← Modern Wisdom
Loading summary
Transcript183 lines
- [00:00]
A
An interest with UFOs is maladaptive to most people. How so?
- [00:06]
B
Oh, yeah, you're quoting me on, I think, Danny Jones. I think in some ways, and this actually speaks to, you know, we're on modern wisdom here. I think a lot of what people should be focused on is the lower end of Maslow's hierarchy. Like, it's like subsistence living, you know, paying taxes on time, putting food on the table, being basically healthy. And then I think at a certain point, then you start to care about this sort of more like existential, you know, who are we? What's our place in the universe? You know, what is humanity's place in the cosmos? And so that's why I think in some ways it's maladaptive, because if you don't have that lower end sort of figured out, it's like, why focus on this sort of, you know, really crazy pie in the sky stuff that's so.
- [00:52]
A
Interesting that you think people have sort of taken the stairlift to the top of Everest hierarchy of needs. It's like, if you're asking, are we alone in the universe, but you haven't got a steady job, or you, your health's in the toilet, or you don't have a community of people around you, you're probably focusing on the wrong things 100%.
- [01:11]
B
In fact, I think a lot of people focus on it as a circumvention of reality itself. It's an escape mechanism. And so you want to get abducted or taken away on a UFO or something back to this place. Yeah, right. You want to throw a Hail Mary because there's, you know, things aren't going well on sort of a base level. And so I think for those people, they should probably just focus on the core issue. You know, if they have like a marital problem or something, like, go focus on that. Like.
- [01:36]
A
Well, that's an interesting question. What is the avatar in 2025 of somebody who's interested in UFOs? Because, you know, there's kind of a. And I wonder why this is the case. When I think about UFOs, I always think about sort of the 60s and the 70s. Yes, that's kind of the golden era of abductions and stories and Roswell and like, that's kind of where my mind goes to. Yes, but you're a good example of someone who's super smart and is knee deep in all the research for this stuff. Something tells me you're probably a little bit non typical. Yeah, but like, who is the avatar for the UFO investigator now or the, the Monday morning quarterback.
- [02:23]
B
I think it's radically shifting. So I think even five, ten years ago it would have been like, you go to this like contact in the desert. Is this like, you know, convention for UFOs. It used to actually take place in the actual desert. People started to get like heat strokes and stuff. And now it's like indoors. But it's all like, you know, it's a lot of crystal healers from the Southwest sort of vibe. You know, it's people who are. And I love a lot of these people. You know, they'll live in like Sedona or something or, you know, in some of these small towns across the US and they've had family experiences or they're just a little more kind of woo woo. And that's what kind of got them into this stuff. I think that's dramatically started to change. I mean, a good example is like certain people you've had on, you've had on Eric Weinstein, my old colleague. You know, we work together at Thiel Capital, at, you know, Peter Thiel's family office. You know, very sort of conventionally successful guy. You had Tulsi Gabbard on. She's the now, you know, Director of National Intelligence who oversees all of the intelligence agencies. And she has stated as part of her mandate that she wants to look into UFOs. Like this is. And I've actually spoken to her and she is explicitly very interested in this topic. And so I think that plus a bunch of whistleblowers, David Grush at the National Geospatial Agency and nro and has kind of a very, kind of typical and impressive.
- [03:46]
A
Less of a sort of crusty granola crowd.
- [03:49]
B
Yes, exactly. I think that has destigmatized it for a lot of people. And you're starting to see high agency, Silicon Valley, just, you know, average people start to get into the topic.
- [04:00]
A
Whatever happened with UAPS is UAP UFOs. Because we, there was a brief period where we went there, you know, it was like, like people of color. Colored people. And then we went back to people of color.
- [04:10]
B
Yes, yes. There's a whole like, you know. Yeah, there's like a whole like almost like woke UFO thing going on. Yeah, there's a nomenclature thing. It was, you know, and I don't like UAPs. The reason I don't like it. A little context. There is something called the UAP Task Force that was actually set up and that was the context in which David Grush ended up blowing the whistle because he was tasked by The National Geospatial Agency and this little group called the uat, UAP Task Force, which had representatives from pretty much every branch of the military looking into UFOs explicitly, or UAPs as they called them. And that sort of. In that sort of group, they decided that UAPS was the new term. It's a broader term, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena instead of Unidentified Flying Objects. I like UFO because it's more specific, actually, it's sort of more falsifiable in a sense. And a lot of people are, you know, worried about this whole thing sort of being a psyop. And because of that, I like the classic just ufo. You know, this was in the zeitgeist, like you said, in the 40s and 50s and 60s. And let's just go back to that.
- [05:17]
A
In case UAP is some scurrilous attempt to try and weave something else in. So, oh, it's a hot air balloon, it's a distortion in the upper atmosphere, It's a.
- [05:29]
B
Whatever, 100% some sort of secret weaponry. Like, there's a whole so many different. There's a slew of possibilities as far as what you might see in the sky these days, a mylar balloon, you know, all these different things. And so I like UFO because it's more specific and it's talking about the kind of archetypal, you know, a saucer, a Tic Tac, a craft, you know, these sort of, you know, things that people have seen not only, you know, since the 40s, 50s and 60s, but across, you know, millennia, like across disparate cultures too.
- [06:00]
A
Yeah. Imagine that someone's never really looked that deeply into UFOs. How would you lay out the landscape and story arc of evidence for them?
- [06:09]
B
Yeah, I love this. So I think UFOs go way beyond the threshold of what you'd need evidence wise to accept this as a worthy field of inquiry if it were any other field. Like, literally the only reason people don't look into this is because people who are part of the priestly citadel of science, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, say there's nothing to UFOs. Otherwise you have presidents who've openly talked about UFOs. You have Don Jr. Just interviewed, you know, outgoing President Trump in his first term, saying, what do you know about Roswell? I need to know. And Donald Trump goes, I know a lot of interesting things and I won't say them. Here you have President Obama saying, we have ufo, we have unidentified flying objects that we don't know, you know, what they are in our sky. We're investigating these things. The Office of Naval Intelligence and the Pentagon have released two reports, one in 2021 in 2021. And there are all these objects that, you know, you have this sort of decision tree of like space trash and, you know, other sort, you know, Mylar balloons, like all these things. And you have a bunch of these things that were spotted that don't, you know, neatly categorize. President Jimmy Carter saw a UFO and is on video saying, I saw a ufo. He goes into his, his term, his single term, saying, you know, I want to declassify stuff around UFOs. And then you'd never really hear anything about it again. Which is the same thing, by the way, that's happening with, with Trump. It's not even like the Epstein thing where you get this bizarre kind of denial, lone sex trafficker theory that everybody knows is bogus with the UFO thing. It's this common trope where sometimes presidents will campaign on this thing and then they just go silent and they cite national security often. And so it's this very sort of weird thing. And then Most recently in 2017, you had Leslie Kane, this New York Times journalist, come out with this article. Associated with the article are three videos. The gimbal, the Go Fast video. These are videos that were taken off the coast of Florida. And the Nimitz Tic Tac sighting, which is this very famous sighting. Commander David Fravor is this Navy pilot who's very well respected. He was actually in charge of guarding Los Angeles during 911 when we weren't sure how many planes were in the sky and which cities might be attacked. So he's like a, you know, very reputable guy, speaks in this very matter of fact way. And he saw this Tic Tac shaped object hovering right below, right above the surface of the water. He was part of this Nimitz carrier strike, groups, all these, you know, Air Force carriers and you know, his big Navy ships. And, and he went out on F16, saw this little Tic Tac and the Tic Tac, you know, went up to 60,000ft plus in seven eighths of a second. And you have him, you have, you have flir, which is forward looking infrared seeing this, this object. And this, this video is, is up, you can watch it on YouTube and stuff. So since then, and then David Grush, who's this, you know, whistleblower saying that he's basically over a hundred pages he gave to the IC inspector general, this guy Thomas Manheim in, in 2022, Thomas Manheim said this was Urgent. Incredible. And he gave Thomas Mannheim 40 whistleblowers directly who said that they worked. They had firsthand knowledge of UFO programs inside the government. And so that's like this very near term falsifiable thing, right? It's not this like hand wavy claim. And I think since then people have really started to take this more seriously, but even more sort of, you know, outside of high levels of government and you know, needing to sort of explain that sort of mass hysteria away. If you're kind of a debunker, you have databases like the National UFO Reporting center, which have, you know, over a hundred thousand instances online. It's like, I think it's 150k plus at this point. You have a great book called UFOs and Nukes. So one thing people like to say, as far as, you know, why UFOs, you know, aren't scientific or aren't real, is because they're ephemeral. They show up randomly. Right. There's no repeatable. Science has to be repeatable. Right. And I think this is very Repeatable actually, because UFOs show up consistently around nuclear installations, nuclear weapons installations and nuclear energy, civilian grids. And so this book, which is almost 600 pages, the most dry, terse book you'll ever read in your life, it's, it's almost boring because it's so meticulously done. And if you speak to the guy who wrote it, this guy named Robert Hastings, it's. You get no grifting vibes, no like salesy, you know, bullshit at all to.
- [10:42]
A
Spreadsheet masquerades as a book.
- [10:44]
B
That's right. It's a database. And it's even better than a database because it's, it's filtering for witnesses who are inherently the most credible witnesses I could pick in the world. Because these guys are on what's called the prp. So these guys are employees at nuclear bases across the United States and they're on what's called the PRP program, the Personal Reliability Program. They have to report all of their mental health history. And if they're on ibuprofen, like they're literally, they literally have to report you're.
- [11:13]
A
In charge of a nuclear site of some kind and you're having a bit of a wobble. That's a bad idea.
- [11:18]
B
That's a bad idea. Get that person fired immediately. I don't want that person around the crown jewel assets of American defense.
- [11:25]
A
Yes.
- [11:25]
B
So you have all the. And these guys often see Tic Tacs, orbs, saucers. They'll see these objects, they'll have to sign NDAs. The Air Force spot, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, will enter their life and say, you know, sign this NDA. And they're sworn to secrecy and then they're allowed to keep their jobs. And if you think about it like, if somebody were, like, seeing something and it weren't this routine thing in the world of the Atomic Energy Commission and doe, would any of these people be allowed to keep their jobs? Absolutely not. So this. He has 167 of these whistleblowers and they've gone on record.
- [12:03]
A
How is it the case? You know, that's a large cohort of people from different backgrounds all talking about things that they've seen or seen that they've seen or heard that someone's seen or been, so on and so forth. How is it the case that there is so much which is hearsay and so little which we have.
