60 Second Theories - Paradigm Drift #11. LIVE! (DemystifySci +447)

0:00Music Music Music Music Music Music Music

1:02Well hello and welcome to Paradigm Drift. My name is Anastasia. I'm Shiloh. And this is the show where we give you the theorist's 60 seconds to present an idea that you think is going to change the world. And this is the first live edition of Paradigm Drift. We've been doing this in a pre-recorded session prior to today. But we are going live. So I hope you guys enjoy this and bear with us. Tell us if there are any problems technically speaking. But if you've been around, maybe you know the rules already. Do you think we should introduce our friend before we go through how this game is going to work? I have no reason why not. Great. So we have a brand new co-host with us today. Perhaps many of you already know this gentleman. He has a fantastic physics YouTube channel called Inductica. And his name is James Ellius. And he is here to ballast our experience.

2:04And thank you very much. Yeah, I'm hoping to weigh it down a little. Keep us keep us tied to reality. Heck yeah. That is exactly what I'm hoping you will do. So James, you've never done the show before. Maybe aware of how this works. But the basic idea is that folks are going to have the opportunity to be pulled out of a hat. I think I don't know how many people. How many people we have signed up right now? We got like 30, 40 people, man. 30, 40 people. All right. We probably got time for if we're lucky, 10 of you. If we're not lucky, maybe somebody's going to blow our mind and take all our time. We'll have the next genius on our hands. But everybody gives a chance. So we're going to give them 60 seconds to present their idea uninterrupted. And if they don't finish in 60 seconds, they're going to hear the timer go off, which is going to sound like. That's about approximately correct. And at that point, you need to wrap up your presentation. If you don't in the next few seconds, then you are going to be interrupted by a gong.

3:07Because this is a gong show. It will sound something like that. And that's when we will cut you off. And we will start the interview portion of the show, which is where we talked to you about who you are, where you came from. You know, people, I think, underestimate the interview side of this. So, you know, even if your theory is not completely about don't hold back. Tell us everything. We want to know who you are. And maybe you have a fantastic interview anyways. And we can point in the right direction to making a better work of science. So the topic set is completely limitless. You can present about economics, consciousness, biology, physics, cosmology. I don't really care. Just don't say anything that's going to get us kicked off of YouTube. I will. I will cut you off very, very quickly. This is interesting doing this live. We've had one guy who talked about overthrowing the UNO watching. And we've just been trees in this topic. Very interesting presentation. It was the great presentation, but we had to act it before we put on YouTube. So don't do that. So I'm going to kick you out. And I don't want to have to kick anybody out.

4:11I don't know. What do you think you guys were getting? We're getting reports that the sound effects were very quiet for everyone. Let me give them another gong so they know what the gong sound. That's very important. Here's another gong. Tell me. That was quite audible, but like still rather quiet. It's not really quiet. A little bit. Just a little bit. Yeah, that's good. All right. The crowd says the gong is sufficient. Excellent. Thank you guys. Yeah, we're going to have to figure out all this stuff to get this going. This is obviously our first live stream of paradigm drift. I think it's going to be exciting though, because this way the chat will live forever too. So by the way, if you're in the Zoom meeting and you're hoping to present, do do do chat over at the YouTube live stream as opposed to in the Zoom chat. Like we did previously for the first time, 10 paradigm drifts. This is paradigm drift 11 chat over at YouTube. It will live forever that way. And people can see all of your adorable comments later.

5:13All right, James, you got any questions, man? Are you excited? No, let's dive in. Let's freaking get this thing going. Do you let's get a couple people on deck? Maybe is the record. All right. All right. So Nazi is going to reach into the camping hat of fate. All right. And so I have to check to make sure that people are in here. Sorry. I'm always running multiple things at once. And so it's a little tricky. Somebody said that there was an echo sound. I don't know if anybody else hears the echo. We are the amount of gear that we have in this studio makes everything a little bit tricky in order to get it to run properly. And so on deck, we have Josephine Tussfeld, who's going to tell us about the Earth's motion. And so Josephine, while we have a few more seconds, just make sure that your camera works, make sure that your microphone works. And when we bring you into present, you are not scrambling to get that settled. And then after Josephine, we have up Thomas Burwell, who is going to present to us on the Echdo theory of the ethical skeptic.

6:22And ethical skeptics are going to do a podcast with us soon. Oh yeah. Exactly. That's an interesting faded pocket for the hat pull. Oh no. All right. So, Shiley, you want to play us a little bit of music? Yeah, I want a little bit of music. And then who we bring on, are we bringing Thomas on? No, Josephine's first in Thomas's and do it. All right. Let's do it. Oops. Music I really quite. Yes. All right. Okay. So, I did say Josephine was first, but I brought Thomas in. So we're going to do Thomas.

7:28And hopefully that is going to work out just fine. Josephine, so you'll be our person on deck. Apologies for that. Guys, how about we welcome Joseph? Guys, let's welcome Thomas to the show. First one. Come on guys. Let's go. There it is. All right. I know this guy. All right. We got a minute on the clock. We do have a minute on the clock. Thank you. All right. So, Nastya's got a minute on the clock for you. Thomas. And we'll count she in. Here we go. One, two, three. Let us have it. All right. So the ECDO theory is the exothermic core mantle decoupling oscillation. So it's a lot of big acronym, but it's the hypothesizes that the earth oscillates between two rotational states, the normal state in which the mantle and the core are held together by magnetic coupling. And then the cataclysmic state ruled by gyroscopic inertia when that coupling fails.

8:32The earth is a geodinomotorling and spinning like a top through space powered by a molten metallic core that generates its magnetic field. When the field weakens, a magnetic grip gives way to the John Beckhoff effect, a sudden instability or wobble in the earth rotation. The wobble produces a world-tilted cataclysm, a rapid 104 degree crust to a chip that violently redistributes oceans as depicted in many cultures flood myths. Yeah. Come on, guys. Come on. Come on. All right. All right. All right. Hey, settle down, guys. It is labeled big applause. Kill the magic. Thomas, awesome. I'm good to see you. Welcome, welcome.

9:33Congratulations for being the first ever guest on a live paradigm, Jeff. That's pretty amazing. Yeah, man. So this is a theory that I have not dug into yet. I was just briefly introduced to it the other day. We had a pre show with Mr. Ethical Skeptic himself. But I must say, how's the beautiful music? He does have a book about it. We should probably read that. Well, reach out to you about the book afterwards. James, did you follow this presentation? Well, there were a lot of words in there that I'm not acquainted with, but I got the general idea. And I have an opening question for you, which is what were the major observations that led you to this to this theory and what is your theory is your theory a theory that's an alternative to accepted ideas about how the earth's magnetic field works.

