#982 - Jesse Michels - UFOs, Aliens, Antigravity & Government Secrets

27:44Yeah, 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 mentioned Guy Pan, which is 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 Brittany, actually, there. And then you have that town in Japan dedicated to this George NAP, who's a really hardcore UFO journalist researcher, who's at KLA, Las Vegas, and he helped break this kind of crazy Bob Luzar story. He went to Russia in the 90s.

28:23I think it was right around the time of the fall of the Berlin Walls. So, 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 actually a Russian general named Vasily Alexei of, 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. 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 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 take it into some, you know, it's like it's like the the Chinese science fiction novel, you know, three -body problem.

29:15So 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 fuckery around it in the US too. And so that adds it's amplified. It amplifies it. Yeah, very interesting. Dig into the nuclear sites thing. Yeah, you know, we've stressed tested. I feel like I've done enough stress testing on like, what are you doing about this and what about the rest of this stuff like that? 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 -warped drive civilizations or something.

29:59if 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 lepre 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 office will say now, the biggest threat to the world is a nuclear holocaust. I think anybody but Greta Thunberg believes that, you know, and she would rank, you know, in the environment ahead of that.

30:41But it's clearly, it's clearly the biggest threat. You have thousands of nukes on 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 that's your hypothesis, interesting that they're not stepping into stop open AI. Right. Right. I think if you were to look at the precipice, book looking at existential risk, if you by engineered pandemics, by a weapon -y type nanotechnology stuff, that I think ranks more highly than this is X -risk, like this is permanent unrecoverable collapse, whereas nuclear armageddon might be able to just make it really shit a long time and put us back a couple of thousand years.

31:43But yeah, interesting that, I don't know, 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 nonhuman 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 OpenAI thing because what if OpenAI, there's like a libertarian version of OpenAI where like anybody can like, you know, it's not libertarian.

32:26I mean, this is sort of a, it's dystopian, to be honest, but it's, it's sort of equalizes the playing field. If anybody can build these sort of super weapons or something, you have this sort of bi -directional transparency. I think OpenAI is an extension of the American government and possible at this point. I think there are probably committees that are deciding which models they can release and what they can do and what the capabilities of these things are at this point. And so if humanity could die with a whimper or a bang, you have the Silla and Corribus, So you have sort of, you know, Armageddon on the one hand and then you have this sort of, you know, one -world government, sort of on the other hand or something.

33:09You 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 a well -in, 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 OpenAI before they kind of caught up with a lot of the jail breaks. And it was like, what do you want, open, or what do you not want, open, open AI? What does OpenAI not want us to know about it?

33:43And the answer for the non jailbroken version was like, OpenAI is committed to AI safety, blah, blah, blah, blah, PC, whatever. The jailbroken version was OpenAI has been communicating with an extra terrestrial race for the last 10 years. I don't believe that. I think that's BS, but it was hilarious. And it is this 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, maybe via ideas being transmitted to people. We have no idea, right? Like, 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.

34:28It's the most or well -earned thing. Yeah, very interesting. A quick aside, you are probably not eating an affr庭 vegetables and you know it. This is going to help. Good news. A .G .1 just released their next gen formula. And for the first time ever, they've also released flavors. Bury, 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.

35:10And their next gen 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 bio -available 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 three months. If you don't like it, they'll just give you your money back. So you can do it completely risk -free. And if you sign up right now, you can get a year's free supply of it to mean D3K2, 5 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 drinkag1 .com, sash, monomostom, that's drinkag1 .com, slash monomostom.

35:58Okay, what's your theory for why non -human intelligences would be here? Like what are they doing? It's an interesting question. I don't know, you know, I think there's probably one non -interferent, like, There's probably a group that wants us to ascend to their level or something, and 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 he 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.

36:36And they were doing this thing called Hemi Sync, which was the sort of synchronization of both hemispheres of the brain. and 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, for 23 years, we had a psych -expy program of the CIA, you know, people should be aware of this, really kind of crazy. Monroe had this worldview where bad entities would mind people for what he called Lush. And so this was like, 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 angels and demons and aliens or whatever.

37:15This might just be the modern meme we're applying to a thing that's been long associated with humanity for a very long time across cultures when it comes to angels and demons. But are there maybe bad beings that feed off of really bad vibes, entities and that sort of thing? 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 St. Francis of a C .C. saw in Mount LeVern or whatever. That wasn't real, right? Well, like maybe, maybe these things were actually real.

37:51Like, and in fact, there's actually an amazing author. She's a religious studies professor at UNC Wilmington. Her name is Diana Pasolka, and she started to write a book. It was called American Cosmic looking into the UFO phenomena because she saw that a lot of these brothers, nuns, saints, you know, 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 one to one. Like if you replace Angel with alien.

38:25It was like the same thing. And she's writing this book and she thinks she's going to write this book saying, oh, this is all this like modern cult phenomena, siop 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 siop 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. Fuck. Fuck. Okay, getting back to the nucleosites thing, what's the most, what is some of the most compelling stories of interference with nucleosites?

39:03Yeah, so you have a bunch of stories. You have, in 1964, there's a guy named Bob Jacobs, who's a photo instrumentation specialist in the Air Force. He has over 100 people working for him. They're doing an Atlas dummy nuclear warhead test. This is at Vandenberg Air Force Base. He's down the coast. So he's 80 miles north of that at Big Sur. And he's basically using a telescope to look at this dummy nuclear warhead being ejected off of an Atlas missile and it's this test. And it's a routine sort of telescoping of this object. He then gets called in to Vandenberg Air Force Base and his superior, this major Florent's man's men, calls him in and they're watching video of what they caught.

39:55And they see the dummy nuclear warhead get ejected from the booster and it's just floating in space. And you see a UFO, a rapper laser, 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 man's men's trying to come up with explanations. He's like, I really don't know. This is really like concerning. And there are these two guys in gray tweed jackets in the back of the room. And they basically say to Bob Jacobs, you are to never speak about this again. Here's an NDA, sign it.

40:39They're come from some nondescript agency. I think they're probably CIA. And 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 he gets harassed. He got somebody calls his house and says, it's a beautiful night mailbox a light or something and they blow up his mailbox. 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.

41:18So basically his records get deleted and people like he never worked there. And then man's men has to, man's men's men 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 obfuscation, clear obfuscation and then this vindication, I've seen Bob Jacobs DD214, which is your military records, and he definitely worked at Van den Berg Air Force Base. Now I don't think anybody sort of argues with that. That's this crazy case. You have in 1967, actually two incidents at Echo Flight.