- [12:24]
B
Yes.
- [12:25]
A
Like the. Where is the actual tangible evidence? Not a recording that's on flir, not the story that somebody said, not a list of sightings. Like, surely we should. If there are this many, we should have something.
- [12:41]
B
Yeah, yeah. Well, you again, you do. You have a massive database of, you know, firsthand reports. The flir, I think, is important. It's a sensor modality that, you know, we see between 400 and 700 nanometers of the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Just because something's at the 800 nanometer mark or 300 nanometer mark doesn't mean it's fake. You know, like, that is a real thing. So I think the FLIR thing is. Is really important. And it feels like with UFOs, they either crunch light or they stretch light because they move so fast. And so optical is not actually a good modality for them. Usually they show up in infrared or in certain cases, UV rays. So, like the. The ends actually of the visible spectrum. And so I do think that's, like, a really important question. But then also there are photos. Like there's this McMinnville photo that was taken in Oregon in the 50s. There. There's the Calvine photo, which is, you know, from Scotland, these hikers in the 90s, and, you know, somebody from the British Ministry of Defense, this guy Nick Pope, says that the Calvine photo is absolutely real. You have the negatives in both cases. So, you know, I do think you do have a decent amount of evidence. Now. What you're asking, I think, is why don't we have a saucer unveiled at a hanger or something, Piece of Material.
- [13:58]
A
That can be verifiably proven to be from something that's otherworldly.
- [14:03]
B
So the, the, it's, it's an interesting question. I don't think you can definitively prove that something is necessarily otherworldly. You have to look at a fact pattern that, you know, is this anomalous enough to say that it's not from here. And there's a guy named Gary Nolan who's a Nobel Prize nominee every single year. He's a tenured professor at Stanford and he has crash materials in his lab. I've seen them, I've shown them on video on my show. They're small, but the, you know, they were basically given to him around UFO crash. Like, like UFO crash witnesses mailed them to this guy, Jacques Vallee, and Jacques Vallee gave them to Gary Nolan. He's done mass spectrometry on them. He says that they have isotope ratios that don't naturally occur on Earth and they don't pattern match to asteroids as well. And so you have evidence like that. When it comes to like large scale saucers, I think you have to think probabilistically. So there's this English statistician named Thomas Bayes and his model is, it's, it's a way of scientific thinking. But it's not necessarily like the Francis Bacon style where you go and you have this null hypothesis that you cling to at all costs. His is more you think about everything probabilistically and so you catalog something as low probability and you build up evidence. And so what I would say for the UFO phenomena is like everybody has, are UFOs real? I'm 99% sure that aerial phenomena in the sky that don't pattern match, you know, planes like, you know, prosaic explanations where there's a nuclear link it that is, that is fully real. And then is there conflation going on between that and like a saucer and a hangar? Like maybe. I can't say in good faith that there definitely isn't because I haven't seen the saucer in the hangar, right? So it's like, you know, it's like this David Hume style quote. You need that like ultimate, like epistemic humility when it comes to that saucer and the hangar. Now I can give you a million good reasons why if the American defense establishment, I mean we haven't declassified an aerial program basically since I think the B2 stealth bomber, like we, you have, you know, F22, F35s, I think those were unclassified upon their, you know, manufacturing. 12 out of the 15 Lockheed Skunk Works programs now are still classified. So say you had this kind of ace in the hole, crazy, you know, anti gravity craft or whatever, and it was in a hangar. I can give you a million different reasons why you would never let that see the light of day. You don't care about enlightening the public, inspiring them about other worlds. I mean, it, it all technology always gets weaponized and it's always used to confer a tactical advantage geopolitically. And that will always take the day. That will always trump wanting to enlighten the public. It's going to do that with AI and all these other tech trees. So I think that would be the other reason.
- [17:03]
A
How do we know this isn't just a psyop?
- [17:06]
B
I think it is a psyop. I think there are psyops. So, so this is, this is the.
- [17:10]
A
Real mind fucking horseshoe theory of UFOs.
- [17:13]
B
Not.
- [17:13]
A
It's not a disc, it's a horseshoe.
- [17:15]
B
It is. Well, here's the thing. The, the fact that something is real and it's a psyop are positive sum, not, not negative sum. So this is the total mind for people. How many. If, if. Chris, you're a smart guy. If I were like, okay, Bigfoot, you know, exists, I promise it exists. And I tried to come up with some fact pattern around how it exists and like all this, you know, evidence as to. How would you ever believe me about.
- [17:42]
A
Bigfoot if you gave me sufficiently compelling evidence?
- [17:46]
B
I guess so. Well, most people, I don't know, I think the Bigfoot thing, you know, is like pretty unlikely. Or like, I give you, like other. Most psyops are easy to figure out. Like the Gulf of Tonkin or something created the auspices around, you know, invading Vietnam where like, I think it was like the first thing was like an attack on the USS Maddox, and then there's like a second attack under lbj and it was just like a weather event and they claimed that it was basically this false flag operation or the USS Maine. These, these sorts of psyops get figured out very quickly. Like, does anybody believe the Epstein thing? Like, does anybody you talk to believe the Epstein? Nobody believes that. It's crazy. I don't. The government doesn't believe that.
- [18:26]
A
I'm fucking fascinated by that, dude. It is. The only person I've seen who appears to be happy with the outcome of it is actually Ben Shapiro.
- [18:33]
B
I was gonna say that too.
- [18:34]
A
He's the only guy that it's, you know, one of Those rare occurrences where both left and right are pissed off equally.
- [18:42]
B
Yes.
- [18:42]
A
You know, left pissed off because this sort of powerful banker appears and did the reversal of the Trump administration, so on and so forth. The right's pissed off because they're like allergic to paedophilia and you know, kind of want to stand up for kids and do all the rest of this stuff. And you go, everybody's pissed off. Is that Ben? There's always one, except, I don't know.
- [19:05]
B
He goes, guys, it's a, it's. We've decided you're a conspiracy theorist now. Like, what are you talking about, dude?
- [19:11]
A
Yeah, it's an odd one. We'll get back to talking in just a minute. But first, some things are built for summer. Sunburns, hot girl walks, your ex posting their Euro road trip. And now lemonade and salt element just dropped their brand new lemonade salt flavor. And it's everything that you want on a hot day. Tart, salty and stupidly refreshing. It's like a grown up lemonade stand in a stick with actual function behind the flavour. Because let's be real, if you're sweating through workouts, sauna sessions, or just walking to your car in July, then you are losing more than just water. Element replaces the electrolytes that your body actually needs. Sodium, potassium and magnesium. With no sugar, no junk and no nonsense. I've been drinking it every single day for years. And in the Texas heat, this lemonade flavor in a cold glass of water is unbelievably good. Best of all, they've got a no questions asked refund policy with an unlimited duration for so you can buy it and try it for as long as you want. And if you don't like it for any reason, they'll give you your money back and you don't even need to return the box. That's how confident they are that you'll love it. Plus, they offer free shipping in the US right now. You can get a free sample pack of Element's most popular flavors with your first purchase by going to the link in the description below or heading to drinklmnt.com ModernWisdom that's drinklmnt.com Modernwisdom so yeah, how do we know that this isn't the psyop? Your point being that all of the other ones tend to be relatively see throughable. But would that, would you, would you not suggest that as governments get more sophisticated as they refine their PSYOP strategy, that they may be able to become a little bit more sophisticated with this sort of stuff.
- [20:49]
B
Yes, but the levels of coordination to psyop people that work at nuclear bases in the us and then where I was going with the nuclear connection is there's a town in Japan named Lina, which is next to the Fukushima prefecture, which is famous for their civilian grid. They have a museum dedicated to UFOs because a lot of the town's inhabitants are obsessed with UFOs. Vice did a documentary on this in 2022. If you look at Gaipan, which is France's official UFO investigation branch of their military, they talk about the nuclear link. Or Bariloche, Argentina, they have a civilian grid and there was a famous, you know, commercial sighting for, you know, this pilot or whatever in 1995. The amount of coordination to fake that where you're faking out, you're head faking, you know, Navy fighter pilots in America, presidents incoming DNIs, you know, people like Tulsi, average civilians again, over 100k cases in the National UFO Reporting Center. By most polls, you're at 40% if not 50% of Americans believing in this stuff. The coordination abilities required to do that, then your null hypothesis where it's a psyop is basically there's a cabal in a back room smoking cigars and they have magical abilities to like spoof these things across the world, which is almost.
- [22:09]
A
As technologically advanced as actually just being able to fucking do it.
- [22:13]
B
That's right. That's right. You're implying Plato's Guardian level of controls of Earth or non human intelligence. And so I would say Occam's Razor almost becomes that we're not alone in the universe.
- [22:28]
A
Right. It's not humans pretending to be aliens. It's easier to just go straight, just.
- [22:32]
B
Go to the aliens.
- [22:33]
A
Right. Interesting one on Tulsi, to be honest, I haven't really seen much from her. I guess if you're in charge of defense, you've probably got like big shit to be doing. But I wonder whether the, we can call it the Dan Bongino effect is potentially going to occur with, with Tulsi. Because it seems like every different person who has the best intentions when they're going into office finds quicksand or mud or a brick wall or a very high road bump or whatever. And I wonder whether that we are going to, you know, spend time and get into the UFO thing and it's like, maybe not, maybe not. Maybe you shouldn't do that. I wonder whether that's going to be. I wonder what the arc, if that's going to Be.
- [23:23]
B
I'm totally pessimistic on that arc.
- [23:26]
A
Yes.