10:34It's an alternative that so the ethical skeptic he has a pretty big Twitter following, but his real name is Roger Cunningham. He was anonymous until about a year and a half ago, I want to say. And really, I was not at all attracted to this type of theory. But I had followed his work on statistics during the pandemic. And I just really trusted his work. And so when he started talking about this theory, I started looking into it. He actually developed it out of studying the cause of climate change of global warming. And so it started out as an alternate hypothesis to global warming that the warming that we've observed over the past 100 years really is really coming from the geothermal from the Earth's core that the idea is that the magnet when the magnet is just to be clear, we all believe in global warming.

11:40We have no problem with the climate change there that we love it. We're on board. It's great. I'm sorry. I didn't interrupt you. No comment. Yeah, please continue. Well, you know, it's the cause of it. What's causing it? And so the cause as presented by the WHO in the UN or whoever's presenting causes. Yeah. Well, yeah. And what and he agrees with the greenhouse effect and all, but it's just to what extent is what's responsible for it? And the right. The idea is that when the Earth's magnetic fields weekends, which it has is weekend about 11% since 1850. That that decouples the Earth's core from the mantle and that because of that decoupling heat from the core is able to move up basically and that and there has been significant observations of heating of the oceans, which is, you know, right now the oceans, we have the biggest ever El Nino effect.

12:41And so, yeah, Roger, kind of, Hamm is claiming that that's coming from the core of the Earth, not from the atmosphere. So the decoupling means that like the the core is moving with respect to the inner mantle and that and that causes friction, which then leads to heat coming from the core. Is that the idea? I think that the like Thomas is bearing the lead here a little bit because I feel like the the star of the show of active series less about, you know, where is the heating coming from and more we're all going to die. Isn't that it? Well, it's more about the past like it's more about what explains the flood myths throughout the world and the that happened to correspond right with a wide DNA bottleneck bottleneck, where 95% of why DNA was wiped out out about 6000 years ago.

13:42What the hell is wide DNA? Mailed DNA. The boys got killed. Why did the girls survive the flood? We're just better swimmers. We flow. We flow. We flow. The pregnant belly's flow. It's true. It's true. Always the founder population. The question is, what's the problem with Echdo is that like the crust shifts as a whole and the oceans slosh across this shifted crust and create these massive flood myths? Well, the, the crust, what ethical skeptic Roger coming here, he believes that it's a John Beckov oscillation. He doesn't think that the crust is shifting. Let's talk about John Beckov stuff. Can we, is it a baby in your coat? No, no, no, no, let's not hurt ourselves. That was no, it's just don't come out of my throat. The basic idea, this is the spinning lug nut and space thing or whatever, right?

14:47Oh, is that one? So this is kind of cool. Actually, I think it's probably really important to a lot of geodinemism and magnetic polar reversals. And peers got a paper out about this, our bro, Pierre Murray Robotai, which he actually wrote with an airline pilot who propositioned him about it. Well, wait a second, dude, we, oh, I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt. Let me just like lay the software people real quick, James. And then I want to hear what you have to say. The basic idea, and this was a really fun story to tell students in like astronomy class or something too, because the Russians actually the first people to discover this, which is I assume I does a Russian name to it. But they basically noticed this effect where a wing nut came off of a little dude add in their space station, and it was whirling in space as one might expect as it came off of the threaded system. And then it actually reversed the direction in which it was spinning sort of anomalously. It flips, it's been flipped basically, but it continues to spin the entire time.

15:48It's still spinning. And so this led to a bunch of mathematical postulation. And there's all the stuff downstream of it. But the Russians actually sat on this discovery for 10 years, because they were very afraid that this was going to happen to the earth. And the earth was going to periodically invert and God knows what catastrophes would happen. They didn't want to scare the populace they sat on it. A bunch of downstream mathematics decided it wasn't going to happen to the earth. I can't really weigh in one way or the other. But it's that's the basic story. Alright, tell us James. So, so okay, like from from I watched a very Tassian video on this. It's basically a world expert at this point. It's my understanding of this effect, but the tennis racket problem. Yeah, it's the tennis racket thing. So I may I forget it was in the very Tassian video or some subsequent video, but like I really watched the video and understood the math. Maybe it was a follow up video or something, but I watched the video and understood the math behind it. And I don't remember all the details of the map, but I remember one very definite thing, which is that the moment of inertia tensor has to be different in one direct.

16:58It's going to be a lot of time. You can be a moment of inertia in or along two axes and then along a third axis, the moment of inertia needs to be different. So it can't it can't happen if that if if it's not different. In contrast, the core of the earth has the same moment of inertia along all three axes. So couldn't it not happen to the core of the earth? Well, there's actually something called super plumes or L L S V P's that makes it so the earth isn't not quite as symmetrical as you would think. Oh, yeah, they're right at the core of mantle boundary. Yeah, I really like piers read on it, which is the planet Vulcan, right? So the anomalous procession of mercury, he actually attributes to it to one of these tennis rocket shapes of the core. So there's a little bleb on the core, he thinks. To be clear, planet Vulcan is not a theoretical planet. It was the planet that was thought to be somewhere near the orbit of Venus that caused the mercury that caused the anomalous orbit. Yeah, yeah. So kind of a similar situation because we still don't have a very understandable theory for the Poland version of the Sun.

18:04It's a lot of hand waving and ideal gas laws and stuff. So it's it's really interesting. I think the case for the Sun is actually really compelling. The earth thing I don't want to believe in it because I don't want our both. I don't want anything terrible to happen, but yeah, it would make a lot of sense too. Yeah. And I guess the last thing I would add is just that the it explains a few different things as far as you know, I mentioned the global warming. And then there's all these ancient monuments that apparently and Roger kind of him didn't even learn about these until after he had formulated the theory, but they all aligned with the same spot. And then there's the Southern Africa that he had already independently decided was the when the earth goes through this John Beckham oscillation, the North Pole moves to Southern Africa.

19:05Can you say the word again? Is it any big? It's pretty big. So I think that's one of these ancient monuments that are pointed right toward that spot in Southern Africa, which when you're building a new city, you're going to run the roads north and south. And so if that happened to be the North Pole, the former North Pole, then it would make sense that they were aligned to that spot. Cool. And so that's probably the bit. Cool. Well, listen, Thomas. Yeah, by the way, before you go, man, where are you at, by the way, where are you located, physically? I always like to find out something about people before we let them go. Where you are? Yeah, I am in Greensboro, North Carolina. North Carolina. That's right. And what do you do for what's your, how do you feel? How do you pay the bills? I was teaching middle school math for a while right now. I'm just tutoring. Oh, yeah. All right. Cool, man. Well, Thomas has been with us for a long time. I always got interesting stuff, sending us little breadcrumbs in the mail. I really, I really appreciate you, man. You're a really important part of our community. Thank you.

