair pundant is is is always wrong. So, I think all of these things need to be super loosely held. And I love the, you know, the way you should comport yourself is what you said with with real, you know, epistemic humility and uh collegiality with anybody talking about this stuff because it's ultimately a lot of this stuff too is like it's like a theological debate. like you could kind of guess based on somebody's like big five personality traits or like the way they think about things generally like where they're going to shake out on especially issues like AI or UFOs where like the these are issues where you know I like to think the more you know the more you know and I I I do feel like I probably know more than the average person but it's almost the more you know the less you know in some sense too. It's like it's they're extremely they touch on really deep truths about reality. We're we're we're groping in the dark and we just don't ultimately know. And so I think that everybody should sort of comport themselves accordingly. >> What ways might you be wrong when it comes to the UFO stuff? >> I'm probably very wrong about a lot of it, but I I try to again always like say I'm thinking probabilistically. So the idea that like phenomenologically there is something worthy of inquiry where you have pe really credible people seeing stuff we're getting like crossensor data you know on that stuff is the data that we're getting you know off of fleer for example like the same thing people are seeing in the case of Nimmits it seemed like it because you had eyewitnesses present and then one of them you know was uh you know Chad Underwood was like literally uh uh managing um you know the the fleer sensor or whatever and he's in the same uh uh he's in the same craft as uh uh uh David Fraver, so he's he's in the same F-16. So, you know, but I think you have to think in probabilities all the way down. So, it's like that until like, you know, in Area 51, we have a saucer that you can unveil. I I can't say that in good faith that for sure we have some sort of saucer that we can unveil, especially knowing that I think in the p in the past, you know, Ben Rich, who was the, you know, president of Skunkworks in the 80s, used to call UFOs unfunded opportunities. And I think explicitly they used UFOs as tech protection for other sort of, you know, like the SR71, Blackbird was like that's a real stealth craft that's been unveiled now. The U2 spy plane, all these things were mistaken as UFOs back in the day. >> So I think a lot of this stuff is prosaically explainable. Um, >> what do you reckon? Where do you put the probability of it being extraterrestrial versus secret tech that's humanrun for the phenomena that have been spotted in? >> Well, this is what I love about, you know, the the show I run. It's like UFOs and all the titles. As you know, YouTube doesn't do well with nuance. So, but like the way I really view what I'm doing is like I am flanking the truth. So, like if I can be at the forefront of the anti-gravity stuff because e Elon said it was really interesting. He always says there's nothing to see here. He jokes about the UFO thing. And then I think it was with Tucker. He was like, "We have all these like pretty like impressive pilots coming out saying they've seen things." And then he goes, it was really interesting. He goes, "Actually, I think it's uh it's just American black military ops. You know, it's like these special access programs." That is a huge statement from Elon because he's basically unless he's saying that we have some sort of weird >> visual spoofing technology which I don't think he was saying that then he's saying that we have some sort of like anomalous propulsion modality that SpaceX isn't using. So he kind of painted himself into a corner there. So that's what I view that I mean I I truly think the show is like at at the forefront of like the gravity stuff with Towns and Brown with what happened at the Chapel Hill conference in 1957 and the creation of quantum gravity and all of that stuff. And then also this like weird anomalous stuff that people are seeing in the sky. And then the third kind of to make the iron triangle thing that I would say is consciousness where it's the thing people can say the least about but it's probably the most fundamental to everything when it comes to physics. And I think there are, you know, anomalies and interesting things when it comes to consciousness that modern science can't account for. And I think if you can stay at the front of the conversation in those three things, you can sort of v formation or flank your way to the truth, triangulate the truth, if you will. >> But I I'm always I try to be super epistemically humble about the the brown stuff and the gra gravity. It's like I'm not sure. I just it's a really interesting fact pattern that I've you know I've the I I interviewed um you know deputy CTO of a spin up from a spin out from Northrup Grumman who they built the B2 stealth south bomber and I said in a room full of this was like a founders fund conference a ton of entrepreneurs and VCs I was like what of any of this stuff what is actionable because we were talking about UFOs in this sort of metaphysical sense and he goes watch Jesse's video on Thomas Towns and Brown so to me it's like and I've I've had a lot of these experiences where I'm like is anybody body watching this interview that I'm doing and like the this guy's credentials like he was a VP at the AR he helped set up army futures command um and like ran a lot of the army's most you know modern tech modernization efforts so he's like a very real guy when it comes to this stuff um so I feel like you can kind of flank flank the truth if you will um and and and think about everything sort of probabilistically but in aggregate you come to this high probability that we might be on the verge of a paradigm shift especially with conventional physics