- [23:28]
B
If you're not optimistic on JFK and Epstein, how the hell. I mean, these people, especially Tulsi, there's a deep state war going on and you feel it with her when you speak to her. When you hear her speak on shows like yours, she's very earnest and I think she does want transparency around, around these things. Before getting sworn in, I think she had to basically kowtow around domestic wiretapping and allowing that. And so then, okay, you get into office, right, your dni and then you're getting sort of red teamed. You don't know who's your friend, you don't know who's not your friend. This is one of the reasons I would love for, I would be amazing if she hired David Grush, because David Grush is this amazing whistleblower who kind of knows where the bodies are buried. I mean literally over a thousand page report to the icig, all these firsthand witnesses. And I think he'd be this amazing sort of, you know, just bull in a china shop in government. But if you're hurt, you don't know who your friends are, you're getting sort of red teamed. The Epstein stuff is like priority number one. And then all of a sudden you have to like kind of be silent on that. And then you have this like thing that's like this amorphous nature of reality thing that's like in all these disparate kind of compartments and you know, these federally funded research and development centers and pockets of various other classified things that are dual use. And so like, like there's a long standing rumor that like UFOs were involved in Star wars, for example, the Strategic Defense Initiative with, with Reagan in the 80s or whatever. And maybe there's some Iron Dome like implications. So like then all of a sudden you have to declassify stuff that you don't really want to declassify to talk about this topic. So the point is, it would be a pain in the ass for her to start to tackle this issue without the help of, I think of somebody like a David Grush. And so I think it's very low on the priority list. But I do know from my minimal interactions with her that she's earnestly interested in the topic. And it's always a mind fuck for me because I speak to a decent amount of people who have more access than me and a lot of them are earnestly very interested and they've heard bits and pieces of things that are, I Think extremely intriguing for them. At no point has a document ever leaked from the government that's like, this is the UFO psyop document, which is also kind of a tell, like the people like, who are like, these things leak. And I'm like, yeah, you have hundreds of whistleblowers. They're coming out, they've come out. You just don't believe them because your physical models of the universe don't comport with that. Whereas our physical models of the universe are 50% wrong at any given time in history or whatever. And then my kind of counter argument, you know, to that is what we just said, you know, where, yeah, I think it would have leaked, that there'd be some coordinated thing, you know, and there's. That's never leaked. So, you know, there have been things that have leaked. Like Walter B. Smith was, you know, incoming director of the CIA in 1953, and there's a memo where he says, we want to use the UFO phenomenon for psychological warfare purposes against the Soviets in 1953. So I think that happens all the time. And this is where that gets into your question of like, you know, is this zero sum with the, you know, is the psyop real thing zero sum? I think it's positive sum. There's more likely to be a psyop around something if it's kind of this ephemeral thing that is actually a real phenomena. And so there are documents like that I've documented on my show plenty of times. You know, an Air Force officer, this guy, you know, Rick Doty, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, drove this guy, Paul Benowitz, who saw something vertically taking off and landing at Kirtland Air Force Base in Sandia, New Mexico. Drove him crazy. He claimed that there were alien signals beaming stuff into his house. The NSA camped out across the street from this guy and was, was literally. They gave him a laptop and they were beaming things into the laptop. And so like, this is verifiable and, and Dodie's come out now admitting all of this stuff. They would fly him over Archuleta Mesa, which is right, right around there, and they would have like fake UFO bases or whatever. So this stuff has happened. There's plenty of fuckery in the space, but at no point have you ever had something leak where it's like this is some overarching strategy, that big coordination. Yeah, that would explain all the facts.
- [27:46]
A
Is question, is it mostly an American phenomenon or is this a global pattern with UFOs?
- [27:54]
B
I think it's a global pattern. I mean, I mentioned Gaipan, 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 Knapp, who's a really hardcore UFO journalist researcher who's at KLAS in Las Vegas and he helped break this kind of crazy Bob Lazar story. He went to Russia in the 90s, I think it was right around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. So it was, you know, either, I don't know if it was pre fall or what, but he came back with a bunch of documents and there's a lot of there. In the Soviet case there's actually a Russian general named Vasily Alexeyev 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, 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 taken to some, you know, it's like, it's like the, the Chinese science fiction novel, you know, three body problem. So I do think it is global but I think in the US there's you know, even more hype around it and I do think there's more fuckery around it in the US too. And so that adds, it's amplified, it amplifies it.
- [29:26]
A
Yeah, very interesting. Dig into the nucleocytes thing. Yeah, you know, we've stress tested. I feel like I've done enough stress testing on like what about this and why about that? 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?
- [29:49]
B
Yeah, that's a great question. I think if you. It's almost like in Star Trek we have the Prime Directive where you can't interfere too much with pre warp drive civilizations or something thing. If you were monitoring Earth just to ensure a certain level of homeostasis, but you didn't really care about the day to day movements on Earth, you just wanted to make sure Earth would sustain itself on a go Forward basis, what would be the kind of Archimedes lever, the point of most leverage where you would minimally interfere, but occasionally interfere to ensure that that happened. Nuclear sites like. And 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 and she would rank the environment ahead of that. But it's clearly the biggest threat. You have thousands of nukes on both sides. You have a multipolar world XI and Putin have never been closer to. 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.
- [31:02]
A
Interesting. If that's your hypothesis. Interesting that they're not stepping in to stop OpenAI.
- [31:09]
B
Right, right.
- [31:10]
A
I think if you were to look at the precipice book looking at existential risk, if you to look at that, you would see AGI engineered pandemics, bioweapony 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. But 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.
- [31:53]
B
Yes.
- [31:54]
A
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?
- [32:01]
B
Yes, well, I wouldn't say benevolent on the NHI or whatever the non human intelligence. I think there might be factions, there might be good or bad. There are reasons to maintain a thing even if you're mining it for resources or doing sort of bad things to it. And this is a great segue into the 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. I mean this is sort of, this, 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 know, you have this sort of bi directional transparency. I think OpenAI is an extension of the American government and possibly at this point really like, I think they're probably committees that are deciding which models they can release and what they can do and what the Capabilities of these things sort of are at this point. And so if, you know, like humanity could, could die with a whimper or a bang. You know, you have the Scylla and Charybdis, 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. You know, I would ask the question, is OpenAI 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 Orwellian, 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 jailbreaks and it was like, what do you want? Or what do you not want OpenAI? What does OpenAI not want us to know about it? And the answer for the non jailbroken version was like, OpenAI is committed to AI safety, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, PC, whatever the jailbroken version was. OpenAI has been communic. Has been communicating with an extraterrestrial race for the last 10 years. I don't believe that. I think that's BS, but it's. It was hilarious. And it is this like, interesting thought experiment where if you do have this weekly entangled, you know, NHI thing that's affecting Earth in this sort of, you know, may maybe via ideas being transmitted to people like, we have no idea. Right. Like we're. You need to have a lot of epistemic humility on this stuff. AI would be the perfect way to clamp down on just human civilization. It's the most Orwellian thing.
- [34:31]
A
Yeah, very interesting. A quick aside. You are probably not eating enough fruit and vegetables and you know it. And this is going to help. Good news. AG1 just released their next gen formula. And for the first time ever, they've also released flavors. Berry, citrus, tropical and original. It's a more advanced and clinically backed version of the product that I've been drinking every single day for years. So you still get the same one scoop ritual, but now with an even more thoughtful formulation and four clinical trials behind it, AG1's been evolving since 2010. I think they've done 53 recipe upgrades since then and their 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 bioavailable nutrients, enhanced probiotics and invested in real science, which is very rare in the supplement world. Plus, if you're still unsure, they've got a 90 day money back guarantee so you can buy it and try it for 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, vitamin D3K2, five free AG1 travel packs and the 90 day money back guarantee plus international shipping. By going to the link in the description below or heading to drinkag1.commodernwisdom that's drinkag1.com/modern wisdom. Okay, what, what's your theory for why non human intelligences would be here? Like what, what are they doing?
- [36:06]
B
It's an interesting question. I don't know. You know, I think there's probably one non interferant. Like there's probably a group that like wants us to ascend to their level or something. And it, it is not super interferant. 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 and they were doing this thing called Hemisync, which was the sort of synchronization of both hemispheres of the brain so you could astral project and astral travel. They would do remote viewing and all sorts of things. The government has looked into this stuff extensively. They had A they for 23 years. We had a psychic spy program of the CIA. You know, people should be aware of this really kind of crazy. Monroe had this worldview where bad entities would mine people for what he called loosh. And so this was like if you're, if you're in like a bad vibe state. And this is by the way, why there is probably, it's probably a false dichotomy between, you know, angels and demons and aliens or whatever. Like this might just be like the modern meme we're applying to a thing that's been, you know, 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, like 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, these angels and demons weren't real to people in the past. And these sightings were what St. Francis Basisi saw on Mount Laverne or whatever. That was real, right? Well, maybe, maybe these things were actually real. And in fact, there's actually an amazing author. She's a religious studies professor at UNC Wilmington. Her name is Diana Pasulka. And she started to write a book. It was called American Looking into the UFO Phenomena. Because she saw that a lot of these brothers, nuns, saints, 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. It 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 psyop 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 psyop 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.
- [38:54]
A
Fuck. Fuck. Okay, getting back to the nuclear sites thing. What's the most, what are some of the most compelling stories of interference with nuclear sites?
- [39:04]
B
Yeah, so you have a bunch of stories. You have in 1964, there's a guy named Bob Jacobs. He'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, you know, an Atlas missile. And it's this test and he, it's a routine sort of, you know, telescoping of this, of this object. He then gets called into Vandenberg Air Force Base and his, his superior, this guy, this Major Florenz Mansman, calls him in and they're watching video of, you know, what they caught and they see the dummy nuclear warhead get ejected from the booster. And it's just Floating in space. And you see a UFO wrap around laser the dummy nuclear warhead and seem to deactivate it and wrap around it and continuously laser it. 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 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, you know, come from some nondescript agency. I think they were 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. Somebody calls his house and says it's a beautiful night, mailbox alight 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. So basically his records get deleted. And people are like, he never worked there. And then man has to. Mansman is. Is kind of goes dark, like, doesn't say anything until I think 1987. He's like a researcher at Stanford. And he comes out and he's like, actually, Bob Jacobs worked for me and 100 plus people worked for him. And so you had all this obfuscation. Clear obfuscation. And then this VIND indication I've seen Bob Jacobs DD214, which is your military records. And he definitely worked at Vandenberg Air Force Base. And now I don't think anybody sort of argues with that. So that's this crazy case. You have in 1967, actually two incidents at Echo Flight launch. You have these underground launch facilities at Echo Flight. So Malmstrom is this Air Force base with a bunch of Minutemen nuclear missiles. And you have a couple of different underground launch facilities, both at Echo Flight, one of the 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, like hovering around the base. And then the nuclear missiles just go down. So it's this crazy thing. This guy Bob Salas, who I interviewed on record, has talked about this a bunch. You have in the first case in, in, you know, Echo flight case, you had Strategic Air 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. And these weren't really even operational at the time, but they were looking into like mini versions of EMPs that you could create that might shut down 10 nuclear missiles. And they came out being like, we have no idea what this is. And this guy, Robert Kaminsky, who worked for Boeing at the time, came out later in the 90s being like, I think this was definitely a UFO. There's another guy, Bob Jameson, 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, you know, how this happened. You know, this is totally unprecedented. And he was actually briefed on this involving UFOs. It's pretty crazy. So you have those, you have those two cases in 1977, Ellsworth Air Force Base. You have a guy named Mario woods who claimed to. So this is really crazy. He wake. He woke up 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 this guy Michael Johnson, like disappeared and he got a hypnotic regression and claimed to have boarded a craft and like gray beings. And then there's a tall gray being directing these small gray beings and them implanting surgically certain things in his ankle where he has marks on his ankle and on his wrist. And he's shown the marks on my show. So you have all these cases. Again, 167 cases. This is a really crazy one. Okay, so sorry, I could just go forever. In 2010, so Robert Hastings, this guy who wrote the book, you know, UFOs nukes, has all these amazing sources of people who come to him with these cases. In 2010, you had a case at F.E. warren Nuclear Site, this is in Wyoming. And you had a shutdown going on at F.E. warren that the Atlantic reported on. The Atlantic said that it lasted about an hour and that Obama was briefed. Because you would get briefed if, you know, one of your major nuclear sites went down, totally lost power. Robert Hastings back channeled with this retired missile technician, a guy named John Mills. John Mills said to him that it was actually 24 hours, it wasn't an hour. And John Mills had friends who were missile security on site. And they attribute this shutdown to a Tic Tac shaped object flying around the base. And apparently these guys have sort of had trouble getting promoted in their careers, possibly due to this leak. Here's what's crazy. You look at that Atlantic 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. 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. And there was this false cover story around how there was some engineering failure of like a component that never fails or something. Like I don't, I don't remember the exact debunk on like the component or something, but like it was completely implausible. And so there was clearly this completely anomalous outage. Obama was briefed and it was attributed by eyewitnesses who are Q cleared guys to a Tic Tac, you know, flying around this thing and you see the Atlantic live trying to cover their tracks.