20:10And thank you for presenting. But guys, give Thomas a, let's give him a round of applause and let's, let's move to silence. Oh, you're good. I think. Well, I'm glad I'm in here, because it says my Zoom is not responding. So, time will be better.

21:20Oh, yeah. I'm having some technical difficulties. I'm going to do this other. Hey. Good. Oh, this is never happened before.

22:21You can't get Thomas out of the meeting. The cat is naming him Ningers. Oh, yeah. Oh, all right.

23:23Well, hello. Oh, I'm very dark. I'm sorry. You are very dark. I'm sitting outside. Well, sorry. Yeah. Well, tonight. Yeah, if you turn around so the lights in so the lights shining on your face will work. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you turn around so the lights in so the lights shining on your face will work. Wow. We figured that's a group. Oh, yeah. But all right. Just a few. We can hear you. The video is not fantastic. In the future, light on the face never backlit unless this is an intentional shadowy cabal that is speaking to us. But you have one minute on the clock. Let's hear it out. Oh, right. Oh, wait a minute. Oh, sorry. Yes. All right. All right. You're eight seconds in. Let's go.

24:23Yeah. We have started. Oh, the way the way the earth moves related to the moon influences or forms are world view. It is generally assumed that the earth circles at an unimaginable high speed around the sun. And that the moon circles around the earth at the same time. But what if the earth slightly moves around its own axis in a back and forth continuous rhythmic way face to face with the moon? Well, our universe looks much more simple, more logical and easier observable for all people living here on earth. Here I cite no. Maxwell 1873, the first kind of energy that emotion is called kinetic energy. And when once understood it, it's clear so fundamental effect of nature that we can hardly conceive the possibility of resolving it into anything else.

25:25Sorry. I was just sorry. All right. All right. We got a couple of. We got some questions. There's some questions. So the earth's motion is not as it seems. It's not. It's a question. I think. I've got a journal. We got some German stuff in it. Yeah, no. What's happening? Are you being abducted? Yeah. We have a family weekend. I have a family weekend right now. It's in the middle of the night in the Netherlands. And one of them. That's awesome. And parents just couldn't wait. So what does your family think about your earth moon theory? Well. I didn't tell them. You haven't told your own family about your theory.

26:28Whoa. All right. Well, then why haven't you told them about your theory? Well, no one is really. No one is really interested. So I'm going away because people are complaining. I'm just being loud. Yeah, we're about to lose the audience. We might have to have you come back next time when you have a better reception. This is quite. 911. Where is your emergency? All right. Just be riggin' on. 911. Where is your emergency? I think, Josephine, the connection is not sufficiently good for this. So let's have you back next time. Come next time and we'll pull you out of the hat again. All right. So everything with Newtonian GR coming up next. Bring us back to speed up on the moon next time. And we'll sort of that when you've got a better connection. Because I want to hear more about this.

27:28We'll not on the speed of the wall. Thanks. Bye.

28:33All right. Welcome, David Grishan. You have a minute on the clock. I know that you have been agitating in the chat to get your opportunity. Your opportunity has arrived. Faith has brought you here. Actually, before David gets going, welcome, David. Thank you to the Super Chat. You guys are making sure we can eat dinner tonight. I really appreciate it. We actually, our car just died. I'm going to have a drink. I'm going to have a drink. I really appreciate it. We actually, our car just died. So all the help we can get is actually really small. It is the transmission quite literally exploded. The mechanic is like, I don't know what's wrong with that, but it doesn't look good. We are F. We need to buy a new car. So thank you guys so much. It's going to go towards the center and the new car. I'm not in the meantime. Five dollars at a time. Hey, it matters. It freaking matters. It really matters. It really does. All right. So David, without further ado, blow my mind. Here we go. Okay. So you guys are all about starting a revolution in science is what I look at. I'm not going to get your stuff. And I wrote a five hundred and thirty page book about Newtonian general relativity and how.

29:40One symbol. The five symbol for gravitational. Potential is my. First principle. And in my math is my primitive. And I'm able to replace the tensors with my primitive my gravitational potentials. And I also can calculate GR outside of the structure that Einstein built. He actually started doing it with potentials in 1911. He abandoned it. I figured out the key to do it. All right. You don't even need the full 60 seconds. You figured out the key. You're not going to tell us guys come on. Give them. I admit it's good. This is good. You don't want to give it too much. I think often times. Come on. Come on. Come on. All right. Let's people try to do everything. But they can't do everything in 60 seconds. And so the tease is good. And luckily we have someone who can help us evaluate the period of James.

30:40Where are you at with this? I'm intrigued. What is the motivation for making a. A different theory or. Why. Why have a different theory from the mainstream one? Well, I'm the CDM. Everything for them is dark matter, dark energy, inflation, everything, which I totally disagree with all their. Their model. So I agree with the. What we can see, what we can measure, you know, the data, but I don't like their interpretation at all. And what started me on this was I. When someone mentioned the different speeds, you know, of the galactic rotation. I can't read that. No, no, no, it's okay. I'm telling. I'm telling the people who's on deck. Okay. No one can read that. No, it's anyway. I thought to me, it was just, oh, that's just, you know, time dilation. It's causing it. And so after waiting for someone else to come up with time dilation that causes the gravitational rotation.

31:42Of a galaxy, I decided to start doing a theory on my own. And it just got more and more into replacing dark matter at, you know, not only the galactic rotation, but gravitational lensing and other places that they claim it's there. Plus, I don't have any inflation. Don't have any dark energy. I don't have any singularities. And I do this all through the gravitational potential. My primitive. J. My first principle, my cosmological model and the primitive in my math. I could try to do a screen share on my mercury calculation. Don't do that. Whatever you do. Do not show any math. James, what do you got? Hey, James, lean into your mic. See people are saying you're a little quiet. Oh, so, so, um, get real right up on that mic. You don't think in, you don't think inflation. I'm sorry. So you explain the redshift then through a different mechanism other than inflation by what mechanism. Do you explain it? Damn good question. Uh, redshift is more not inflation because that's before the CMB, but you're talking about dark energy for redshift.