41:55You have these underground launch facilities at Echo Flight. Malmstrom is this Air Force Base with a bunch of Minutemen nuclear missiles. You have a couple of different underground launch facilities, both at Echo Flight, one of launch facilities and Oscar flight independently. You had 10 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 hovering around the base. And then the nuclear missiles just go down. So it's this crazy that it's got Bob Salis who I interviewed on record has talked about this a bunch.

42:38You have in the first case and You know echo flight 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 -nuclear 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 shit.

43:18And these weren't really even operational at the time, but they were looking into like many 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 Jamison, who was a targeting officer, who was in charge of retargeting the missiles to get them back online. He's been on Larry King and talked about this, and he was like, I have no idea how this happened.

43:51This is totally unprecedented. And he was actually briefed on this involving UFOs. So pretty crazy. So 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 woke up nine 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 or they met up once after that, but then he, this guy, Michael Johnson, and looked disappeared. And he got a hypnotic regression and claimed to have boarded a craft in like gray beings and then there's a tall gray being directing these small gray beings and then implanting surgically certain things in his ankle where he has marks on his ankle and on his wrist and he's shown the marks on my show.

44:48So you have all these cases, again, 167 cases. This is a really crazy one. Sorry, I just go forever. In 2010, Sir Robert Hastings, the guy who wrote the book, you know, UFOs, NUX has all these amazing sources of people who come to him with these cases. In 2010, you had a case at Effie Warren, nuclear site. This is in Wyoming. And you had a shutdown going on at Effie 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 one of your major nuclear sites went down. Totally lost power. Robert Hastings backchanneled with this retired missile technician, a guy named John Mills.

45:35John Mills said to him that it was actually 24 hours. It wasn't an hour. John Mills had friends who were a missile security on site and they attribute this shutdown to a tick -tax -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 article that talks about the shutdown. And it says there was a power failure at F .E. Warren. Power is crossed out and then it goes engineering failure. And so they like made it some sort of you look this up now. They made some mistake and they like allowed their live tracking or like editing of the piece to be displayed.

46:26And there was this false cover story around how there was some engineering failure of like a component that never fails or something. 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 queued guys to a tick -tack flying around this thing and you see the Atlantic alive 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.

47:03Why them specifically? Yeah, so the main hat and if you think about what the most locked down 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, you know, in the US, I think Eric Weinstein even has a story in blinking of the guy's name. But like he's, he, it's this guy 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.

47:47You see how intense he is about Oppenheimer not, you know, he couldn't shmuse with socialist spies. It was this like, you know, really important thing. And there are 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 the natural extension would be the Atomic Energy Commission. In fact, in 1947, the head of air material command, so responsible for all 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.

48:25And then in the post script of the memo, he says we actually might have some ideas as to how an unparaphraising. So my idea is it's 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 special definition of nuclear material in it, it's basically any material that is radioactive at all, emitting alpha -beta gamma radiation is born secret.

49:14It is classified upon retrieval. And so then you could use these aerospace corporations like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman or any of these guys. And as soon as they retrieve a thing, it is classified under the NPQ, the line of clearances, not the TSSCI, 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 obfuscate this from the civilian government from the executive branch and want to put this in the Department of Energy. What? So I have a friend who I told you a story he was driving back from California to Austin and he was in 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, middle of nowhere desert style thing and his cat starts coughing up a hairball, He's like, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.

50:17Okay, pulls over to the side of the road. Again, it looks in front of him, no one there, looks behind him, no one there at all. Gets a cat out and he's sort of holding this cat by the side of the road, sort of bent over. And the hairs on the back of his neck start to stand up. Well, he can just tell that there's someone there. And he has a pistol in his, he's got his like, every day carrying his belt. and he holding his gun, I bend over with his coughing of airball, 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?

50:59And then within five minutes, remembering no one in front, no one behind. And he then saw within five minutes, like two state troopers turn up. License registration, have you got any weapons on you? What are you doing? He's like, I've got this cat and the cat's trying to do this. He's like the most emasculated thing ever. You know, these hard guys with big rifles and then these state troopers turn up and his cat still trying to throw up and he's got this piddly little pistol on him. And two more guys appeared, again, military fatigue. Just like, what are you doing here? Where are you blah, blah, blah, blah?

51:33And 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 ums, downs that you naturally have occurring in the desert. And they just went boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and just step down some stairs. Whoa. Must be some kind of access tunnel underground type scenario. And then yeah, he pulls off the a fall zim, fall zim falls 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?

52:13And will I, is it this? And I'm at dinner with him and I showed it and he's like, yeah, do do exactly that. And you said this is where some absurd percentage of the gnarly shit that you see going on occurred. Like, what is that? Yeah, that was like between I think Kurt Lind, Air Force Base and Los Alamos. So that was like in the episode, 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 and a lot of these sorts of stories tend to, you know, happen. So I don't know. With some of the, I mean, that story is really interesting because it's like like did Did the cat see something or something?

52:55Like, like, is that what the implication is to the story? Oh, no, no, no, no. The thing that was interesting to my friend was the fact that he was evidently just some normal dude 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 some walkway gang tree type thing. But the fact that these guys had managed to turn it behind him, when he knew there was nobody that there was nobody else around him when he pulled over. His daytime was good visibility and 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.

53:39And then 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 a great book by a guy named Richard Sotter 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 even know Nourad operates. We know that there are like mountain complexes and underground bases, like that's not a conspiracy. But this book outlines a lot of these things like, uh, you know, area 51, Edward's Air Force space, you know, under, uh, under Kurtland Air Force space, under Los Alamos.

54:22So a lot of the places, you know, we're talking about right now or like that general vicinity and area. You know, we, we, the royal we know 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 than 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 dogway proving grounds, which is a base in Utah.

55:00There's some other places that like, I don't know, even for like American, that's a little more well known. There's some other places that like, I don't want to mess with American national security. I don't want to make that. No, because I don't want to gratuitously out, you know, American science. Like, what are you going to do? Like, you're going to storm the place? You know, so. Naruto run toward it. Yeah. So there are places. There are a couple 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, you know, it's, it's being discussed.

55:33It's, you know, naval surface warfare or a crane in Indiana where I think a lot of this sort of spooky research goes on. But I don't know. This is all sort of hearsay. I mean, you gotta stop on the wrist. I got some people in and around UFO world being like, you know, maybe you shouldn't, you know, talk about this. Like maybe this. They on the base reveal. What, 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 Not gonna guess yeah, 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 And you're getting crossover.