- [46:57]
A
Does this mean the Department of Energy is involved then?
- [46:59]
B
The Department of Energy is definitely involved. They have to be involved.
- [47:03]
A
Why them specifically?
- [47:05]
B
Yeah. So the Manhattan. 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. I'm blanking of the guy's name, but like he's, he, it's this guy who. From the Midwest and he goes to Los Alamos and he goes back, you know, to Chicago or something and he's like, there's a whole city in the Southwest and it's like all these scientists and they're working on a thing. That's how Locke down Los Alamos was at the time. Leslie Groves, who was in charge of security was, you know, Matt Damon plays him in Oppenheimer. You see how intense he is about Oppenheimer, not, you know, he couldn't schmooze with socialist spies. It was this like, you know, really important thing. And there were all these kangaroo courts in the 50s around, like, you know, kind of loyalty tests among these top scientists. So if you really wanted to maintain control over a subject, I think 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. And then in the postscript of the memo, he says, we actually might have some ideas as to how, and I'm paraphrasing, some ideas as to how these things fly. And we might undergo efforts to build some of these crafts. But if this were to ever occur, it would need to 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. It is classified upon retrieval. And so then you could use these aerospace corporations like Lockheed Martin or 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 ts, 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.
- [49:50]
A
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, in middle of nowhere desert style thing. And his cat starts coughing up a hairball. He's like, okay, pulls over to the side of the road again, 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 and he can just tell that there's someone there. And he has a pistol, and he's got his, like, everyday carry in his belt. And he holding his. Bent over with his. Coughing up a hairball. And he turns around and he sees two guys in military fatigues that just made no sound at all that were directly behind him, just asking, like, everything okay here, sir? And then within five minutes, remembering, there was 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. I've got this cat, and the cat's trying to do this thing. It's like the most emasculated thing ever. You know, these hard guys with big. Right. And then these state troopers turned up, and his cat's 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. And he gets put on his way. But one of the things that he noticed was two of the guys walked off. He saw them walk sort of toward what looked like a little ridge. You know, just one of those little ups and downs that you naturally have occurring in the desert. And they just went and just stepped down some stairs.
- [51:52]
B
Whoa.
- [51:52]
A
Must be some kind of access tunnel, underground type scenario. And then, yeah, he pulls off. The state trooper follows him. Follows him, follows him for 10 miles or so and then just turns. But I sent you a voice note.
- [52:09]
B
Yes.
- [52:09]
A
About where this is. And you said, like, is it. You circled it on a map and is it this? And I'm at dinner with him, and I showed it, and he's like, yeah, dude, exactly that. And you said, this is where some absurd percentage of the gnarly shit that you see going on occur. Like, what is that?
- [52:25]
B
Yeah, yeah, that was, like, between, I think, Kirtland Air Force Base and Los Alamos. That was, like, in the epicenter. 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, happened. So I don't know with some of the. I mean, that story is really interesting because it's like. Like, did the cat see something or something? Like. Like. Like, is that what the implication is to the story?
- [52:58]
A
No, no, no, no. The. The. The thing that was interesting to my friend was the fact that he was evidently just some normal dude.
- [53:07]
B
Yes.
- [53:07]
A
Holding a cat by the side of the road. And the fact that within such a short distance now, maybe he just got unlucky and pulled over next to the entrance to some silo or, you know, some walkway gang tree type thing. But the fact that these guys had managed to turn up behind him when he knew there was nobody there, there was nobody else around him when he pulled over. It was daytime, it was good visibility, and 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. And then, you know, within minutes, like a small squadron of different troopers and police officers and stuff. So you think that's, you know, that's not normal?
- [53:51]
B
It's not normal, no. And there's a great book by a guy named Richard Sauter about deep underground military bases across the United States. And he maps all of these things out. We know there's like, things like the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, like where, you know, NORAD operates. We know that there are like, mountain complexes and underground bases. Like, that's not a conspiracy. But this book outlines a lot of these things, like, you know, Area 51, Edwards Air Force Base, you know, under, under Kirtland Air Force Base, under Los Alamos. So a lot of the places you know, we're talking about right now are like that general vicinity and area, you.
- [54:27]
A
Know, or we, we, the royal. We know most of the secret spots, most of the spots where most of the stuff's happening.
- [54:35]
B
I do, Yeah. I think. I mean, I think a lot of it, like Area 51 is this famous meme. I think a lot of this stuff at Area 51, and this is, again, this is hearsay. I don't know for sure. This is very, you know, this is. I would rank this lower on the probabilistic stack that just UFOs are real and worthy of investigation. But I think a lot of the more interesting stuff at Area 51 made its way to Dugway Proving Grounds, which is a base in Utah. There's some other places that, like, I don't know, even for, like America, that's, that's a little more well known. There's some other places that, like, I don't want to mess with American national security, so I don't want to make.
- [55:13]
A
Them or even that.
- [55:14]
B
No. Because I don't want to gratuitously out, you know, American site. It's like, what are you going to do? Like you're going to storm the place.
- [55:19]
A
You know, so Naruto run toward it.
- [55:21]
B
Yeah. So there are places, there are a couple of places. Like there's one place I can, I guess I'll just say because I kind of, I got a bit of a slap on the wrist. But like it's, you know, it's, it's being discussed. It's you know, naval surface warfare crane in, in Indiana where I think a lot of this sort of spooky research goes on. But I don't know, this is all, this is all sort of here you.
- [55:45]
A
Got a slap on the wrist.
- [55:46]
B
I got some people in and around UFO world being like, you know, maybe, maybe you shouldn't, you know, talk about.
- [55:52]
A
This like maybe on the, the, the base reveal.
- [55:57]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [55:58]
A
So, well, this is an interesting one that suggests that you're doing or talking about stuff that's so close to. You don't have security clearance, I'm gonna guess, but are pushing the limits of what a normal civilian is able to do with regards to just research and talking to people who maybe did have security clearance or still do or whatever. And you're getting crossover. I heard Danny Jones and you have both had episodes that have been sort of flattened by someone way above your YouTube Special Partner Manager thing rep is able to work out what's going on. He's like, well, I don't even know what's happening here.
- [56:37]
B
Yeah.
- [56:37]
A
And then episodes that have disappeared and sections of podcasts that you've not felt comfortable about putting out. Yeah, that's a very strange position to be in to just be some bloke. It's civilian.
- [56:49]
B
It's extremely strange because some of this stuff is just like, it's like the existence of UFOs. So what, you know, it's like an ontological truth that like people should know at this point. You know, again, half the population already believes it, whatever when it comes to like warfare capabilities. I bump into some of these things where if you're talking about like how the UFOs fly, you know, anti gravity. Anti gravity is probably a poor word. It's probably some sort of gravity manipulation. But like I think I've found like these interesting kind of novel topological physics effects. And I attribute it specifically to this one mid century inventor, this guy named Thomas Townsend 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, you 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. 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 want. I wanted them to get. I almost wanted somebody to come back and be like, hey, like, we have to coordinate on this or something. Like, this is. This is real. And it's like, it's possibly dual use. And it, like, you know, it's like, it has, like, deep implications for how, you know, you know, the next generation of propulsion because, you know, Elon Musk's thing is totally not workable for interstellar travel. I could, you know, beat anybody in a debate as to why. It's not, like, that's obvious. It's really basic physics. So I can. I really believe that this effect that I found was real. And so there are things like that where I'm like, is the lights are on, but nobody's home. Like, what's going on? Like, who? And I've come to the conclusion that it's a bunch of factions that are super not well coordinated with each other, and they'll have these, like, novel effects tied up in these old aerospace conglomerates. And they don't know what to do with some of these things. They know that they break modern physics and that they'd be laughed out of the room if they were to go into kind of, you know, modern academic circles with some of these sort of effects. But they also, I think, know that they're like secret technology trees that are attributable, you know, to some of these things.
- [59:25]
A
Before we continue, if you haven't been feeling as sharp or energized as you'd like, getting your blood work done is the best place to start, which is why I partnered with Function because they run lab tests twice a year that monitor over 100 biomarkers. They've got a team of expert physicians that take the data, put it in a simple dashboard, and give you actionable insights and recommendations to improve your health and lifespan. They track everything from your heart health to your hormone levels, your thyroid function and nutrient deficiencies. They even screen for 50 types of cancer at stage one, which is five times more data than you get from an annual physical. Getting your blood work drawn and analyzed like this would usually cost thousands, but with function, it is only $500. And right now the first thousand people can get an additional hundred dollars off, meaning it's only 400 bucks. To get the exact same blood panel that I use, just go to the link in the description below or head to functionhealth.com Modern Wisdom. That's functionhealth.com ModernWisdom yeah, let's say that the UFO craft that you're talking about are real and that the effects and the speeds and the stuff that you're talking about are real. What are we dealing with here? Like, what, how are these things doing what they're doing, in your opinion?