32:49So in my model, the original physics comes up potentials is not the minus GM divided by R that is the equation we use for gravitational potential. The original physics is plus GM divided by R and the difference in my model is. For gravitational wells, the more mass you have in a smaller location, the more time slows down and of course the negative symbol tracks matter into the smaller radius with original physics was it push matter out. Okay, it's just the opposite and the closer matter is into a smaller circumference area, time speeds up faster. So it's just the opposite effect. So during the time before the CMB when the acoustic oscillations were happening, the very own acoustic oscillations were happening, there are a little vector points in there and that caused like the first gravity wells. So when these first gravity wells started, they started sucking in while the original physics was still pushing.

33:52So you have the original physics pushing matter into the gravity wells, whether the new physics, what we live in today, was sucking it in and the standard model uses dark matter to speed up the process. Well, I don't need that and because time dilation is much faster than what we have today, everything would happen really fast. Mayday, mayday, going down. James, what the hell is going on? I don't know. I don't need to. I'm well, would you, can you tell me how that constitutes an answer to my question or do you get on to a different track? You mentioned redshift. Yeah, so how does that relate to redshift? I mean, that all sounds very interesting, but I just wanted to know that. You asked about the distance ladder or how that comes together or the Hubble tension, specifically or what you asked. Well, no, there's like a thing that's called redshift.

34:52Oh, I know. I still have, I still have redshift. Right, but what causes it? Well, it's expansion of the galaxy. The whole universe rather. Yeah, well, that's not the end. Oh, okay. I thought you said there was no expansion. So it's like, that's interesting. How do you explain it then? I don't have dark energy. Got it. I see. So there's still expansion, but there's accelerating. Through my plus jam divided by R. I see. Okay. Got it. I see. We just, we, we, we, we missed one very crucial detail in there. So, um, okay. I don't know what to do. Look, I, I hate to say this as somebody that also has a theory of physics. I'm like, whenever somebody gives me a theory of physics, I'm like, I thought it's nice. I just don't really know. I don't, I, I feel so cruel. I just don't know what to do with it. I'm like, maybe it works. Maybe it does. I don't think it's cruel. I just, uh, I don't, I, here's the thing, man.

35:53Here's what I'm going to do for you. I'm going to tell you exactly what's up. Here's what's up. You didn't tell us what the problem was. You didn't tell us what's talked about, Doc matter. You didn't tell us what sucks about the redshift interpretation. And you didn't tell us how you improved it. So, when you come back next time, David, what I want you to do. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Just wait a second here. I haven't heard in bail. Explain what they were trying to fix. That was wrong. Well, that's, that's a, absolutely fair. I guess we got the climate change thing, but you're right. You're absolutely right. That's a fair point. I didn't criticize other people for that. I should have. The problem is that we don't understand what's, I have my own opinions about what's wrong about that stuff, but they seem to be very different than yours. So, maybe you can tell us what's, yeah, go for it, man. I'll give you the chance to tell us what's wrong with the theory of dark matter. And then tell us what you're doing to improve upon that. Okay. So, the problem with dark matter is we've been trying to prove it for decades, and there's no evidence of it. To me, when we measure galactic rotation, we should be measuring velocity plus time dilation at the same time.

36:55When we have the time dilation, and you don't want to hear about the math, but it only keeps everything at the speed limit of one or less for time. And my model says, you can't do that because gravitational potential is, that's what makes the curvature of space. The curvature of space is what makes time dilation. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. What is time? Well, in my model, it is the expansion of space time itself. No, well, what is that? Is it just measured metrics or what? What is that? You're asking a very difficult question. No, no, I'm just asking like a simple question. Like, if time is at the center of your presentation, what is time? Is it just what the clock says are measuring? Is it what the fuck is it? Time is the forward progression of anything. So, in my model at the, at the vaporizing of a black hole, there's no more progression. Time stops there. Why? Because there's no more expansion. So, why is that, but that's circular. You're just pointing back to, well, I mean,

37:57let me go ahead, James. James, cut in. Well, well, I'm going to actually get on your case a little bit here, Shy Logan. You don't need to, about time, you do, somebody, somebody come after me. You don't need to have an explanation of every single thing in your screen. I just wanted a definition of that explanation. But you don't, well, here's the thing. Like, you don't, so, so he's, he's, he's, he's talking about, um, you, you basically, a theory doesn't need to explain everything in order to be a good theory. That's all I'm going to say. 100%. 100%. I just want to know what the operational terms are signifying so that I can follow it. Like, if you, if time is the central piece of your presentation, you don't have an ambiguous, non-circular definition for that term, then nobody knows what you're talking about. Literally nobody has any idea like people have these things. Well, I felt like I kind of knew what you were talking about.

38:58Okay. Can you restate it? Can you restate it? Me? No, no, James. I want to hear if James can still mend a presentation. So, okay, it was a part I agreed with, and then there was a part that I didn't understand. So the part I agreed with was that it's forward progression. And I took that to mean it's the process of change of any individual object, and which is, which is my own view of time, is that it is just the process of change. But then David, you moved into say that it has to do with the expansion of, of the universe. Tell me more about how the change of individual things is the same thing as the expansion of the universe. Okay. So, the expansion doesn't just happen between large clusters of galaxies like in the standard model. And my model, because of the time dilation fact that's built into my model, I have expansion happening between here and the Portland area where you guys are at. And between you and the computer, between yourselves, between the strong and nuclear, weak nuclear forces,

40:00between everything down to the plank level. So, expansion in my model is through everything. And then I also don't have any expansion that violates C like the standard model does. And they say, oh, well, it's because it's not causally connected. Well, we're still measuring it. How can it be not because they connected? But my expansion model goes through everything. And that forward progression is what causes the flow of time. At the event horizon of a black hole, that time stops. Okay. Because there's no more expansion there. Nothing can move at that point at that place. Sorry. Sorry, guys. Guys, chill out. Chill out. Be nice. Jesus. Sorry. Audience, it's real. Well, how does, how, well, I'm still, I'm still confused how expansion would cause change. You're saying like all change or like time itself, also known as like just change of individual objects. Like is caused by expansion? Um,

41:00how, how? Well, uh, in my model, because I see the event horizon as the perfect balance of entropy. Okay. In my model. Okay. So when I'll show you how. The thing that makes my math work in my, uh, replacing tensors with the potentials is, uh, I thought to myself one time ago. If my hub model has a time I could think it does, then every event horizon should have the same gravitational potential. And I didn't know that they did at the time. And so I got up the next morning and I saw that they did have the same gravitational potential. What I didn't know was that it equaled minus c squared divided by two. The textbooks, I guess, have it in there. I didn't know that. So it took me several days to figure out that that was the speed of light, the negative speed of light squared divided by two. And that's that very thing there is what I use to calculate Newtonian, uh, the, uh, tensors calculations without the tensors.