sort of eating itself alive as we just discussed. >> Yeah, that is interesting. What's why is why is consciousness the third leg of your this stool? >> Yeah. Well, I think consciousness is it's the you know it's always the problem of you know Dave Chalmers would say it's like the the hard problem of consciousness. It's like you can't tell me I'm not a pea zombie or whatever. like, you know, I could be like some computer algorithm. Like I um interviewed the Google whistleblower for for Lambda around the AI stuff and he was like convinced that Lambda was conscious and I was like I think it's just math on steroids. I think it's statistic on steroids. He was like no it's conscious and but we it's it turns into this theological debate where like there is no way to ultimately say whether something is conscious or not. Um but it's the most interesting thing about physics itself. Is it comporting itself to do we have an interface and math and physics and all of the observable universe is sort of moving through this computational interface, you know, or is do you live in this perfectly cartisian dualist universe where you are this measurement sensor and then you have, you know, the world around you as this kind of hard-coded, you know, uh, you know, kind of fully fundamentally real thing. So like you know this is a table and like this is me and like we there's like no relationship outside of you know like I'm just a measurement sensor of this like objective world and there's no one on the conventional citadel physics side who can say for sure that this debate has been you know fully put to rest. There's no way to put it to rest. And if you look at a lot of the early quantum field theorists, guys like you know vonoman who was known as the smartest guy at his time invented the mathematical underpinnings of quantum mechanics but was a total polymath a lot of modern computational principles. Uh he and and his um you know colleague Jonathan Vner had a model of wave function collapse that involved the mind being part of wave function collapse. And just for the audience for context uh a wave function which is governed you know basically Schroinger uh you know is this uh mid-century scientist who basically came up with this this equation that involves a wave function probability for where a sub a subatomic particle might show up in some sort of iigen state and it's the square of the amplitude will define what state it collapses into. So all sub subatomic particles kind of exist probabilistically. They don't exist in these sort of discrete uh you know forms until particles until you observe them. And so it's a sort of you know uh particle wave duality or whatever. And so uh Vner and Vonman were like actually the mind might have to do with wave function collapse at a certain point in their careers. Um Powley flirted with this. Heisenberg, you know, who is, you know, again, in charge of a lot of uh uh uh or or responsible for a lot of quantum mechanics and ran the entire, you know, Nazi, you know, nuke program. Uh uh flirted with this. He has a great book called Life in Physics where he sort of talks about these kind of more metaphysical discussions around how the mind might, you know, be involved in this. Schroinger himself was sort of against this. But if you look at like he he had this lecture series called what is life in 1944 and it was all around you know consciousness's um disproportionate impact on biology and how consciousness is sort of fundamental. He had a dog that he called Atman, you know, based on the the the, you know, he had Otman and Brahman and, you know, kind of Hindu mythology. He was extremely interested in the uponads. And so a lot of these early quantum field theorists or or quantum mechanics theorists would flirt with the idea that the mind collapsed the wave function. And now if you were to talk to a modern physicist, they would say, "No, it's a quantum, you know, in the double slit experiment, for example, it's the quantum detector. That's just the quantum detector. Doesn't matter whether an observer is present. They have no way to prove that. Like the uh quantum detector might be holding a superp position of you know measurements itself that the observer is then you know measuring. There's literally no way to prove it. uh and while physics has went into this like culde-sac all string theory and a lot of the discussions we're having you have these uh really interesting uh uh fields of study that have popped up at pretty much every elite university in the US or a lot of them at Duke they had the Ryan Institute uh Stanford Research Institute UCLA uh Princeton Engineering anom anomalous research lab all of these guys in one form or another studied what's known as parasychology, which is in its most rudimentary form that the mind affects wave function collapse. None of the scientists that engaged in this in these sorts of experiments came out thinking that the mind didn't affect it and there wasn't some sort of interface. It's really interesting. like the guy who ran the the Princeton Engineering and Anomalous Research Lab is in charge of uh you know he he's responsible for for um some modern plasma uh propulsion that still are still used in satellites today. He was dean of the Princeton Engineering School. whose name is Bob John and he was he wrote a whole book called I think it was marginal realities or something and it was about how like there's some mental interface with the wave function and he came up with a whole model a physicalist model around how this might occur in conventional physics it's pretty much Roger Penrose is like sitting out on a he's like the only guy like completely you know out on a limb saying that there's this thing called orchestrated objective reduction maybe the microtubules collapse the wave function but you have all these elite universities mid mid-th century that said we got weak but very real and statistically significant