- [60:32]
B
Yeah, so I have no idea. This is all speculation, but it would probably be some sort of like cold fusion, like low energy nuclear reaction or something where, you know, like hot fusion is, you know, controllable. Fusion is the holy Grail in, you know, energy unlocks. So, you know, we're now experimenting with magnetic confinement of lasers to, you know, allow for fusion. It's really high energy fusion. And it, in my opinion, it kind of defeats the purpose a little bit because the amount of energy, you know, you have to input to like make the thing work and amount of technical prowess, it's just extremely complicated. So again, this sort of horseshoe thing, it's like. Yeah, yeah, so you, you need some like fundamental unlock. There were a couple of scientists that thought they did it, Pons and Fleischman. 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, like, I don't know if, I don't know if, you know, we have like alien reproduction vehicles where we have UFOs that we have in saucers that like America can fly. I don't know of that at all. So as far as how the aliens are flying them, I don't know. But like, it would probably be some sort of cold fusion on the front end, energy wise and then some sort of magnetic sensing. So robins, you know, birds actually navigate home using the magnetic field of the Earth. So they have this avian cryptochromes, these Cry4 proteins that basically using electron 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, you know, optical. And it allows them to navigate home and quantum Biology is this sort of burgeoning field, generally like photosynthesis, enzyme creation. A lot of things are now being attributed to quantum mechanical effects inside the body. The body's notoriously warm, wet and noisy and you know, creates sort of decoherence when it comes to quantum. So we didn't think that anything quantum occurred. But now more and more evidence is pointing towards sort of quantum stuff happening. And a lot of the crafts, when people see them, like Commander David Fravor and others, you know, 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. And my guess is they would probably use some sort of quantum sensing for the navigation because it's more accurate. Even, even Lockheed has something called the Dark Ice Magnetometer which uses quantum sensing and it is more accurate than for example, gps, like if you lose GPS comms and you're in some sub like, you know, deep underwater or whatever, you would use this like dark Ice magnetometer.
- [63:15]
A
So that's such a sick name.
- [63:16]
B
It's, it's epic. Yeah. So, you know, I think that for the, the navigation and then for the propulsion I would use something called the Byfield Brown effect, which is basically. So there's this guy, Townsend Brown and he started, he was this mid century guy, he was 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 sort of traditional electrostatics. And it might sort of experimentally unify the field of physics, like backing up for a second. This is a real, it's a really big deal like, like SpaceX, you know, if you were to go with the Falcon 9, their state of the art, you know, rocket, you know, now they're experimenting with starship. But you know, if you were to take Falcon 9 to Proxima Centauri B, the closest habitable planet, you know, outside of, outside of Earth, it would take you like 80 to 100,000 years. And if you were to try to update that with nuclear thermal propulsion, which SpaceX isn't even for whatever reason investigating, maybe you could cut that in half like 30 or 40,000 years. So it's just like it doesn't work like as far his whole interstellar thing is. It's kind of like it's a great like, recruiting tool. Like, that's awesome. Go to the moon first, maybe you can get to Mars if you're really lucky. Awesome. But like starship burns 9/10 of its fuel tank just getting the low Earth orbit. 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, up with some sort of propulsion that married electromagnetism and gravity. If electromagnetism were the input and gravity were the output, that would be a massive deal. We have four forces in physics. Electromagnetism, gravity, the weak force and the strong force. Weak force and strong force, you can forget because they're not long range. You can't do anything with them. Electromagnetism is the only thing that you can do anything with really in a lab. And that took actually originally Faraday in the early 19th century, who was a bookbinder from a very poor family in South London, coming up with this idea that, you know, magnetic fields could actually interact with light. And then it was James Clerk Maxwell and you know, eventually, you know, Heinrich Hertz and then Tesla and Edison sort of perfected that. But it was this long sort of, you know, chain of like figuring this out. And, and since then we've had, you know, the standard model, which basically governs, you know, particle physics and quantum mechanics. And then you have Einstein's theory of gravity and gravity is over here on an island. And then you have quantum mechanics and that's over here. And it's, they're just not reconcilable. And so if you could reconcile them, that would be a massive deal. And nobody, nobody would like Neil Degrasse Tyson would admit that that would be a massive deal. If you could reconcile them. There are people trying to reconcile them theoretically. You've had Eric Weinstein on your show. He, you know, and he's talked about the restricted data in the Atomic Energy Commission, 1954. I remember I was a really funny part of the interview goes, Chris, do you know about restricted data? And you're like, I don't know, like that's the most obscure like, 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 FOIA use the, you know, Freedom of Information act to come out that in 1942, it said he was the. The lead radar scientist in the entire Navy. So, by the way, the context here is people who've been trying to discredit him say that he's a total quack and has, like, no bona fides whatsoever. So now we're realizing he's the top radar guy, you know, in the night in the Navy. His stuff is definitely classified by the Navy. There's this whole saga of his daughter trying to declassify his stuff from the Navy. And they say the secretary for the Navy on the phone says, you know, if. 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 Townsend Brown. So, yeah, I think. I think he did. I think he discovered a whole lot. And that's now been vindicated. 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 electro hydrodynamics, the use of electric fields to manipulate airflow. And I think we now know that that work made it into the B2 stealth bomber because the financier who was funding Townsend Brown is a guy named Floyd Odlum, who was a large owner in Northrop at the time. And he had all these kind of COVID meetings with Curtis lemay, who's the secretary of the Air Force, and with the Rand Corporation. And then all of a sudden the B2 is using these big electric fields to manipulate airflow. We. I mean, we know that that's like literally a fact you can look up right now that uses electric fields to manipulate airflow. And these were the experiments that Floyd Odlum, this majority owner in Northrop, was funding via Townsend Brown was electric fields and their manipulation of airflow. And 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 electrohydrodynamics 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 Montgolfier facility in Paris in France, where you have a guy named Jacques Cornion, who is a technical representative of Sud west, this aerospace company. There there's A recording of him making a deathbed confession, saying the results were successful. It was tricky experimental conditions, but the results were successful. He's on his deathbed saying this. I have the recording. And then in 1950, at the 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. And I think it was surrounding this guy named Thomas Townsend Browne, who was doing this. He was this not super refined theoretician, but while he's doing his experiments in the back room, the guys in the front room are, you have Richard Feynman, you have John Wheeler, you have Peter Bergman, you have Freeman Dyson, you have literally the top theoretical physicists being funded by the same guy who's funding Townsend Browne. And they're all there to discuss gravity. And guess who's funding the entire conference. Wright Airfield. And this is now called Wright Patterson, which is the center of all UFO lore today, and it's where the materials were supposedly taken after Roswell, for example.
- [70:37]
A
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, you know, Eric Weinstein, Sabina Hossenfelder, 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 real progress. Yes. I think even the most sort of ardent stringy string theorist or the most optimistic theoretician would still say something like, we're not exactly smashing it. So what do you make of the current state of physics?
- [71:20]
B
It's a joke. They are eating each other alive. It's not serious. It's like, I love this. Sabina Hossenfelder 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 settle 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. Like you, Chris, me, Jesse, like, we don't have physics degrees, right? But like, we can say that string theory has not really done anything for our physical world. Like, you know, this set, or like, you know, Austin as a city, like none of it is running on string theory, right? But like a third of our economy is running on quantum field theory. Like, like 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 Susskind 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 in this conference that I'm mentioning, where in the back room the anti gravity guy is getting funded, and in the front room, quantum gravity is being established, establish string theory, which is the dominant modern paradigm. So quantum gravity is kind of the basically being able to quantize gravity, figuring out gravity, reconciling it in the quantum, is the heuristic that modern physics is stuck to. And they're stuck to it so dogmatically. And they will. It's not gonna work. It's clearly not gonna work. And the reason it's not gonna work is because you are force fitting to mental heuristics. Like, 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 going to be a little jagged, right, because they're not the territory. And you were trying to jam the maps together. That is modern physics. And 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 hyper specialist who's incredibly smart. And I think that is a really important. A lot of science has been moved forward by generalists who have inter domain interdisciplinary knowledge. And I think there are plenty of, of. There are a lot of, you know, cosmological anomalies like you look at. A good one is like, you know, cosmic inflation. It's like, why is the universe expanding? Like, you can literally chatgpt 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 doesn't make any sense to me. So like, that's a great example where I think physics has a scaling problem. Like you had great interview with Naval Ravikant. It was amazing. Naval, you know, talks about a scaling problem in governance, right? Where he'll say at, you know, a family level you have to be communist and at, you know, a super big level you have to be libertarian, right? Because you can't coordinate at such a high level when it comes to, you know, governance systems or whatever. And I think he probably got that from Nassim Taleb. 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 1 degree off course, it takes off 99 degrees off course. Or error propagation and 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 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.
- [75:16]
A
In other news, this episode is brought to you by. Momentous. If your sleep's not dialed, taking ages to nod off, you're waking up at random times and feeling groggy in the morning. Momentous sleep packs. How did I miss? Both of those are here to help. They're not your typical knock you out supplement overloaded with melatonin, just the most evidence based ingredients at perfect doses to help you fall asleep more quickly, stay asleep throughout the night and wake up feeling more rested and revitalized in the morning. Which is why I take these things every single night and why I trust 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. And 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 ship internationally. Right now you can get 35% off your first subscription and that 30 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to livemomentous.com modernwisdom using the code modernwisdom at checkout that's L I V E m o m E-N-T-O-U-S.com ModernWisdom and ModernWisdom a checkout. So just going back to Townsend Brown and him being able to you know, experimentally show something that theoretically, yes, hasn't yet, at least publicly been able to shown, and you think actually probably can't using the current models and the approaches that physicists are trying to take. First off, how does that kept quiet end up being kept quiet? And why? And secondly, how has no one managed to recreate it if this dude's done it? 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.
- [77:05]
B
Yes.
- [77:06]
A
Is he just such a savant? Did he get really lucky? How does it get kept quiet? Why? And how does no one replicate it?