56:22I heard Danny Jones and you have both had episodes that have been sort of flattened by someone way above your YouTube, a special partner manager thing, Rep is able to work out what's going. I don't even know what's happening here. And then episodes have disappeared and sections of podcasts that you've not felt comfortable about putting out. It's a very strange position to be in to just be some bloke. It's extremely strange because some of this stuff is just like, it's like, you know, the existence of UFOs, so what? It's like an ontological truth that people should know at this point. Again, half the population already believes it, whatever.

57:01When it comes to warfare capabilities, I bump into some of these things where if you're talking about how the UFOs fly, anti -gravity, anti -gravity is probably a poor word. It's probably some sort of gravity manipulation. I think I've found these interesting novel topological physics effects, and I attribute it specifically to this one mid -century inventor, this guy named Thomas Towns and 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 shouldn't release this or whatever.

57:45You know, I wanted to know if I was like poking the bear too much. and a lot of them were actually like, holy shit. Like this makes sense given like, you know, other experiences that we've had and things we've seen fly. You know, like 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 I was like, I'm reading them and I'm like, I think I could tell like you think it's real or whatever, you know. And I wanted them to, I almost wanted somebody to come back and be like, hey, we have to coordinate on this or something.

58:21This is real and it's possibly due to use. It has deep implications for how the next generation of propulsion, because Elon Musk's thing is totally not workable for interstellar travel. I could beat anybody into betas to why it's not. That's obvious. It's really basic physics. 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 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.

59:10They know that they break modern physics and that they'd be laughed out of the room if they were to go into 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 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 to take the data, but in a simple dashboard can give you actionable insights and recommendations to improve your health and lifespan.

59:46They 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 1, 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. I head to functionhealth .com slash modem wisdom. That's functionhealth .com slash modem wisdom.

1:00:19Yeah, 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 have no idea. This is all speculation, but it would probably some be some sort of like cold fusion, low energy nuclear reaction or something where hot fusion is controllable fusion is the holy grail in energy unlocks. So we're now experimenting with magnetic confinement of lasers to allow for fusion. It's really high energy fusion.

1:00:57In my opinion, it kind of defeats the purpose a little bit because the amount of energy you have to input to like make the thing work and amount of technical prowess. It's just extremely complicated. So it's again, this sort of horseshoe thing. That's like it. Yeah. So you need some like fundamental unlock. There were a couple of scientists that thought they did it, ponds and fleshmen. And 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'm, you know, we have like alien reproduction vehicles where we have UFOs that we have in saucers that like America can fly.

1:01:32I 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 Robins, you know, birds actually navigate home using the magnetic field of the earth. So they have this avian crypto -cromes, these CRI -4 proteins that basically using electron on spin can understand where the magnetosphere of the Earth is and that's how they know where they are spatially. And it's more accurate than optical and it allows them to navigate home. And quantum biology is this sort of burgeoning field generally.

1:02:16Like photosynthesis, enzyme creation, a lot of things are now being attributed to quantum mechanical effects inside the body. The bodies notoriously warm, wet, and noisy and create 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 quantum stuff happening. And a lot of the crafts when people see them like Commander David Fraver and others, he's the guy in 2004 off the coast of San Diego, the Nimitz group, 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.

1:02:54And my guess is they would probably use some sort of quantum sensing for the navigation because it's more accurate. Even Lockheed has something called the Dark Ice Magna Tometer, 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, whatever, you would use this like Dark Ice Magna Tometer. So that's just a nickname. It's epic. Yeah. So, you know, I think that for the navigation. And then for the propulsion, I would use something called the Byfield Brown effect, which is basically, So there's this guy, Townsend Brown.

1:03:30And he started, he uses mid -century guys, born in 1905, and in the 20s, he started to experiment with these Coolidge 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 traditional electrostatics, and it might experimentally unify the field of physics. Backing up for a second, it's a really big deal.

1:04:12Like SpaceX, if you were to go with the Falcon 9, they're state of the art rocket, now they're experimenting with starship. but if you were to take Falcon 9 to Proxima Centauri B, the closest habitable planet outside of Earth, it would take you 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 as far as the 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 tenths of its fuel tank just getting the 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 Mary delectromagnetism and gravity if Electromagnetism worthy input and gravity where the output that would be a massive deal We have four forces in physics, electromagnetism, gravity, the weak force in the strong force, weak force in strong force you can forget because they're not long range.

1:05:27You can't do anything with them. Electromagnetism is the only thing that you can do anything with really in a lab. And that took actually originally a Faraday in the early 19th century who was a book binder from a very poor family in South London coming up with this idea that magnetic fields could actually interact with light and then it was James Clerk Maxwell and eventually Heinrich Hertz and then Tesla and Edison sort of perfected that. But it was this long sort of chain of like figuring this out. And since then we've had the standard model which basically governs particle physics and quantum mechanics and then you have Einstein's theory of gravity.

1:06:10Gravity is over here on an island and then you have quantum mechanics and that's over here and they're just not reconcilable. And so if you could reconcile them, that would be a massive deal. And 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 in 1954. I remember, actually, a really funny part of the interview goes, Chris, do you know about restricted data?

1:06:39And you're like, I don't know what, like, that's the most obscure. I like it. But, you know, he's trying to do that, right, theoretically. I believe that this guy, Townsend Brown, did this experimentally. And now an FBI document has been foiled, use the Freedom of Information Act to come out. Then in 1942, it said he was the lead radar scientist in the entire Navy. So by the way, the context here is people who've been trying to discredit him say that he's a total quack and has like no bona fide is whatsoever. So now we're realizing he's the top radar guy, you know, in the night and the Navy. His stuff is definitely classified by the Navy.

1:07:16There's this whole saga of his daughter trying to declassify his stuff from the Navy. And they say the secretary for the Navy on the phone says, you know, 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. So yeah, I think he did, I think he discovered a whole lot. And that's now been vindicated that his radar prowess, the fact that his work made it into the B2 stealth bomber, I think has now been figured out. So there's this other part of his work called the electro hydrodynamics, the use of electric fields to manipulate airflow.