42:03If you want me to, I can show you just a simple formula. But I can also do a outside of Einstein. Let's, let's not do that. Let's not do that. Let's talk about your shirt actually. Uh, so do you can, are you on the set side of, uh, are you on the set side? Like would you consider yourself more on the set side than the jet I said? Because, uh, depends on what, depends on what version of Star Wars rewards were watching. That's what I fucking thought. That's what I fucking thought. Um, yeah, I think we're, I think we're gonna have to let you go, man. Where does it look like a no-sit zone? I'm just saying like, uh, we can have a little, uh, you know, lightsaber battle off to the side. But, uh, you're good guys always win. You know what I'm saying? Uh, I got a friend who's a Seth, uh, to be fair, although our friendship is great. Okay, so wait a minute. I just question for you guys real quick. I have figured out how to replace Einstein's tensors and you guys who want to demystify, because it goes through special relativity too. My same potential ratio goes through special relativity. It goes through general relativity.

43:03And it's on my, you could see examples of it on my ex account. All right, dude. When you look at this, man, I'm sure you're fucking brilliant. Put your ex account, like put it in the chat on YouTube right now. People want to know about your theory. Um, so why don't you share it? I, yeah, and I'm not going to say anything else, whatever. James, you got anything else, dude? I think we should keep this moving along, please. I think the main thing I would say is, is, um, um, work on your communication. Um, I, I can't say whether your theory is, is good or bad, because I, I, I didn't, I, I want in, in, I, and we didn't give you much time, of course. But in keeping in mind this situation where we didn't have much time, really work on trying to communicate one major idea, like our last contestant, he, he told us the main thing and I, and I felt like I got it. The Earth's magnetic field may turn around because of the Russian guy effect. And, and this might explain why, um, the poll used to be in a different location, maybe because that's the way cities used to be oriented.

44:10Like, you can see I was able to, okay, okay, I was able to remember some stuff about that. You guys, you guys, I presented, I have math. I'd like to show you just the form. Math never helps. That's the problem with math is that like, you can show us the equation, but if we don't have a good sense of what it is that you're trying to tell us, the math doesn't clear. Like it in the chat. The math just obscures. Yeah, throw it in the chat, man. It was good to meet you. Come back next time. Give us some place that we can sink our teeth into so we can actually tell somebody else about the theory as it stands. All right, thank you. Guys, give them a hand. Come on, come on. Sorry for that wrong note. Oh, Matt's coming.

45:25I apologize. I didn't know I was on this place, my coffee. Sorry. Off-ray. Oh, no, man. Is it a little late for coffee? No, the business man is staying. Listen, I'm also balancing it with far too little sleep. So I apologize. I'm learning all these different things. Oh, we're live. Fantastic. We are in the first ever live paradigm drift. Congratulations. You are one of the select few. You're part of freaking history. And I guess I'm one of my favorite internet personalities on earth. The memes are just you caught me early. So I didn't fill up the board with random access things. I'll keep it simple. And this is an exercise for the audience. Guys, there's plenty time for that. Let's welcome Matt to the show. I freaking love Matt.

46:25Okay, give me a hand. Matt is everywhere and nowhere. And we never have any idea what he's getting so close. I'm sure it's something. I'm just kidding. All right, Matt, we got a minute on the timer. Nassu is going to count you in. Here she goes. All right, one, two, three. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let's do it fair. The root of action. What the heck is this? I think it kind of. All right, let's go. All right. I'm going to write very, very simple. We're going to have. Here's your one constant. You can argue with this. But one of the reasons I'm showing this and I told Professor Keating this early is I have to push back because. What it looks like and I could be totally wrong is. This might actually bolster the claim for Planck's constant. All right, you got your H bar elementary unit of action. Okay. We're going to take the square root of that.

47:25Okay. That's basically it. Why do I say that? It's the square root of action. One is that. Okay. I'll give you your normal units. You got a mass. You got a light squared. You got over time. Okay. Apparently. This actually has dimensional coherence. With a number of things already understood in physics, which is fantastic because. I didn't know that was a thing. Well, from Alpha just told me it was a thing. I started looking into it. It's like, all right. It covers the electoral magnetic stuff. It seems to do standard harmonic oscillator stuff. I'm like, WTF me. Okay. Hey. All right. I hold that. I wonder how it keeps sight as I would have liked. So now I'm ready to show us. The main argument is when I looked into it initially, what I was able to deduce is this is something that has to do with winding coils.

48:28So we're doing something physical. Winding coils and basically the heat put off by an idealized or whatever magnetic motor. Okay. Something is spinning. There's some friction. It's giving off heat. The weird thing is this constant has nothing to do with the number of windings. Okay. That's good because I have no idea what the windings do. I'm not one of those Tesla dudes. I'm like, I don't understand all that stuff. I just have to do it like the physical amount of stuff and it's rate of rotation or spinning angular momentum. That's technically what action is. You've got some momentum. It goes the distance. Okay. Or maybe it's spinning. Maybe that counts as a distance there. We got a surface. We got a mass. And it's traversing time. Whatever that heck that might be. Okay. The sheer fact that one of the things I've taken away from at least this community a lot of times we'll kind of get together and discord people be talking. The number one thing I've taken away is words matter and having a common vocabulary makes a fricking huge difference.

49:35I think we're kind of seeing that somebody will say something. And they may have literally figured out the solution to life, the universe, anything. That might actually be true. Maybe it is 42 or maybe 42 point the different story. But the fact that being able to communicate in a common language so that I can talk to you. You can talk to me. Somebody can ask literally like the socratic method. You can like people can engage. And if you're confident doesn't help. It doesn't hurt if you're actually have some basis in reality. You should be confident because if your idea gets knocked down that happened with bomby and McCanx bomb goes there dying. And I said no this doesn't work. Maybe you could do something. He wrote something. It just happens to require additional variables, whatever those might be. But what I found was personary just looking into it. It's like okay, there happens to be dimensions within our physical world that seems correspond. Seems to be a distance. We seem to live in a volume here.

50:35Time seems to pass again. Whatever the heck that might be. Mass seems to have some. Oh, sorry. No, I'm rambling. Cut me off. James. James. James. Don't look to me for your salvation. That's why that's why we hired you. That's how you're getting paid for this. I'm not. Maybe you need a little more of that coffee because I'm just not understanding where I say you you put your square rooting planks constant, which ends up with square with with square rooting. I should have actually said what the heck it is. I apologize. I it's called the motor size constant. This is what at first I just thought it was something within like the automobile realm. And I look further into it literally in the past week. The plank automatically. And then I'm like, wait, wait, wait. I don't want to say chat. CBT says all these things and everything.