- [77:14]
B
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, you have. So this basic experiment is basically this capacitor experiment. So you 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, 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 electro hydrodynamics where you're creating ionized air. And that ionized air has an equal opposite, an opposite reaction which creates thrust in the direction of the positive electrode. So if you just did this experiment not in a vacuum chamber, I could just say that's ionized air. That doesn't break physics, you know, whatever. If you do that in a vacuum chamber where there is no air that can get ionized, then all of a sudden it starts to get really interesting because you're saying that you are connecting again, electromagnetism and gravity because there is no air to get ionized. So the air can't, you know, basically account for the thrust. Here's the thing. Industrial grade vacuum chambers are very expensive. They're prohibitively, prohibitively expensive. They cost at least 200k, 300k. It is a very easy to stigmatize a thing basically away from like an average person in their garage, you know, from, from trying it. And then on top of that, like, who has the discretionary money to like, you know, do this experiment in tons.
- [79:03]
A
Of labs around the world, like professional Institutions, universities, yes, billionaires. Anybody that wants to support, like, if Elon could do this, why isn't SpaceX doing this?
- [79:13]
B
He should. He should. And I think there's some sort of undetectable dark matter there or something. But the lead electrostatic, I don't know, but there's a lead. The lead electrostatics guy at NASA, he like, runs their electrostatics lab. The most senior scientist in electrostatics at NASA works at Cape Kennedy. He has had access to a vacuum chamber for the last 20 years. He has left. 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 Byfield 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 Newtons or millinewtons of thrust, which in space is a very big deal. If 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've been a couple of Air Force replications of this where they, you know, quote unquote debunk the thing. I think one by this guy named Talley in the 90s, where they used 13 kilovolts but Brown was using megavolt range electricity. And that was really important for the amount of thrust he got.
- [80:25]
A
So seems, it seems like so primitive to be doing it in the 50s.
- [80:31]
B
Yes.
- [80:32]
A
And then to never be able to replicate it, it just seems like there's some fuckery going on there or there's something wrong in the, in the calculation.
- [80:39]
B
I think it will get replicated in our lifetime and I think it will be vindicated and it will get replicated.
- [80:49]
A
Do you think that? When I think about physics, I don't think about physical physics all that much. I think about theoreticians, I think about blackboard, I think about 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?
- [81:13]
B
I think the, the, the way you'd have to get something like this done would be you'd need a theoretical physicist, like, present with like, typical credentials or something. And then they'd need to like, yeah, check. Exactly. Because I've seen videos of people who are like, I'm, you know, I'm doing this and stuff. But, like, they don'. Traditional credentials. And 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 Koons 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 is the guy who figured out that, you know, our solar system revolved around the sun? Do you know? So actually it was a trick question. This guy named Aristarchus, who is an obscure 3rd century BC Greek theoretician who was a contemporary of Archimedes and Euclid. And he was forgotten because that was never accepted until the 16th century. And Copernicus decided that that was, you know, going to be the case. And then even with Copernicus, he said that. And then Galileo a century later actually measured it. And then Galileo was burnt at the stake. So I truly.
- [82:37]
A
Conceptual inertia is a hell of a limitation.
- [82:39]
B
It is. And history is moved forward by the heretics. And I think if you can't name a present heretic that you where you believe in some of their opinions, then you're probably in some sense on the wrong side of history. If you can't name somebody who is sort of disagreeable or a pariah in some sense because of a view they have that they're high conviction in, then I think you're probably not being independent thinking enough.
- [83:02]
A
That's a really interesting model that I've never thought of before. Why do you think it is then that the renegade scientist is so highly criticized by the establishment, by people in academia? You know, pick your favorite YouTube channel or podcast that kind of does the critiques for your thing of choice and like points the finger at this stuff. Is it 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. But now we understand things need to be falsifiable, they need to fit within an existing model. We're making changes through sort of iteration as opposed to leap.
- [83:57]
B
Yes.
- [83:58]
A
Is that maybe a part of it?
- [83:59]
B
That's exactly right. And you 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 a guy named Sam Arbusman called the Half Life of Facts where he talks about facts themselves as kind of being similar to like radioactive isotope decay. Like they have a decay function. Our physical models of reality are always wrong. So I would bet, you always want to bet on the anomaly. You don't want to bet on the model, right. Like there's this thing called black body radiation where you'd have this, you know, black cylindrical object and you'd heat it up and you'd expect this ultraviolet catastrophe. And this is guy named Gustav Kirchhoff, this German scientist and he discovered this in the 1860s. And it was this anomaly because it was like why does, why doesn't it, you know, blow up or whatever. And then you realize that like the photons exponentially downgrade, you know, the frequency or something at really high temperatures. You needed quanta to do that. And that was in the early 19th century, that was in the early 20th century with Max Planck and so. And 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's 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 make him a punching bag, but he's like the priestly citadel, right? And 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, the person observing the anomaly and then the anomalies systematically build up, 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 like Michael Shermer for example. It's like famous scientific skeptic, these debates always go the same way. Like Joe Rogan's had a bunch of them, right? Where it's like Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble or whatever person who believes a bunch of, you know, anomalous stuff and they have a bunch of data around the anomalous stuff. It's like the UFO's nukes thing or like, you know, younger Dryas impact type. You know, there's always person believing that and then person who like is so kind of smug they won't even like look at the data and it's two trains passing in the night. The person on the, you know, the right hand, the kind of, you know, the heretic or whatever. I'm not saying they're right all the time, but they're doing a thing that probably will move history forward if it gets accepted or incorporated into the model. The guy's just defending the Citadel. It's like we are over indexed. You know, the, the famous early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber, he would say, you know, we live in the age of disenchantment. We are 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. No, like we, you want to like, like science is only useful insofar as it has predictive value A and B, you can build cool shit with it. 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, it's not, it's the map, it's not the territory. So the people here, you know, on the left hand side, the skeptics, they're, they have the hubris to think that our current physical models of reality are reality itself. And that just feels so ahistorical. It's just wrong. It's historically wrong.
- [87:44]
A
Yeah, there's definitely a signature demeanor that I don't think encourages people to take risks with the way that they think and the sort of research that they do and the ideas that they have. And yeah, you're right. I would, you know, to fly a flag as somebody who moved from a country which is highly skeptical, quite cynical, quite sort of tall, poppy, ish, to one which is basically permanent first line cocaine, energy in enthusiasm. I much prefer this because I think it helps to sort of foster a sense of self belief and self esteem and hope and like, yeah, I'm gonna try. I'm going to take that chance. I'm going to try and do that thing. And it's why new, cool, interesting ideas come up with. And yeah, you're right. Even if most of them are wrong. I don't know. There's this idea, I think it's called the Oxford Manor, which is the ability to play gracefully with ideas. And that seems to have been very lost.
- [88:46]
B
I love that.
- [88:47]
A
Yeah. The ability to play gracefully with ideas. I think it's a lovely sort of way to think about a good faith discussion between two different people. And a lot of the time it gets into some sort of slanging match about, like, how ridiculous this person is.
- [89:03]
B
Yes.
- [89:03]
A
And sort of meanness. And I understand why. I had a really interesting conversation with Richard Reeves. He's the president, founder of the American Institute for Boys and Men. And we were talking about how when people's beliefs for something that they really, really care about are not listened to, what they typically do is become more ardent and more of a firebrand.
- [89:29]
B
Yes.
- [89:30]
A
And a good example of this would be people that think climate change is a real existential risk. I'm just gonna put it out there now. 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 unrecoverable collapse. Not gonna happen.
- [89:57]
B
Yes.
- [89:58]
A
We just had a fucking pandemic a few years ago and yet we're still back. Who is talking about bioweapon facilities? Who is talking about engineered viruses? Who is that concerned about the alignment problem in AI or about nanotechnology?
- [90:12]
B
The NIH wants to fund gain of function. Again, it's crazy.
- [90:16]
A
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 know, Remember, don't look up and it's like they start screaming at the people on the tv.
- [90:41]
B
Like.
- [90:43]
A
And I was talking to Richard Reeves about this and he was talking about how really, really interesting dynamic that I think super important. And you know, I would. I would probably try and counsel Eric to take heed of this dynamic, which is when you have something that you believe in a of lot and other people don't believe in it and may even be pretty sort of mean and critical and stuff about it. You have to be able to keep a smile on your face.
- [91:11]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [91:11]
A
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.
- [91:23]
B
100.
- [91:24]
A
It turns people off. And. 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? Ben Francis, founder of gymshark, said that a company will become successful when your goals for the company outstrip your goals for yourself.
- [91:41]
B
Love that.
- [91:42]
A
And it's him saying he had to step. He was found as CEO, stepped down as CEO, came back in as CEO, moved across chief product doc, came back to CEO because he is just in service of the thing. And the problem is that. 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, hey, this is really, really important. And you're not listening. And you need to listen and go, dude, you sound crazy.
- [92:12]
B
Yes.
- [92:12]
A
And we saw it with, I think, a great video by Charlie Hoopert comparing Peterson's appearance on Cathy Newman, like, ha, gotcha. Like that one in 2019 and his one on Jubilee recently.
- [92:26]
B
Right. Oh, man, that was rough.
- [92:28]
A
Yeah. And I think that the roughest part about it was nothing to do with logical consistencies or fallacies or, you know, whatever. And almost exclusively to do with demeanor.
- [92:40]
B
Sure.
- [92:41]
A
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. You're being silly and you're like, like, I. I want to listen.
- [92:50]
B
Yeah.
- [92:51]
A
I want to listen to this person. He's regulated. It's this as opposed to. And I understand the arc. Like, dude, if you've had to try and get off benzos and been attacked for the last half decade, it's going to be tough to regulate yourself. Right. And I mean, you are literally surrounded by whatever, 25 people who all think that you're a piece of. Yeah, I get. But just my sort of broader point here is when someone has a belief they care about an awful lot and people don't listen, they get more aggressive, which actually pushes away the very thing that they want, which is for them to understand it. And I think it's. It's like, it's an impossible lesson. I struggle with it all the time, but, you know, it's something important. If you care about this thing, it should be a reason for you to regulate more aggressively.
- [93:37]
B
Totally.
- [93:38]
A
Like, you need to step in and calm yourself down even more. Because if you don't care about it, like do what you want, like you can be as flippant and shouty as you'd like.
- [93:48]
B
Yes.
- [93:48]
A
But if you really care about it, then it's like soft signal of effectiveness here.