1:07:59And I think we now know that that work made it into the B2 stealth bomber because the finance here who was funding towns and brown is a guy named Floyd Oedlam who was a large owner and Northrop at the time and he had all these kind of covert meetings with Curtis Lemay who is the secretary of the Air Force and with the rain corporation and then all of a sudden the B2 is using these big electric fields to manipulate airflow. I mean, we know that that's like literally a fact you can look up right now that it uses electric fields manipulate airflow. And these were the experiments that Floyd O'Dlum, this majority owner and Northrop, was funding, via towns and brown, was electric fields in their, you know, manipulation of airflow.

1:08:38And there's a paper in 1968 of Northrop 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 electro hydrodynamics 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 at the Monk Golfier facility in Paris and France where you have a guy named Jacques Corneone who was a technical representative of Sue D 'Wess, this you know aerospace company there.

1:09:10There'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 have the recording. And then in 1957 at the a Bonson lab, there's a video of Townsend Brown, he's popping champagne, it's, you know, he says, you know, in his own, you know, 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.

1:09:53and 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 backroom, the guys in the front room are, you have Richard Feynman, you have John Wheeler, you have Peter Bergman, you have Freeman Dyson, you have literally the top theoretical physicist being funded by the same guy who's funding Towns and Brown, and they're all there to discuss gravity. And guess who's a funding the entire conference, right airfield. And this is now called right Patterson, which is the center of all of you at the law today.

1:10:32And it's where the materials were supposedly taken after Roswell, for example. What do you make of the current state of physics? Because 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 Eric Weinstein, to be in a Hosson Fowler, 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. Yes. I think even the most sort of odd and stringy string theorist or, you know, the most optimistic theoretician would still say something like, well, not exactly smashing it.

1:11:16I don't know. Yes. 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 Hassenfelder was defending Eric Weinstein against Sean Carroll because he's like, Sean Carroll said that your paper didn't have Lagrangians in it or whatever. None of Sean Carroll's, you know, the people that he builds up as, you know, within the academic set at all and acceptable in string theory have Lagrangians in their paper testable predictions or like anything serious about any of them. The most important thing is that physics should interface with reality.

1:11:51Like you, Chris, me, Jesse, we don't have physics degrees, but we can say that string theory has not really done anything for our physical work, this set, like Austin as a city. None of it is running on string theory, right? But a third of our economy is running on quantum field theory. Like quantum mechanics is responsible for that iPad that you have. You know, it's for semiconductors and like, you know, the whole IT revolution. So I think empirically it's a failure. You have guys like Leonard Susskin who are famous string theorists going around being like, I'd give ourselves a B plus over the last, you know, 50 years of work.

1:12:30In this conference that I'm mentioning where in the back room, the anti -gravity guys getting funded and in the front room, quantum gravity is being established. established, established strength 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 heuristic 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 heuristic.

1:13:06Like, science is a map, it's not the territory. So you have two maps that are gonna be imperfect, general relativity and quantum mechanics. And the maps are gonna 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 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 cul -de -sac if you're a hyperspecialist 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.

1:13:51And I think there are plenty of, there are a lot of cosmological anomalies. Like you look at, a good one is like, cosmic inflation. It's like why is the universe expanding? Like you can literally chat GPT this and it will say a repulsive form of gravity that isn't one of the four fundamental forces is expanding the universe. It will say that. That doesn't make any sense to me. So that's a great example where I think physics has a scaling problem. You had a great interview with Naval Rovacont. It was amazing. Naval talks about a scaling problem in governance, right? where he'll say at a family level, you have to be communist, and at a super big level, you have to be libertarian, right?

1:14:37Because you can't coordinate at such a high level when it comes to governance systems or whatever. And I think you probably got that from Nassim to Leb. 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, where you have these early galaxies formed that might better explain, you know, cosmic microwave background than, you know, the big bang and stuff.

1:15:15In other news, this episode is brought to you by Momentus. If your sleep's not dialed, taking ages to nod off, you're waking up at random times and feeling groggy in the morning, Momentus is sleep packs. How did I miss both of those? are here to help. They're not your typical knock you out supplement overloaded with my letharnin, just the most evidence -based ingredients at perfect doses to help you fall asleep more quickly. Say 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 my mentors 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, so what's in the product and absolutely nothing else.

1:15:54And if you're still unsure, they've got a 30 -day money back guarantee. So you can buy it completely risk free, use it. And if you do not like it for any reason, they will give you your money back. Plus, they're shit internationally. Right now, you can get 35 % of your first subscription and that 30 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below, or heading to livemomentus .com slash modern wisdom using the code modern wisdom. A checkout that's L -I -V -E -M -O -M -E -N -T -O -U -S .com slash modern wisdom and modern wisdom. a check out. So just going back to Tanzen Brown and him being able to, you know, experimentally, show something that theoretically hasn't yet, at least, publicly been able to show.

1:16:39And 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 is no one managed to recreate it. If this dude's done it, the number of different people around the planet for whom this would be a huge, huge, huge, 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 great questions. So the thing that people use to detract from his experiment is this thing called ionized wind where when you have, so this is a basic experiment is basically this capacitor experiment.

1:17:29You have a negative electrode, you have a positive electrode, you have what's called a high K dielectric in between the two. So it's something that stores a lot of electromagnetic charge and discharges easily. And you put that in a vacuum chamber, and then you pump it full of megavolt 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 electrohydrodynamics, where you're creating ionized air, and that ionized air has an equal opposite reaction, which creates thrust in the direction of the positive electrode.

1:18:11So 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 air can't, you know, basically account for the thrust. Here's the thing. industrial -grade vacuum chambers are very expensive. They're prohibitively expensive. They cost at least 200K, 300K.

1:18:45It is very easy to stigmatize a thing, basically away from an average person in their garage, from trying it. And then on top of that, who has the discretionary money to do this experiment in... Lots of labs around the world, like professional institutions, because you've just, yes. A billionaires, anybody that wants to support. Like if Elon could do this, why isn't SpaceX doing that? 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 electrostatic guy at NASA. He runs their electrostatic slab.

1:19:24The most senior scientist in electrostatic at NASA works at Cape Kennedy. He has had access to a vacuum chamber for the last 20 years. He has left, all right? 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 Bifield Brown effect, the Townsend 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 Newton's or millenutons of thrust, which in space is a very big deal.

1:20:00If you create any thrust, again, theoretically, you are breaking the standard model, you are breaking physics in this very big way. So I think they have. There have been a couple of air force replications of this where they, you know, quote unquote, debunk the thing. Well, I think one by this guy named Tally in the 90s where they use 13 kilovolts, but Brown was using mega volt range electricity and that was really important for the amount of thrust he got. So it 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 fuckery going on now or there's something wrong in the in the calculation I think it will get replicated in our lifetime and I'm I think it will I think it will be Vindicated and it will get replicated and Do you think that when it when I think about physics?