51:35But I actually went into it by looking at something else for stochastic mechanics. It dropped drew me down this road. And it's like, okay, go through. At least some of the initial equations for like. Matt, what is the question? Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. What is the problem we're solving here? Okay, that's a great question. So the kind of the kind of the more you guys got a problem in. Confused right now that I was with the last presentation. The last presentation, I had some sense of what it was about. Like it was true. We gave him a really hard time because we didn't tell him why his theory mattered. He didn't tell us why his theory mattered. But I should be tearing me apart. I know what this is about. Don't let me read. You know, you got to work on the presentation, man. But try again. Tell me which. He does have a fucking cool headband though to be fair. Well, here's the last such a crazy idea. That's true. A little bit of bent on the backboarder. And tell about literally the past.

52:35I'm not going to lie. I avoided using any large language model to look into it. But then I go through the. What the claim is when plank the belt, this constant, a lot of it was at least according to some videos I saw on YouTube again. Take that as it would. As a hack. What do I need to put in place to solve this problem? You've dressed in a wavelength. You got to plant this original constant there. It the dimensions of it happened to line up with what was called action. He's like, what if I consider it? And if it was that we treat it like that. And that seems to be a factor that has a has a limit. It has a limit that seems to be that it's quantized. Right. We're going to actually get in this. That's what you're met your momentum is. Then you have a distance traveled. It's going to come up to a conserve quantity. Okay. And then we got quantum mechanics and stuff like that. The claim is there may already be a whole bunch of well studied research that just uses different words.

53:39Well, that's a. Okay. So you're trying to say that there's a bunch of different places where people are talking about the same thing, but they're not actually yet talking about the same thing because they have not figured out this root of action as being the piece that bridges all of these different fields. Who the hell just. Yeah. Yeah. 100% agree. It's it's it's it's I just sit there because I'm a dreamer with a mathematical notebook. So it's like, I can do this. And also Dan kind of encouraged me just because he's like, look into this, look into this because like, I don't have any history and any of that stuff. But I just look at that. There seems to be literature. I at least go through some of the equations to like how they express it. But my main claim to push back on Kirchhoff's law is at least for the black body stuff. They say it's an idealized thing. I'm like, all right. An idealized thing you're going to take at the some limit or a constraint within reality.

54:39This thing is basically. You've got some type of call it a body, maybe an actor might be a better term. But when it undergoes action, there's going to be heat dissipation in some form, some form entropy call it whatever you want some dissipation of stuff. And it isn't that what planks constant is basically doing. It's comparing a temperature to a frequency input this and back. And then you have that E term there and it gives you the basically the shape space. So to speak there now everything that just came out of my mouth might be complete BS. I think that's not enough to know either way. That's why it is basically a call for help. If people are interested, you're going to you should come to our live stream. You should you come out. We're going to get into planks constant and we're going to try to make sense of that. I think it has to I think all the evidence points to a shape change of the atom. And we're going to talk about what the hell that would relate to with respect to light.

55:40I would like to be able to walk away from this presentation with the ability to tell somebody what I have learned and I have not reached it yet. So you're squaring H bar. And on the other side, we have the square root of mass, the square root of length squared, which okay, like length squared if we if we had to take the square root of it, that makes sense. And the square root of time. What does it mean to take the square root of mass and the square root? It's my 10 seconds of salvation here is the thing ends up being what's called the motor size constant. The claim idealized would be if it works for a motor, it's an actual thing. What if these bodies are actors are literally acting like motors and dissipating heat. And that could help explain what is going on again. Insert precision. I like that. I like that body is acting as motors. I'm interested. Motors are essentially much bodies acting together in concert. I'll take a moment on. Yeah, I'll buy that. No worse place. James. James come on. Hey, Matt. Matt, have you seen fractal woman's interpretation of Planck's constant?

56:45It's the cycle thing with the full thing. I do like that. I think in a lot of places it works. You have to be careful because a cycle is kind of like you're doing like two pie radians. When you get four pie is that two cycles is that's the radians or because you could. It gets very interesting on the interpretation there and it does make a different. I totally would be a great guy. I just I just figured that there's you know the ethers. I mean like very vaguely speaking. It's just the reason is the ether is oscillating and Planck's constant is telling us how much energy happens in the ether per hurt. That's just sort of vaguely the way I. Hi, I'm sorry. I mean, there's nothing solid there. I'm not sure what you mean. It's forbidden. Oh, God. Why is there something other than nothing? I put on the K-10 to the 30. Yeah. How does it proton keep protoning? How does it keep having mass and charge? How does it? I don't know.

57:45Maybe it's getting it from somewhere. I guarantee is the that there will be science for the next thousand years. That's true. Next time I want to understand better how the root of action applies. How it serves as the root of action across multiple different domains because that was the claim that we started with. We never landed there. And if you can. I'm not gonna lie. I thought I had 15 more minutes so I could actually figure out a plan. I'm like, let me tell you. I was a one last question. Oh, all right. I have one last question. At the physics. If you're a part of the physics monastery, are you still allowed to have sex? Why wouldn't you? Monks. I just wanted to know. I just wanted to know. That's good. That sounds like the answer. Mine is sending of the physics monastery is that a sex is actually a very foundational element of. That's the answer. I mean, that would be a close to all different levels of consciousness. And again, with the reason, don't hurt people.

58:45Yeah, you guys can all go with that after this. And it seems like sex is an important part of the project. That's what I get. That's what I get. Anyways, Matt, we love you, man. You fucking awesome. Thanks guys. We'll keep working on everybody. Matt, we're coming to this idea. Bring it back. I want to hear more about it. Guys, give me a hand. Come on. All right. Next time. Come on. More than that. That's it. All right. And we have Carl Dietz coming up and on deck, we have Stephen Elliott. We're going to get out of here. We're going to get out of here. Can you do it again, Matt? Can you do it again, Matt?