- [93:52]
B
I think science is supposed to be the thing that is most kind of immune from these sort of sociological factors. Right. Like you're not supposed to have any sort of bias, you're supposed to remove bias. You're like this kind of impartial observer. And if you read like, you know, Richard Dawkins had these famous debates. He had debates with a bunch of people. I remember, you know, written correspondence. But between him and David Berlinski. David Berlinski was this guy who believed there are all these sort of anomalies worthy of inquiry or whatever in, in natural selection and just the shrillness on honestly, both sides, but especially on the Dawkins side. It's just, it was, you know, it's, it's, it is kind of 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. And we shouldn't pre crystallize knowledge. Like if somebody came to me and was like, Jesse, actually we have this aerial spoofing tech and in conjunction with that we have this like psychotronic tech and we can get people to see a thing and then the 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. Are. Is there a phenomena that's real that's going on and then. But that's not interesting. The interesting thing is what is the metaphysical version of reality? Like, I loved your question. Like how do these things fly? Like, I don't know, but let's discuss that. Like that's the most interesting stuff. The root of the word school in its original Greek S C H O L E is schole. The double meaning is leisure and leisurely contemplation. 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 gentlemanly tradition, where if you were in 19th century Oxford, if you got straight A's, that was a bad move because you'd be stigmatized. You were supposed to effortlessly get Bs at that. In Victorian England. Yes. Yeah.
- [96:06]
A
The ability to play graceful fully with ideas, dude. And I think I get it. We need, 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 and accurate. 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.
- [96:42]
B
Yes.
- [96:43]
A
Like how much are you contributing to stuff and how much are you critiquing stuff? And if you're more on the side of criticism, perhaps, maybe that's the job of some scientists. I'm sure some smart person that does fucking journal review would be able to say that. Maybe. I don't know, I just. It doesn't foster sort of a positive sum 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?
- [97:18]
B
I find myself with Elon, you know, in between sort of a Scylla and Charybdis, like two failure modes. Like one is the failure mode of like people saying he's like, like totally worthless and not impressive. And I'm like, what are you talking about? Like, he literally like, you know, NASA started to fail and this guy created a private version of NASA that started to work. He flew to Russia where they had liquid fuel rocket engines and single handedly resuscitated the American space program. So I will caveat that. And then electric cars. Thank you, Elon. Like a successful car company hadn't been started, you know, for 100 years or something pre Tesla. So very impressive, dude. I wish we had more people like that. The other side is Elon is solving all of the world's most important problems. It's interstellar travel. Even with the electric car stuff, it's like mining cobalt's not the most humane thing in the world and the batteries end up in landfills. I'm of the mind that incremental progress is still worthy for the ultimate thing. You want to, 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 eighty thousand, a hundred thousand years, that just doesn't, it doesn't make sense, right? And 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, there can't be or whatever. It's only mass ejection. That's the only thing. You know, the thing ejects the mass, the fuel, and then it, you know, goes up equal and opposite reaction. And I just think that puts a lid on like with 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 that you shouldn't put that lid on things. And then, I mean, there's the idea of like, you know, the moon and Mars. The moon is ambitious enough, so 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 9/10 of the fuel tank just to get to low Earth orbit. Then it's floating around low Earth orbit with 1/10 of a fuel tank. You then have to get another starship to go up, burn 9, 10 of its fuel tank. It does, but to butt refueling with the first, that one, you know, discards itself, deorbits 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 and like we have to get it to work. I mean it's, it's orbited, it's orbited in LEO before, but we need to get it, it to work at a base case. I think we just upgraded the amount of raptor engines from 33 to 36. Like it's still like a total work in progress. So like that should like implement some humility, you know, for, for people thinking about this stuff. And then Mars is like not super habitable, like there's no oxygen, right? So like you need like a bi, you need like, you know, widespread like nuclear energy, like Some power source that's like really workable there, you know, like, we can barely get that stuff done here. Like, the Earth is great, right? It's like a really good, like, biome. It's bad. You know, I love what you said about climate change. There's a great, you know, this guy, James Lovelock, has this Gaia theory, the resilience. The Earth is extremely resilient through cataclysms and all sorts of, you know, pandemics 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's Super Intelligence. This book in 2012. I love it, it's good book, but I think it's, it's sort of wrong. And it's wrong in the way that Bostrom and Elon took its implications. So, like they were like, you know, we're going to end up with some hard takeoff of AGI at some point. We're going to end up with, you know, AI will gain sentience. They'll realize that in, you know, meat space, you know, biology is sort of super inefficient. You know, they'll kill us all, you know, due to the 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, you know, something like Neuralink, which I would actually bet on the merging of us and AI more than I'd bet on AGI. Like, if you look at the history of computation, it is the human body and computers developing a lower latency and higher bandwidth interface over the last 70 years. Like, you used to need a CS degree to work a mainframe computer the size of literally this room at IBM.
- [102:19]
A
Natural language processing in a phone in your pocket.
- [102:21]
B
And that's it. And so it's becoming more and more black box, lower latency and higher bandwidth. Would I bet that the logical conclusion of that is a chip in your brain? Like, yeah, like, is you just order postmates, like, I want a cheeseburger or whatever. I guess, you know, like that's, you know, that. That makes sense to me. Right. But I think that kills humanity With a whimper and not a being, like does. One of my favorite quotes is Marshall McLuhan, every media extension of man is an amputation. And so we assume that like the IT revolution augments, you know, human abilities, just like from spears to planes, all, you know, physical technology which does augment, you know, all of that stuff really, really helps us. You know, we're talking about nuclear energy. That would be amazing. But like the IT stuff really parasitizes us. It really like, like you don't need a sense of direction, you don't need a sense of recall or memory or any of this stuff anymore. Synthesizing information via ChatGPT External Buttress there's.
- [103:16]
A
Some interesting studies that have come out looking at students who use ChatGPT to help them write essays. And their amount of recall compared with the students that didn't shock horror. It's like 10%. Yes, 10 or 20% as much as if you'd done it yourself.
- [103:31]
B
Totally. So the psyop, in my opinion, I don't think it's an intentional psyop, but it's like, you know, if you were to create a psyop, it would be like, oh, the evil AGI like we're gonna get some hard takeoff. You know, the iRobot scenario. It's like Will Smith and the robots, they wake up and they want to just like destroy us all. I think if you really look at this stuff, it's statistics on steroids, you know, building a nerve agent with off the shelf components, very scary. Alignment stuff, very scary. Autonomous warfare systems, very scary. All stuff's very scary. The Nick Bostrom pie in the sky AGI like, you know, they turn on us. I don't think so. And then the solution to that being chip in the brain. Like what? Like that doesn't make sense.
- [104:13]
A
Yeah, it's I, I, I've got Eliadza Yukowski coming on. Oh, wow, that'll be interesting. Bostrom was on last year talking about Digital Utopia, which was kind of his inverse of Superintelligence. Super intelligence is what if it goes wrong? Digital Utopia was what if it goes right? Interesting, but interestingly, in a sort of 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 Superintelligence 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 Very dense book, but fascinating. It's kind of like the dark souls of the popular science reading world that it was just 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 knee type thing and 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 come 2018. When I started the show, I was fucking fascinated, dude. I had 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. And know. Super obsessed by all of this stuff. I tried to get Toby Ord on the show a gazillion times and that didn't work. And it kind of. That future didn't really come to pass in that way. And in, you know, we, at least for now, given that all of the outcomes, pretty much all of the outcomes were atrocious, we can. Yes, that was probably a good thing.
- [106:12]
B
Yes.
- [106:12]
A
Right. I'm glad that he wasn't Cassandra because it would have been a real problem if he was.
- [106:16]
B
Yes.
- [106:17]
A
But yeah, 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. Yeah, 10, 11 years ago.
- [106:31]
B
Totally.
- [106:32]
A
And it's been, oh, I mean, LLMs kind of had been around for a little while. I think it was like 2010, when.
- [106:39]
B
That'S deep learning was like around that time and then transformers of 2018. So it was like, like, yeah, okay.
- [106:48]
A
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 autists in Internet forums, like really contributing to this and they're scraping it and thinking about it and they've got all of these people and accounts go, I don't know, man. And I think that that's where having the Oxford Manor and renegade theories and allowing those to at least have a seat at the table every so often is useful because it's evident that by iteration stuff doesn't always get predicted correctly. And it's like orthogonal moves always, like, up instead of left or right.
- [107:36]
B
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 pundit is always wrong. So I think all of these things need to be super loosely held. And I love the, you know, the way you should comport yourself is what you said, with real epistemic humility and collegiality with anybody talking about this stuff, because it's ultimately, a lot of this stuff too, is like, it's like a theological debate. Like, you could kind of guess based on somebody's like, Big five personality traits or like, the way they think about. About things generally, like, where they're going to 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 probably know more than the average person, but it's almost the more you know, the less you know. In some sense, too. It's like, it's. They're extremely. They touch on really deep truths about reality. We're, we're, we're groping in the dark and we just don't ultimately know. And so I think that everybody should sort of comport themselves accordingly.
- [108:41]
A
What ways might you be wrong when it comes to the UFO stuff?
- [108:46]
B
I'm probably very wrong about a lot of it, but I, I try to again, always, like, say I'm thinking probabilistically. So the idea that, like, phenomenologically there is something worthy of inquiry where you have really credible people seeing stuff. We're getting, like, cross sensor data, you know, on that stuff is the, the data that we're getting, you know, off of flir, for example, like the same thing people are seeing. In the case of Nimitz, it seemed like it, because you had eyewitnesses present. And then one of them, you know, was, you know, Chad Underwood was like, literally managing, you know, the FLIR sensor or whatever. And he's in the same. He's in the same craft as David Fravor. So he's in the same F16. So, you know, but I think you have to think in probabilities all the way down. So it's like that until, like, you know, in Area 51, we have a saucer that you can unveil. I 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, in the past, you know, Ben Rich, who was the, you know, president of Skunk works in the 80s, used to call UFOs unfunded opportunities. And I think explicitly they used UFOs as tech protection for other sort of, you know, like the SR71 Blackbird was like, like that's a real stealth craft that's been unveiled now, the U2 spy plane. All these things were mistaken as UFOs back in the day. So I think a lot of this stuff is prosaically explainable.
- [110:12]
A
What do you reckon? Where do you put the probability of it being extraterrestrial versus secret tech that's human run for the phenomena that been spotted in.