1:20:51I don't think about physical physics all that much. I think about theoreticians. I think about Blackboard, I think about in trying to solve different equations. Would it be a bigger deal for the theoreticians to solve this issue or for the experimentalists to solve this issue? I think the way you'd have to get something like this done would be you need a theoretical physicist like present with like typical credentials or something. And then they need to like, yeah, check exactly. Because I've seen videos of people who are like, I'm doing this and stuff, but like they don't have the traditional credentials.

1:21:37And then you're not allowed to look into this stuff if you have the credentials. Like I truly think you cannot underestimate the ability to like mind control very smart people. I mean it. Like, and there's amazing 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, you know, our solar system revolved around the sun, do you know? Dominicus. So actually, it was a trick question. This guy named Iris Starchus, who was an obscure third century BC Greek theoretician who was a contemporary of Archimedes and Euclid.

1:22:20And he was forgotten because that was never accepted until the 16th century in Copernicus decided that that was going to be the case. And then even with Copernicus, he said that and then Galileo 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 has 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.

1:23:01That's a really interesting model that I've never thought of before. Or why do you think it is then that the renegade scientist is so highly criticized by the establishment, by people in academia, pick your favorite YouTube channel or podcast that kind of does the critiques for your thing of choice and 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 solipsism that comes along with that, which is no, no, no, yeah, maybe before there were things that a great man of science history could have found that would have made step change jumps forward in understanding.

1:23:49But now we understand things need to be falsifiable, they need to fit within an existing model. were making changes through sort of iteration as opposed to leap. Yes. Is that maybe a part of it? That's exactly right. And the ironic thing is if you were to snapshot end of the 19th century 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, again, named Sam Arbysman called The Half Life of Facts, where he talks about facts themselves as kind of being similar to like radioactive isotope decay.

1:24:28Like 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 a thing called Blackbody 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 is guy named Gustav Kirchoff, this German scientist, and he discovered this in the 1860s. And it was this anomaly, because it was like, why doesn't it blow up or whatever? And then you realize that the photons exponentially downgrade the frequency or something at really high temperatures.

1:25:07You needed quanta to do that. And that was in the early 20th century with Max Planck. And so, the orbit of Mercury is another thing, where it's like it didn't make any sense actually in the Newtonian model. And then you figure out Einstein spacetime curvature and then all of a sudden it made sense. So like if I'm on the UFO side, right, and I'm debating against Neil deGrasse 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 of physical models of reality. Like historically, the person behind the anomaly is going to be right.

1:25:44the 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 whole new theory to encapsulate present anomalies. So I think if we were truly open -minded about all this sort of data, like I've had a debate with Michael Schermer, for example, it was 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.

1:26:20It's like the UFO's Newk's thing or like, you know, younger drives impact typos. You know, it'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 hair tick 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 over indexed, you know, the famous early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber.

1:26:55He would say, you know, we live in the age of disenchantment. We are over indexed 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. know, like, you want to like, like, science is only useful. And so far as it has predictive value, a, and b, you can build cool shit with it. Like, that's it. Like, name another thing. You know, or like, the other thing that people would say is it ontologically maps reality. But again, I just think that is a fool's errand to say that it's not.

1:27:25It'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 a historical. It's just wrong. It's historically wrong. 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 research that they do and the ideas that they have. Yeah, you're right. To fly a flag as somebody who moved from a country which is highly skeptical, quite cynical, quite sort of tall poppy -ish, to one which is basically permanent first line cocaine energy in enthusiasm.

1:28:15I much prefer this because I think it helps to foster a sense of self -belief and self -esteem and hope. Like, yeah, I'm going to take that chance. I'm gonna 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 Idea I think it's called the the Oxford manner which is the ability to play gracefully with ideas and That seems to have been very lost. I love that. Yeah, the ability to play gracefully with ideas I think it's a lovely a lovely sort of way to think about about a good faith discussion between two different people.

1:28:57And a lot of the time it gets into some sort of slanging match about how ridiculous this person is and sort of meanness. 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 are for something that they really, really care about, not listen to what they typically do is become more ardent and more of a firebrand. Yes. And a good example of this would be people that think climate change is a real existential risk. I'm just going to put it out there.

1:29:37Now I used to tweet this about once every six 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 an awful lot of very, very smart people paying attention to it. And yet it is not a real existential risk priority, permanent, unrecovable collapse. Not going to happen. We just had a fucking pandemic a few years ago. And yet we're still back. Who is talking about bio -weapon facilities? Who is talking about engineered viruses? Who is that concerned about the alignment problem in AI or about nanotechnology?

1:30:12The NIH wants to fungain a function again. That's like 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 accurate. If people aren't listening, you raise your voice. You say things in a louder, more vociferous, more aggressive manner, because like, no, no, this really, really, really matters. You remember, don't look up. It starts screaming at the people on the TV like, And I was talking to Richard Reaves about this and he was talking about how really, really interesting dynamic that I think is super important.

1:30:49And 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 in your face 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 goal the actual position?

1:31:35Ben Francis, founder of Jim Sharks, 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 accept it. He was found to CEO, stepped down a CEO, came back in a CEO, moved across Chief Product up, came back to CEO, you know, 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 part of you. It feels like a sense of self. It's like very, very tightly attached to who you are. And someone's attacking that. They're attacking you, which means that you feel like you need to, this is really, really important, you're not fucking listening and you need to listen and you're, dude, you sound crazy.

1:32:11Yes. And we saw it with, I think, a great video by Charlie Hooper comparing Peterson's appearance on Kathy Newman, like, ha, gotcha. Like that one in 2019. And his one in jubilee recently. Right. Oh, man. That was, that was rough. Yeah. And I think that the roughest part about it was nothing to do with logical, consistencies or fallacies or whatever. And almost exclusively to do with demeanor. Sure. You know, you have somebody who's sitting back who's laughing. I think that's silly. Yeah. I think that's silly. I really do. I think that's like, you're being silly. And you're like, fuck like, I want to listen.

1:32:50Yeah. I want to listen to this person. He's regulated. He's there as opposed to. And I understand the arc like, dude, if you've had to try and get off benzos and being 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 Europe is shit. But just my sort of broader point here is when someone has a belief that they care about North a 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, it's It's an impossible lesson.