1:00:02All right. All right. Welcome, Carl Dietz. Hello, everybody. Excellent. We have a minute on the clock for you. And I look forward to hearing what you've got. Let's do it. Okay. Let's do it. You know what I did? Wait, I'm waiting for the 59th. Let's count in one, two, three, go. Okay. Charmers calls it the hard problem. Why does brain activity produce subjective experience? I call that the medium problem. The easy problem is explaining what consciousness does, how we perceive, how we remember, how we decide, how we report. The truly hard problem is getting humans to stop treating human consciousness

1:01:06as primary and ultimate when we can't even explain what it is or how unconscious universe produces it. That's the hard problem, getting humans to wake up. What if our assumptions are backwards? What if our brains don't manufacture consciousness, but organized it in the bounded experience of a particular being like you for it? What if human consciousness is one local closure within a much larger field of possibilities? There are research questions, not conclusions here. Consciousness closure and the cosmos asks whether consciousness appeared only after the universe became complex or whether it was implicated in the universe's capacity to be organized at all. Perhaps we've been solving it from the wrong point of view. Alright, there we go. Alright, I mean, we're big skeptics of the hard problem of consciousness being hard.

1:02:09I have not yet... We've actually got a podcast coming out about that on Tuesday. We do, in fact. But we have not yet come across somebody who's like, you know what? The hard problem of consciousness is not hard enough. And so this is the first time that I've seen it. It's the medium problem. Okay. Alright, let's take that apart. And so you're basically, it seems like you're saying that the hard problem of consciousness is not like, how is it that human consciousness arises? It is how consciousness arises at all in a universe that at base does not seem to be conscious. Atthe the human. That's the problem. You're speaking as a human right now. It looks like consciousness is part of the universe because you're a human with your bias. It's just like anthropomorphism. Human things, everything is them. Even with my bias, obviously consciousness is here. So it must be fun. That's the only thing you really know. But it must be part of the universe. I don't even know if the rest of us are conscious, don't you?

1:03:11I mean, we keep arguing as L.M. A lot of language models conscious. But is that guy conscious? I'm not so sure. Let's make sure. Alright, so any discussion of consciousness needs to start with a definition of what the hell consciousness is. Let's do it according to my theory. Let's do it according to anything you know. Absolutely. I see consciousness as an uppercase C. And it has no content when it's uppercase C. I see that same consciousness as lowercase C whenever there's content. So you're all living in lowercase C. It's exactly to find it. To find it, bro. Everything filled with content is lowercase C. Consciousness with content. You're rarely able to see what it would be like without content because you're in the human brain. So consciousness is content. What is it? I don't understand where you're saying this. Okay. You're going way too fast because I just need a definition of consciousness because I can't understand. Any other words. Okay. Okay. Consciousness is presence.

1:04:11You understand that. It's presence. That's what it is. Like awareness. Content. No, it's like awareness. Just like awareness. Not just like awareness, but like awareness. Okay, just stay with me. Presence is what you're asking about. You said what is consciousness. It's presence. You know presence, but you only know it with content. I don't think you've ever experienced presence without content because you're human. You're human brain. Now, always this full of content, even if you think it's not full of content, the very next second you have content. So content is like content, kind of like narrative or something like some structuring of reality. Okay, narrative is a closure. So this thing about closure consciousness closure, the cause most closure is every time you have content within consciousness. That's a closure. And it has something outside of it called remainder. The content inside your closure is what you're talking from right now. You're full of content, full of content, even so much content. You're skipping to the next sentence without even waiting to see what the first word meant.

1:05:12Content content content content. That's who you are. You're lower KC. But you are exactly what uppercase C is without content. Everyone in this room is a little baby island of little C and the islands think they're all looking at these different little consciousness. But they're all connected at the same root, the same consciousness pervasive across everything. So you're just experiencing consciousness, the most primitive thing before the universe as lower KC with closure with content. So consciousness with content is lower KC. That's what you are. Isn't this kind of like a platonic theory where there's some consciousness form that is the ideal form and then when there's a closure. That's so wonderful. It's a content you're talking about. Plato's content. This cave is content. Everything is content content content. Try to get all the way back before the bang. What is there? There's just uppercase C and no consciousness of content.

1:06:13Okay. So you see you think that consciousness is like a primary substance that fills the universe. It's even so primary that it's so basic that you can't even see it. It's so basic that you can't even use a word for it because then you'll have content. And so to be is to be something. That's what a lower KC would say to be is to be something to think. Therefore I am. I'm going to start calling James a lower KC from no one. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, he's so conscious like an island. So uppercase C consciousness is. It's a state without content. Correct. No, you got it. It's consciousness that isn't conscious of anything. No content. So right. So it's not conscious because it like there's no content. So it isn't aware of anything because there's not. Just and by the way, this is the problem I brought up in my 14th second point is that a human thinks that their consciousness is everything.

1:07:18So you can't even imagine consciousness before a human consciousness. There's consciousness is at the basics of everything. You can argue the big bang came out of consciousness, but not your consciousness, not humans. James has got nothing in that moment. And I may be I became an uppercase C. You wish you wish. Yes, you could. Yes. You could. Yes. What's the problem that you're solving? Okay. Here's the problem. Every theory of consciousness, no matter how you break it down is going to have four to five or six to seven assumptions. And they're all unprovable. My idea is completely provable. You can prove it wrong. So you can actually take mine and prove it wrong. How? Well, first of all, you're going to have to get behind uppercase C lower KC and move into closure, the CL part closure is the content inside consciousness.

1:08:20Now that you got a closure, you have a remainder on the outside. The remainder is not nothing. It's not noise. The remainder is the closest misfit to the closure. For example, let's say the set of all odd numbers. Well, the even numbers are right there at the edge of that. And that's the remainder of that set. But if you have a remainder, if you move this far along, you get the remainder, we can prove whether there is a remainder in the closure. Okay. But so like this is, so it's really, really interesting because like Shia said, this does tie really tightly into the conversation that we're going to release on Tuesday where we spoke to a scholar of classical Chinese literature. And he studied the Tao Tao Qing and he made this case that in Eastern philosophy, the idea that something could be separated from the remainder is in some ways absurd. And so yeah, because it's a closure. Well, right. And so the idea that we're talking about there being, you know, this substance that is somehow separated from the contents of our own awareness.

1:09:24And we're giving it some kind of ontological primacy, despite the fact that it is literally nothingness seems. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you have introduced so many pieces of content. And you didn't even track them as you did it. And that's the problem with everyone talking, talking, talking. They just throw this content, that content. These closures I'm talking about, like Hillary Lassen will tell you, they have closures of closures of closures and they get so tangled up with closures. It's like a Tao Tangle on site inside and brain. So here's what we're talking about. We're talking about remainder. Whenever you do a closure, you use my example of the odd numbers. You've got a remainder that you could understand as part of the numbers, but it's the even numbers. So they're not part of my closure. Well, where are they? They're right next to it. They're the closest misfit to your closure. So every closure you have is got another remainder with another closure. You can't keep through it. The Tao is correct because if you go all the way back to the very beginning, the Tao is eternal.