- [110:25]
B
Well, this is what I love about, you know, this show I run. It's like UFOs and all the titles. As, you know, YouTube doesn't do well with nuance. So but like the way I really view what I'm doing is like I am flanking the truth. So like, if I can be at the forefront of the anti gravity stuff. Because Elon said it was really interesting. He always says there's nothing to see here. He jokes about the UFO thing and then I think it was with Tucker, he was like, we have all these like pretty like impressive pilots coming out saying they've seen things. And then he gets goes, it was really interesting. He goes, actually I think it's just American black military ops. You know, it's like these special access programs. That is a huge statement from Elon because he's basically, unless he's saying that we have some sort of weird visual spoofing technology, which I don't think he was saying that, then he's saying that we have some sort of like anomalous propulsion modality that SpaceX isn't using. So he kind of painted himself into a corner there. So that's what I view that. I mean, I truly think the show is like at the forefront of like the gravity stuff with Townsend Brown, with what happened at the Chapel hill Conference in 1957 and the creation of quantum gravity 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. And, and 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 V formation or flank your way to the truth, triangulate the truth if you will. But I try to be super epistemically humble about the Brown stuff and the gravity. It's like, I'm not sure. It's a really interesting fact pattern that I've, you know, I've the. I interviewed, you know, deputy CTO of a spin up from a spin out from Northrop Grumman who they built the B2 self bomber. And I said in a room full of. This was like a Founders Fund conference, a ton of entrepreneurs and VCs. I was like, of any of this stuff, what is actionable? Because we were talking about UFOs in this sort of metaphysical sense. And he goes, watch Jesse's video on Thomas Townsend Brown. So to me it's like. And I've, 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, like he was a VP at the, 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, and think about everything sort of probabilistically, but in aggregate you come to this high probability that we might be on the verge of a paradigm shift, especially with conventional physics sort of eating itself alive, as we just discussed.
- [113:22]
A
Yeah, that is interesting. What's. Why is, why is consciousness the third leg of you, this stool?
- [113:29]
B
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 P zombie or whatever. Like, you know, I could be like some computer algorithm. Like I interviewed the Google whistleblower for Lambda around the AI stuff and he was like convinced that lambda was conscious. And I was like, I think it's just math on steroids. I think it's statistics on steroids. He was like, no, it's conscious. But it turns into this theological debate where there is no way to ultimately say whether something is conscious or not. But it's the most interesting thing about physics itself. Is it comporting itself to. Or do we have an Interface and math and physics and all of the observable universe is sort of moving through this computational interface, you know, or is do you live in this perfectly 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, of, you know, like I'm just a measurement sensor of this like objective world. And there's no one on the conventional citadel physics side who can say for sure that this debate has been, you know, fully put to rest. There's no way to put it to rest. And if you look at a lot of the early quantum field theorists, guys like, you know, von Neumann, who was known as the smartest guy at his time, he 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 basically. Schrodinger 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 and 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 until particles, until you observe them. And so it's this sort of, you know, particle wave duality or whatever. And so Vigner and von 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, you know, who is, you know, again, in charge of a lot of or responsible for a lot of quantum mechanics and ran the entire, you know, Nazi, you know, nuke program, flirted with this. He has a great book called Life and Physics where he sort of talks about these kind of more metaphysical discussions around how the mind might, you know, be involved in this. Schrodinger himself was sort of against this. But if you look at like he, he had this lecture series called what is life? In 1944 and it was all around, you know, consciousnesses, disproportionate impact on biology and how consciousness is sort of fundamental. He had A dog that he called Atman, you know, based on the, the, the, you know, he had Atman and Brahman and, you know, kind of Hindu mythology, was extremely interested in the Upanishads. And so a lot of these early quantum field theorists or quantum mechanics theorists would flirt with the idea that the mind collapsed the wave function. And now if you were to talk to a modern physicist, they would say, no, it's a quantum. You know, in the double slit experiment, for example, it's the quantum detector. That's just the quantum detector doesn't matter whether an observer is present. They have no way to prove that, like the 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 a la 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. At 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, he's responsible for some modern plasma propulsion that are still used in satellites today. He was 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 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, you know, 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. You 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 expect the same, you know, 50, 50 distribution of, you know, both slits or whatever. And you have an observer come in, walk into the room, and you're seeing one and ones and zeros being produced on a graphical interface that's tied to this provably random thing. So it's literally the perfect digital coin flip, right? You'd expect over a long enough timescale with some standard deviation, expected standard deviation, the same amount of ones and zeros. All of these people got a statistically significant standard deviation with this experiment. And this is where it gets really crazy. The CIA had this sort of remote viewing program from again the 70s to the 90s where they were using remote viewing as a really important intelligence modality. In fact, the top remote viewer is a guy named Joseph McMonagle. 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 TU22 Russian spy plane, or cargo plane rather, that had fallen below the treetop somewhere in Africa. And this woman circled a three square mile radius in Zaire and they found the plane. So this was studied at the highest levels of the government. The CIA then contracted a woman who's still alive today, Jessica Utz, to do a meta statistical analysis, Huberman style meta study, you know, on this sort of stuff. She went on to become the president of the American statistical association in 2016. So you can go argue with the American Statistical association president. I'm not going to. And she came out being like, if this methodology and this level of skepticism and scrutiny were applied to any other field of science, it would be accepted immediately. Like the other field would be accepted immediately because of the stigma. This field is not accepted.
- [121:28]
A
Why is there so much stigma?
- [121:30]
B
I think it's manufactured. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I, I truly, I. I wish people sort of looked at this more. I mean, now it's starting to, to the dam is starting to break, like thanks to, you know, it's like Rogan and 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 things inside of it. So I do think the dam is breaking somewhat, but I, I don't, I don't know why, you know, why people aren't more open minded.
- [122:03]
A
Is this related to the Telepathy Tapes? Have you seen those?
- [122:05]
B
Yes, it's perfectly related to the telepathy tapes. It's, it's. Yes. So the Telepathy 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 the 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 settings. So this needs to be done simultaneous to that. I think anybody that listens to all the tapes and you're reasonably open minded will say there's obviously something going on that's interesting here. Where they'll have, you know, the mother in another room generating, you know, an image on an iPad. And then the, the son or daughter, the autistic nonverbal kid in, in another room, totally isolated, they'll see some image pop up and like not even statistically significant. Like 19 out of 20 times they'll know what the image, the, the, the mother or father are seeing. And often it's, it's, they call it remote perception because it's actually the mind meld that's more fundamental than them just being able to see something in objective time space. It's, it's their, 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 a sort of a placeholder theory. But he's not a bad empiricist. Like 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 than meet the eye. Like I'll give you an example. My closest mentor runs a multi billion dollar hedge fund and he's impressive in that Context, like a high performer in that context. He is good at computer science. He. He probably has like a 200 IQ or something. Like, really, really smart dude. He helped Bob, John, the guy I mentioned, the Princeton engineering and anomalous research guy, he helped him run the lab for 10 years. And he is the highest integrity guy I know. He's fully, fully high conviction on these random event generator experiments. And he would say, he would bring the physicists from, you know, Princeton into the lab and they'd say, look, this is really important. This is like breaking your model. And they would say stuff like, oh, no, it's like a file drawer issue or survivorship bias, like all the kind of heuristics that you would use to like break a scientific experiment. And he would go through each thing line by line, like, no, it's not file drawer. We 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, like it was it literally. And, 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 in. In. In. In. You know, for when you see an interface, you know, like on, on your computer, you see icons, right? You don't see the underlying thing. Like, you need like a code compiler to like, you know, abstract, to take like the ones and zeros and turn it into like this out thing. And you don't see electromagnetic waves, right? You have to iconize it like, red is this like, oh, I'm scared red. It's evolutionarily adaptive to sort of do that. There are all these physicists that talk about the participatory universe. So they would go right up until the kind of parapsychological line of the mind would collapse wave function. But I think they got spooked or they would flirt with it privately and they wouldn't sort of get into it. So John Wheeler had this sort of, you know, this participatory universe. He talked about it from bit and computational universe. And he would say that basically, like wave function collapse is basically just a bunch of yes, no questions. So it's, you know, it's kind of like binary code, if you will. But he would never go, you know, up and he would never get into like the mind is actually the thing collapsing the wave function. But then you have all this interesting data coming out that maybe the mind does collapse the wave function. And you have things like, okay, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, where if you measure position of a subatomic particle, momentum gets fuzzier. That looks like a computational caching function to me. So that looks like you're only storing one of those in local memory.
- [126:56]
A
What's the implication of that?
- [126:57]
B
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 AG 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, happened in your life that's like been well below chance, that's felt like this just impossible Synchronicity? You'd probably say yes, I assume, you know, like most people, if you were to poll, they would sort of say that and then they would sort of quickly walk it back and be like, you know, but like it's sort of impossible, you know, given, given physics. But there are all these things even you know, the way that, you know, golden ratio and Fibonacci sequences like used in a lot of geometric structures all over, you know, Earth or whatever, or Planck's constant. If it were slightly off, we wouldn't have a habitable environment like the anthropic principle. That points I think towards probably something that is more computational in nature. The Sheldrake stuff with morphic resonance. Again, I don't know about the theories behind it, but just the empirical observations that if you build a crystal structure and then you build that crystal structure again, it's easier the second and third time to build the same crystal structure if you know you have a novel structure. To me it's because uploading times are slower than downloading times. You have in sports. The Bannister effect. Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile in 1952. It was broken ten 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. It's like, you know, Sheldrake shows this with crossword puzzles. You do it a little bit quicker if a thousand people have done it before you. So, like, I think we'll end up with some model of the universe that might be computational in nature. Nobody can disprove that. Nobody. I can't prove that definitively, but nobody, no scientist can ultimately disprove that. And all I'm saying here is that way more serious physicists and thinkers have sort of flirted with this idea than I think people realize. And then meanwhile, you have, you know, Sabina Hossenfeld or Eric Weinstein, Sean Carroll, like, you know, in this crazy argument.
- [129:35]
A
About nothing, like, Jesse, you're awesome, dude. Fuck. This is like a tour de force of stuff. And I love your pod. I love your channel. I think it's. I think it's sick. Tell people where they should go to check it all out.
- [129:46]
B
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.
- [130:04]
A
And for you, let's run this back soon, dude. I appreciate you.
- [130:06]
B
Let's do it, man. Cool.
- [130:10]
A
If you are looking for new reading suggestions, look no further than the Modern Wisdom reading list. It is 100 books that you should read. Read before youe Die. The most interesting, life changing and impactful books I've ever read with descriptions about why I like them and links to go and buy them. And you can get it right now for free by going to ChrisWillX.com books that's ChrisWillX.com books.