effects around the mind you know affecting the wave function in this experiment known as random event generators where uh you have a super rudimentary computer. So it's a computer that produces ones and zeros you tie it to something that's conventionally thought of as random in quantum mechanics. So something like radioactive isotope decay or a double slit experiment where you get expect the same you know 50/50 distribution of you know both slits or whatever and you have an observer come in walk into the room and you're seeing one and ones and zeros being produced on a graphical interface that's tied to this provably random thing. So it's literally the perfect digital coin flip, right? You'd expect over a long enough time scale with some standard deviation expected standard deviation the same amount of ones and zeros. All of these people got a statistically significant standard deviation with this experiment. And this is where it gets really crazy. The CIA had this sort of remote viewing, you know, program from again the 70s to the '90s where they were using remote viewing as a really important intelligence modality. In fact, the top remote viewer is a guy named Joseph McMongle, and he won what's known as the Legion of Merit for over 200 instances in which he helped uh uh aid American intel with his insights that were drawn up psychically. Uh uh Jimmy Carter uh at the end of his presidency said the craziest thing he'd ever experienced in his presidency. He's on record saying this, you can hear the audio. He says a woman named Rosemary Smith, they were looking for a TU22 uh Russian spy plane or cargo plane rather that had fallen below the treetops somewhere in Africa and this woman circled a 3 square mile radius in Zire and they found the plane. So this was studied at the highest highest levels of the government. The CIA then contracted a woman who's still alive today, Jessica UT, to do a meta statistical analysis, Huberman style meta study, you know, on this sort of stuff. She went on to become the president of the American Statistical Association in 2016. So, you can go argue with the American Statistical Association president. I'm not going to. And she came out being like, if this methodology and this level of skepticism and scrutiny were applied to any other field of science, it would be accepted immediately. Like the other field would be accepted immediately because of the stigma. This field is not accepted. >> Why is there so much stigma? >> I think it's manufactured. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I I truly I I wish people sort of looked at this more. I mean, now it's starting to to the dam is starting to break. Like thanks to, you know, it's like Rogan and Shawn Ryan and all these guys is like there's all these like government whistleblowers coming out being like the government's actually way weirder than you think and we experience all these like trippy things inside of it. So, I do think the dam is breaking somewhat, but I I don't I don't know why, you know, why people aren't more open-minded. >> Is this related to the telepathy types? Have you seen those? Yes, it's perfectly related to the telepathy tapes. It's It's Yes. So, the Telepathy Tapes is a podcast that surpassed all podcast, Modern Wisdom, Joe Rogan, everything. It was uh for a little bit. It was like for a month or something. It was the number one podcast in America. And it was all these autistic, non-verbal children across the United States saying basically repeatably showing and this was I should caveat this. This was not done in double blind settings. So, this needs to be done. Simultaneous to that, I think anybody that listens to all the tapes and you're reasonably open-minded will say there's obviously something going on that's interesting here where they'll have, you know, uh the mother in another room generating, you know, um an image on an iPad and then the the son or daughter, the autistic non-verbal kid in in another room, totally isolated, they'll see some image pop up and like not even statistically significant, like 19 out of 20 times they'll know what the image the the the mother or father are seeing. And often it's it's they call it remote perception because it's actually the mind meld that's more fundamental than them just being able to see something in objective time space. It's it's their um their ability to kind of meld with their parents which kind of makes sense. Like you interviewed Rupert Sheldrake I remember a few years ago. A lot of that kind of lines up with that sort of anecdotal it's not anecdotal I mean experimental findings. He doesn't have amazing theories. I I would say the morphic resonance stuff is it's a sort of a placeholder theory, but he's not a bad empiricist. Like the experimental protocols aren't bad. >> Um, so these kids will they'll meet up on this telepathic hill and they'll talk to each other and they're they'll exchange information. It's this fascinating thing. And I do think there are more high agency people interested in this stuff and who have studied it rigorously than meet the eye. Like I'll give you an example. My closest mentor runs a multi-billion dollar hedge fund and he's impressive in that context. Like a high performer in that context. He is good at computer science. He probably has like a 200 IQ or something like really really smart dude. He helped Bob John, the guy I mentioned, the Princeton engineering and almost research guy. He helped him run the lab for 10 years. And he is the highest integrity guy I know. He's fully fully high conviction on these random event generator experiments. And he would say he would bring the physicists from you know Princeton into the lab and they he say look like this is really important. This is like breaking your models. And they would say stuff like oh no it's like a file drawer issue or survivorship bias like all the kind of huristics that you would use to like break