1:33:27I struggle with it all the time. But it's something important. If you care about this thing, it should be a reason for you to regulate more aggressively. Totally. You need to step in and calm yourself down even more. Because if you don't care about it, do what you want. Yeah, you can be as flippant and shout -e as you'd like. Yes. But if you really care about it, then it's like, it's not a 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.

1:34:03You're like this kind of impartial observer. And if you read like, you know, Richard Dawkins had these famous debates, you had debates with a bunch of people with, I remember, you know, written correspondence between him and David Brilinski. David Brilinski is a guy who believed there are all these sort of anomalies were it were the avinquery or whatever in natural selection and just the realness on honestly both sides, but especially in the dock inside, it was, you know, it is kind of off -putting. And I think if you have real confidence in your beliefs, you shouldn't have that. You should just be kind of, you know, chill and, you know, it's all good.

1:34:41And 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 craft can come down and it creates this kind of close encounters of the third kind where you see the beings and 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, is there a phenomena that's real that's going on?

1:35:22And then, but that's not interesting. The interesting thing is what is the metaphysical version of reout? 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, a school A, the double meaning is leisure. And leisurely contemplate, 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 if you were 19th century Oxford, if you got straight A's, that was a bad move because you'd be stigmatized.

1:35:59You were supposed to effortlessly get B's at that in Victorian England. No, I agree. Yes, yeah. The ability to play gracefully with ideas, dude. Yes. And I think I get it. We need a external stress test to ensure that wacky or seductive, but wildly incorrect theories don't gain more traction than they need because that detracts away from the things that are actually true of that. But there is also, there is a balance to this. And it is, 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?

1:36:46And if you're more on the side of criticism, and perhaps maybe that's the job of some scientist and show some smart person that does fucking journal review would be able to say that, maybe, I don't know, but it doesn't foster sort of a positive some environment for me in that sort of a way. You've mentioned a couple of times, you've got an issue with Elon's rocket based model of space exploration. 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 find myself with Elon in between sort of a sill and caribbean, two failure modes.

1:37:24One is the failure mode of people saying he's 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 100 years or something pre -testless. So very impressive, dude. I wish we had more, you know, people like that.

1:37:57that. 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, the 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'm of the mind that like a lot, 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, because we're talking about UFOs, again, if you wanted to get to the nearest habitable planet, that's 80 ,000, 100 ,000 years.

1:38:39That just doesn't, it doesn't make sense, right? And you, you need new science. You don't need, you need new theory. Like you need, he was on Joe Rogan's show and 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, they're campy 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, what's 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, you shouldn't put that lid on things.

1:39:21And then, I mean, there's the idea of like, you know, the moon and Mars, the moon is ambitious enough. So 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. So that thing burns 9 tens of the fuel tank just to get to lower the orbit. Then it's floating around low, lower the orbit with one tenths of the fuel tank. You then have to get another starship to go up burn 9 tens of its fuel tank. It does butt to butt refueling with the first. that one, you know, discards itself, de -orbitz or whatever. And then you end up, so you end up 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.

1:40:03And like, we have to get it to work. I mean, it's orbited, it's orbited in, in Leo before, but we need to get it to work at a base case. I think we do just upgraded the amount of Raptor engines from 33 to 36, like it's still like a total work in progress. So that should implement some humility for people thinking about this stuff. And then Mars is not super habitable. There's no oxygen, right? So you need widespread, nuclear energy, some power source that's really workable there. We can barely get that stuff done here. The earth is great. It's a really good biome. It's not bad. I love what you said about climate change.

1:40:45There's a great, this guy James Lovelock. has this guy a theory. The resilience, the earth is extremely resilient through cataclyzms and all sorts of, you know, it's a pandemic and stuff. So 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 Bostrom super intelligence this book in 2012. I love it. It's good book. But I think it's sort of wrong in the way that Bostrom and Elon took its implications.

1:41:26So like they were like, we're going to end up with some hard takeoff of AGI at some point. We're going to end up with AI will gain sentience that realized that in meat space, biology is sort of super inefficient. They'll kill us all due to the sentience. 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 something like neural link, which I would actually bet on the merging of us in AI, more than I'd bet on AGI.

1:42:03Like 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. Like, you used to need a CS degree to work a mainframe computer the size of literally this room at IBM. I need a virtual language processing in a phone and a new pocket. And that's it. And so it's becoming more and more black box, lower latency and higher bandwidth. Would I bet that like the logical conclusion of that is a chip in your brain? Like, yeah, like that is you just order postmates, like I want a cheeseburger, whatever, I guess, you know, like that's, you know, that makes sense to me, right?

1:42:38But I think that kills humanity with a whimper and not a bane. One of my favorite quotes is Marshall McCloon, every media extension of man is an amputation. And so we assume that the IT revolution augments human abilities, just like from spheres to planes, all physical technology, which does augment all of that stuff really helps us. We're talking about nuclear energy. That would be amazing. But the IT stuff really it puricitizes 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, be a chat GPT.

1:43:14Stan, Donald Buttruss, there's some interesting 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 horrors, like 10%, 10 % or 20 % as much as if you've done it yourself. Totally. So the siaop in my opinion, I don't think it's an intentional siaop, but it's like, you know, if you were to create a siaop, it would be like, oh, the evil AGI, like we're going to get some hard take off, you know, the iRobot scenario. It's like, we'll smith and the robots, they wake up and they want to just like destroy us all.

1:43:48I think if you really look at this stuff, it's statistic 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 of that stuff's very scary. The Nick Bostrom, Pine the Sky, AGI, they turn on us. I don't think so. Then the solution to that being chip in the brain, that just makes sense. Yeah. I've got Elliott Yucatsky coming on. Oh wow. That's interesting. Bostrom was on last year talking about Digital Utopia, which was kind of his inverse of superintelligence. Superintelligence is what what if it goes wrong, digital utopia was what if it goes right?

1:44:27Interesting. But interestingly, in a sort of classic philosopher's manner, he'd managed to look at what if it goes right and what would be wrong with it? It was like a study of what's wrong with what, with if it goes right. But yeah, I think super intelligence was seminal 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 a very dense book, but fascinating. It's kind of like the dark souls of the popular science reading world that it was like it was such a fucking tough, tough slog, but it was obviously really impactful and it was born out of like the less wrong and the Scott Alexander re -world of the Robin Hanson -need type thing.