a scientific experiment. And he would go through each thing line by line like no it's not file drawer we we accounted for that with this. No it's not survivorship bias we accounted for it with this. No it's really cohortwide and we controlled for all these other thing like extremely extreme if you met this guy you'd be very impressed by him and he's like they just wouldn't listen. It just like like it was it literally and and you look at these thing I mean the idea that the universe might be computational in nature and we might be rendering >> that we might be sort of rendering uh a substrate that is computational like in in in in you know for when you see an interface you know like on on your computer you see icons right you don't see the underlying thing like you need like a code compiler to like take you know abstra to take like the ones and zeros and turn it into like this larger abstracted out thing and you don't see like electromagnetic waves, right? Like you see like you have to iconize it like red, you know, is this like oh I'm scared red, you know, like they're evol there's it's evolutionarily adaptive to to sort of do that. There are all these physicists that talk about like the participatory universe. So they would go right up until the kind of parasychological line of like the mind would collapse wave function, but I think they got spooked or they would flirt with it privately and they wouldn't sort of get into it. So John Wheeler in had this sort of comp you know this participatory universe he talked about it from bit and computational universe and um he would say that basically like wave function collapse is basically just a bunch of yes no questions so it's you know it's kind of like binary code uh if you will and uh but he would never go you know up and he would never get into like the mind is actually the thing collapsing the wave function but then you have all this interesting data coming out that maybe the mind does collapse the wave function Then you have things like okay Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where if you measure position of a subatomic particle momentum gets fuzzier that looks like a computational caching function to me. So that looks like you're only storing one of those in local memory and you know and so >> what's the implication of that? The implication of that is that you are um there's some deeper substrate that is uh kind of computational uh of the universe and you are a local node and you are rendering your reality live and you know I don't know what it is exactly that you're uh you know is it intention you know I know that's like a really woowoo term like you can go to like a newagy conference and they'll you know they'll talk about the secret and manifestation and all that stuff I think a lot of people in their lives probably say like if I were to say Chris, do you have anything that's happened in your life that's like been well below chance that's felt like this just impossible synchronicity? You'd probably say yes, I assume. You know, like most people if you were to poll, they would sort of say that and then they would sort of quickly walk it back and be like, you know, but like it's sort of impossible, you know, given given physics. But there are all these things even you know the way that you know golden ratio and and and Fibonacci sequences like used in a lot of geometric structures all over you know earth or whatever or you know plank's constant if it were slightly off like we wouldn't have a habitable environment like the enthropic principle you know that points I think towards probably something that you know is is more computational you know in in nature um you know the Sheldrick stuff with with morphic resonance again I don't know about is the theories behind it, but just the empirical observations that if you build a, you know, a crystal structure and then you build that crystal structure again, it's easier the second and third time to build the same crystal structure if it, you know, you have a novel structure. To me, it's because uploading times are slower than downloading times. You have in sports the banister effect. Roger Banister broke the four-minute mile in 1952. It was broken 10 times in the next two and a half years. It's as if uh doing something new and novel takes longer to upload to some monad some central repository of data or whatever. You are client side that's server side and the new incremental person that does this does it that much quicker and easier. It's like you know Sheldrake shows this with crossword puzzles. You do it a little bit quicker if a thousand people have done it before you. So like I think we'll end up with some model of the universe that might be computational in nature. Nobody can disprove that. Nobody I can't prove that definitively, but nobody, no scientist can ultimately disprove that. And all I'm saying here is that way more serious physicists and thinkers have sort of flirted with this idea than I think people realize. And then meanwhile, you have you know Sabina Hosenfelder, Eric Weinstein, Sean Carol like you know in this crazy argument about nothing. Like >> Jesse, you're awesome, dude. [ __ ] This is like a tour to force of stuff. And uh I love your part. I love your channel. I think it's I think it's sick. Tell people where they should go to check it all out. >> They should go to Jesse Michaels on YouTube. Um Jesse Michaels on Spotify, Jesse Michaels Official on Instagram. And I love your channel too, man. I I uh I've been really inspired by Modern Wisdom and I've I've watched you for I don't know three, four years, and it's been so cool to see you just blow up. So, thank you for having me, man. >> And for you. Let's run this back soon, dude. I appreciate you. >> Let's do it, man. Cool. Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that episode, you will love this one with Mr. Naval Ravakan. It's his first episode in six years.