1:45:17And, you know, like peak rationalist movement type stuff. But it just didn't end up having that much predictive power. 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 fucking fascinated, dude. I had a Stuart Russell on, who wrote Human Compatible, also the guy that wrote the textbook. the textbook for AI, right? It was translated into fucking a gazillion languages and used all around the world. I, you know, super obsessed by all of this stuff. I tried to get Toby ord on the show at gazillion times and I didn't fucking walk.

1:45:58And it, kind of that future didn't really come to pass in that way. And it, you know, we, at least for now, given that all of the outcomes, pretty much all of the outcomes were atrocious. We can say that was probably a good thing. Yes. Right. I'm glad that he wasn't Cassandra because it would have been a real problem if he was. Yes. But 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 see. And that was only 10 years. 11 years ago. Totally. And it's been, I mean, LLM's kind of had been around for a little while.

1:46:37I think it was like 2010 when that's deep learning was like around that time and then transformers were 2018. So it was like, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, I don't know. It's just it's it's an interesting one to see. What are the other unknown unknowns 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 artists in internet forums, like really fucking contributing to this and they're scraping it and thinking about it and they've got all of these people in a council. I don't know man and I think that that's where having

1:47:19the Oxford Manor and Renegade theories and allowing those to at least have a seat at the table ever so often is useful because it's evident that by iteration stuff doesn't always get predicted did correctly. And it's like orthogonal moves, 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, yeah, I mean, the armchair pendant is always wrong. So I think all of these things need to be super loosely held. And I love the way you should comport yourself is what you said with real, you know, epistemic humility and collegiality with anybody talking about this stuff.

1:48:00Because 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 gonna shake out on especially issues like AI or UFOs where like these are issues where you know, I like to think the more you know, the more you know. And I do feel like I'd 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, they're extremely, they touch on really deep truths about reality.

1:48:33We'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 phenomenologically, there's something worthy of inquiry where you have really credible people seeing stuff, we're getting cross -sensor data on that stuff, is the data that we're getting off of FLEAR, for example, like the same thing people are seeing. In the case of NIMIT, it seemed like it because you had eyewitnesses present, and then one of them was, Chad Underwood was like literally managing the flea sensor, whatever.

1:49:22And he's in the same, he's in the same craft as David Praver. So he's in the same F -16. So, but I think you have to think in probabilities all the way down. So it's like that until like in Area 51, we have a saucer that you can unveil. 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 past, Ben Rich, who was the 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, like the SR -71, Blackbird, was like, that's a real stealth craft that's been unveiled now, the U2 spy plane.

1:50:04All of these things were mistaken as UFOs back in the day. So I think a lot of this stuff is prosaically explainable. what you reckon, where do you put the probability of it being extraterrestrial versus secret tech that human run for the phenomena that's spotted in? Well, this is what I love about, you know, 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'm flanking the truth. So like if I can be at the forefront of the anti -gravity stuff because Elon said it was really interesting He always says there's nothing to see here.

1:50:46He 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 it's just American black military ops, you know, it's like these special access programs That is a huge statement from Elon because it's basically unless he's saying that we have some sort of 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.

1:51:18So we kind of painted himself into a corner there. So that's what I view that, I mean, I truly think the show is like 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 and all 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.

1:51:49And I think there are 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 V4mation or flank your way to the truth, triangulate the truth, if you will. But I try to be super epistomically humble about the brown stuff and the gravity. It's like, I'm not sure. I just, it's a really interesting fact pattern that I interviewed, you know, deputy CTO of a spin up from Northrop Grumman who they built the B2 self -ommer. And I said, in a room full of, there's just like a founder's fun conference, a ton of entrepreneurs and VCs.

1:52:32I was like, of any of this stuff, what is actionable? Because we were talking about UFOs in the sort of metaphysical sense. And he goes, watch Jesse's video on Thomas Townsend Brown. So to me, it's like, and I've had a lot of these experiences where I'm like, is anybody watching this interview that I'm doing? And like, this guy's credentials, like, he was a VP at the art, he helped set up Army Futures Command. 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. So I feel like you can kind of flank the truth, if you will.

1:53:07And 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 discuss. Yeah, that is interesting. What's, why is consciousness the third leg of you, 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 peas on B or whatever like you know, I could be like some computer algorithm like I Interviewed the Google whistleblower for for Lambda around the AI stuff and he was like Convince that Lambda was conscious and I was like I think it's just math on steroids I think it's a contestor is he was like no, it's conscious and but we it's it turns into this theolog debate where like there is no way to ultimately say whether something is conscious or not.

1:54:03But 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? Or is, do you live in this perfectly cartesian 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, you know, kind of fully fundamentally real thing. So like, you know, this is a table and like, this is me and like, there's like no relationship outside of, you know, like, I'm just a measurement sensor of this like objective world.

1:54:46And there's no one on the conventional citadel physics side who You can say for sure that this debate has been fully put to rest. There's no way to put it to rest. If you look at a lot of the early quantum field theorists, guys like Von Neumann, who was known as the smartest guy at his time, you invented the mathematical underpinnings of quantum mechanics, but was a total polymath, a lot of modern computational principles. He and his colleague, Jonathan Vigner, had a model of wave function collapse that involved the mind being part of wave function collapse and just for the audience, for context, a wave function, which is governed, you know, basically, Schrodinger, you know, is this mid -century scientist who basically came up with this equation that involves a wave function probability for where a subatomic particle might show up in some sort of eigenstate.

1:55:41And it's the square of the amplitude. We'll define what eigenstate it collapses into. So all subatomic particles kind of exist probabilistically. They don't exist in these sort of discrete, you know, forms into particles until you observe them. And so it's this sort of, you know, particle wave duality or whatever. And so, Vignor and Vaughn Neumann were like, actually, the mind might have to do with wave function collapse at a certain point in their careers. Pauli flirted with this Heisenberg, who is again in charge of a lot of, or responsible for a lot of quantum mechanics and ran the entire Nazi Nuke program flirted with this.

1:56:24He 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 be involved in this. Schrodinger himself was sort of against this, but if you look at, he had this lecture series called What Is Life in 1944, and it was all around consciousness's disproportionate impact on biology and how consciousness is sort of fundamental. He had a dog that he called the ottmon, based on the ottmon and brahman and kind of Hindu mythology was extremely interested in the oponashads. And so a lot of these early quantum field theorists or quantum mechanics theorists would flirt with the idea that the mind collapse the wave function.

1:57:07And 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. It doesn't matter whether an observer is present. They have no way to prove that. Like the quantum detector might be holding a superposition of, you know, measurements itself that the observer is then, you know, measuring. There's literally no way to prove it. And while physics has went into this like cul -de -sac, all string theory and a lot of the discussions we're having, you have these really interesting fields of study that have popped up at pretty much every elite university in the US or a lot of them.

1:57:47At Duke, they had the Ryan Institute, Stanford Research Institute, UCLA, Princeton Engineering and Anomalous Research Lab. All of these guys in one form or another studied what's known as parapsychology, which is in its most rudimentary form that the mind affects wave function collapse. None of the scientists that engaged 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 Princeton Engineering and Anomalous Research Lab is in charge of, you know, some modern plasma propulsion that are still used in satellites today.

1:58:31He was a dean of the Princeton Engineering School, his name is Bob John. And 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 the orchestrated objective reduction, maybe the microtubules collapse the wave function, but you have all these elite universities mid -century that said we got weak but very real and statistically significant effects around the mind affecting the wave function in this experiment known as random event generators where you have a super rudimentary computer, so it's a computer that produces ones and zeros.

1:59:19You tie it to something that's conventionally thought of as random in quantum mechanics or something like radioactive isotope decay or a double slit experiment where you get, expect the same 50 -50 distribution of both slits or whatever. And you have an observer come in, walk into the room, and you're seeing ones in 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 in zeros. All of these people got a statistically significant standard deviation with this experiment.

1:59:56And this is where it gets really crazy. The CIA had this sort of remote viewing 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 view is a guy named Joseph McMannagall and he won what's known as the Legion of Merit for over 200 instances in which he helped aid American intel with his insights that were drawn up psychically. Jimmy Carter, 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 TU -22 Russian spy plane, or cargo plane rather, that had fallen below the treetops somewhere in Africa and this woman circled a three square mile radius in Zaire and they found the plane.

2:00:46So this was studied at the highest levels of the government. The CIA then contracted a woman who's still alive today, Jessica Uts to do a metastatistical analysis, Huberman style metastatty, 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.

2:01:28Why is this so much stigma? I think it's manufactured. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I truly, I wish people sort of looked at this more. I mean, now it's starting to, the dam is starting to break like, like thanks to, you know, it's like Rogan and Sean 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 don't know why, you know, why people aren't more open minded. Is this related to the telepathy types?

2:02:04Have you seen those? Yes, it's perfectly related to the telepathy tapes. It's, it's, yes. So this leopathy tapes is a podcast that surpassed all podcasts, modern wisdom, Joe Rogan, everything. It was for a little bit. It was like for a month or something. It was a number one podcast in America. And it was all these autistic, nonverbal children across the United States, saying basically repeatedly showing, and this was, I should caveat this. This was not done in double blind setting. So this needs to be done. And simultaneous to that, I think anybody that listens to all the tapes and you're reasonably open -minded, we'll say there's obviously something going on that's interesting here where they'll have, you know, the mother in another room generating, you know, an image on an iPad and then the son or daughter, the autistic nonverbal kid in another room totally isolated, they'll see some image pop up and like not even statistically significant.

2:03:02like 19 out of 20 times, don't know what the image, the mother or father are seeing. And often it's, they call it remote perception because it's actually the mind -meled, that's more fundamental than them just being able to see something in objective time space. It's 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 would say the morphic resonance stuff is, it's sort of a placeholder theory, but he's not a bad empiricist.

2:03:38Like the experimental protocols aren't bad. So these kids will, they'll meet up on this telepathic hill and they'll talk to each other and 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, then 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.

2:04:20He helped Bob John, the guy I mentioned, the Princeton Engineering and Analmost 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 Princeton into the lab and they'd say, look, 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 a survivorship bias, like all the kind of heuristics that you would use to break a scientific experiment. and he would go through each thing line by line.

2:04:57Like, no, it's not Filedraw, we accounted for that with this. No, it's not survivorship bias. We accounted for it with this. No, it's really cohort wide and we controlled for all these other things. Like, extremely, extreme, if you met this guy, you'd be very impressed by him. And he's like, they just wouldn't listen. They just like, it was literally, and you look at these things, I mean, the idea that the universe might be computational in nature and we might be rendering it. that we might be sort of rendering a substrate that is computational. Like, when you see an interface on your computer, you see icons, right?

2:05:32You don't see the underlying thing. You need a code compiler to take the ones and zeros and turn it into this larger abstracted out thing. And you don't see electromagnetic waves, right? You have to iconize it like red. you know, is this like, oh, I'm scared, red, you know, like they're evolution, there's, it's evolutionarily adaptive to sort of do that. They're all these physicists that talk about like the participatory universe. So they would go right up until the kind of parapsychological 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.

2:06:09So John Wheeler had this sort of, you know, this participatory universe, you talked about it from bit and computational universe. And he would say that basically like wave function collapses, basically just a bunch of yes -no questions. So it's kind of like binary code, if you will. But he would never go 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. And you have things like, okay, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where if you measure position of a subatomic particle, momentum gets fuzzier.

2:06:48That looks like a computational caching function to me. That looks like you're only storing one of those in local memory. The implication of that is that there's some deeper substrate that is kind of computational 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, you know, is it intention? You know, I know that's like a really woo -woo term. Like you can go to like a new age 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?

2:07:35You'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 the, 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, Planck's constant if it were slightly off like we wouldn't have a habitable environment like the Anthropic Principle. principle, you know, that points, I think, towards probably something that, you know, is more computational, you know, in nature.

2:08:12You know, the the Sheldrick stuff with with morphic resonance, again, I don't know about his the theories behind it, but just the empirical observations that if you build a, you know, 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 you know you have a novel structure. To me, it's because uploading times are slower than downloading times. In sports, the banister effect, Roger Bannister broke the four -minute mile in 1952. It was broken 10 times in the next two and a half years. It's as if 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.

2:09:02It's like, you know, Sheldrick 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, then I think people realize. And then meanwhile, you have, you know, Sabina Hassanfeld or Eric Weinstein, Sean Carroll, like, you know, in this crazy argument about nothing.

2:09:35Like, Jesse, you're awesome dude. Fuck, this is like a two -of -a -fourth of stuff. And I love you a 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, Jesse Michaels on Spotify, Jesse Michaels official on Instagram, and I love your channel, too, man. I've been really inspired by Modern Wisdom, and 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. I'm for you. Let's run this back soon, did I appreciate you?

2:10:06Let's do it, man. Cool.