1:10:25The consciousness is there. It's nothing in it. There's just nothing to fill it. But that's not nothingness. That's something. It's uppercase C. It's existing right there. James, do you have any closing thoughts? As you move between uppercase C and lowercase C. Is there anything inside that closure? I know that's not a couple of minutes. I didn't have a JC for the last couple minutes here. So yeah, in closure, it's pretty. Yeah. Yeah. It's all so much. It's all so much. I think that was a kazoo. All right, Karla. Okay, so what did we solve? We just, we solved one big problem. I only need one assumption for the whole theory to work and be provable right around. All right, Karla. Come back next time and we will see you again. Tell us more about the closure and the consciousness. Excellent. You got it. Who's on deck? We have Stephen Elliott, who's coming up and Kyle Trimba is on deck.

1:12:16All right. Welcome, Stephen Elliott. We have seen you once before. This time you are not coming to us from the lobby of a country club. It was a much more neutral background that I imagine you were not far away. It was 60 seconds on the clock. Ready when you are. Okay. If the flying spaghetti monster, who's atoms are made out of galaxies, we're to try to check the shape of... Oh no. Oh my friend, your connection is not good enough. We're going to have to send you back into the Nether Regions, figure out the Nether World. Another region is different. Figure out your connections. We'll see you again. This connection faded into capital city. All right.

1:13:24Kyle Trimba, you are up. Make sure you got a good connection for us. All right.

1:14:36Kyle is not coming online. So we're going to keep moving. We got another Kyle. We have Kyle's spot. Kyle's got in here. All right. Getting promoted to panelists, my friend. Hi. You hear me? Yes, I can hear you, Kyle. Oh, thank you. All right. Welcome to second Kyle. Kyle's sketch. You have a minute on the clock. When ever you are ready. Hold on. Oh. Beautiful. Chris B. I know.

1:15:36I really appreciate it. Before you even get started. All right, guys. Get it. Kyle. Okay. Yeah. Okay. If you model Pi as a full spectrum transmission speed, oil is number as a full spectrum torque, and prime and composite number groups as points of magnitude and fixed lines of sight, you can model a system of self-organizing dimensionless points that resembles a mathematical multi-spectrum turbine that grows from the center outwards. This is my oil or turbine. I use it to model the system of self-organizing dimensionless points. With this oil or turbine, I can create different environments and then use these different environments to model different spinners. These spinners very much resemble the elements in the periodic table. I create these spinners using a concept called the point of existence. If a dimensionless point balloons outwards pass the point of existence against mass. If it stretches outwards to less than the point of existence, it becomes a massless force.

1:16:37The force plus the mass equals a spinners atomic weight. Thanks for listening. I hope you asked lots of questions. All right. Excellent. There it is. Excellent. Thank you. Someone tracked it. A full thought. A full thought. I'm so glad. I'm so glad. I'm so glad. I'm so glad. I'm so glad. I'm so glad. You've certainly won the minute because you're pretty much on the dot there. Go ahead, James. Go ahead. Fantastic. Okay. So is this a theory of everything? Because it sounds like you're trying to explain lots of different phenomena using just one mathematical premise. Is that what's going on here? What is this? What does this seek to explain? What's the motivation of this? Oh, okay. I don't know. I just got this idea in my head. Instead of using equations to map them, the dimensional objects, I can use the equations themselves from the structure of them to map dimensionless points and then create a system of dimensionless points to create a relationship.

1:17:38And then I just kind of treat like the elements as if they're like the system that moves the dimensionless points around. So dimensions points are like conserved points of magnitude. They balloon outwards to fill their environment. And that gives it the energy that passes through to the next energy level, then the next energy level. So it starts like with hydrogen in the center. Then the next energy level becomes a helium. Then the next one becomes a lithium. And the idea is it's converted in potential energy into kinetic energy to push the element further out of the model. Does that make sense? No. Okay. So. It's what it's trying to explain the way that you would explain it to a child, like a slow child. Do you have children? Oh, okay. Okay. So I take a pie. I use it as a transmission speed. So I take the formula.

1:18:38A transmission speed of what asks the slow child? Okay. So it's talking about the conference of a circle. So in the center of the model, the conference of a circle is three. And then the trans, the torque, which would be where there's E is also three. But as we get more rotational symmetries per every dimensional point, as you go further out, you go higher with the transmission speed and lower with the torque. The torque like where there's E will. Kyle, you seem to fucking smart for us. I'm, unfortunately, sorry. Okay. I already had a good video. That's what we need here at Paradigm Drift. So thank you so much. Second of all. Who the fuck are you? You practiced the presentation and make sure it was more meaningful. I want to know who you are. Like are you? What are you? What do you do? What are you? Who are you? I'm a self-employed refrigeration mechanic. No, chef. No, chef. That's amazing. I do. I do lots of physics on it. Let's just say, you know what I said, you're doing, so, like, I do it, I'm doing it. It's just like, you know, I'm not like that. You know what I mean, you're doing it. and stuff like that. That's amazing. I do lots of physics on the level of a building, you know.

1:19:40Yeah. You guys probably know physics better than most people in the academy. That's amazing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just don't know how to communicate it to you. We'll figure it out. Dude, we'll work with you. Come on. Let's make this ritual. So hold on one second, dude. Yeah. I want to know a little bit more about you. So where are you at physically? Where are you at? Calgary Alberta. Alberta. Oh, that's fun. I'm in Calgary, Alberta right now, too, actually. I just can knock on the wall really quick to make sure that you're not next door to each other. No, no, no. It's a random apartment somewhere. All right, Kyle. Yeah, right. Yeah, I happen to be in Alberta right now. All right, Kyle, dude. Let's break this down. Hold on. Why did you start thinking about this first of all? You work on refrigerators. Why in the hell are you working on pile of a sudden? Let's start there. Okay. Well, I used to watch a lot of like videos of what's going on in the world and that got the way I switched to all the like science and math videos. And then I could relay a lot of things that I do to what you guys do. And then I could start seeing where people were running the problems.

1:20:41I'm like, hey, this looks so similar to things already do. And then I'm able to correlate it to a machine because the relationship of these equations, if you treat like dimensional points, it has all the characteristics of a turbine. Do you have a background in mathematical science at all or something? Or why do you think mathematically like this? I don't know. That's crazy, dude. I'm not trying to fuck with you. I think it's really important. I personally don't think mathematically, but I meet people who do it. I'm really interested when that's like, have it hasn't it been like this? So when in the YouTube chat just said autism? No, it's bad ass. I think it's really cool. James is more like that than me, honestly. James is more mathematician than me. I really respect mouth. I am. Yeah, dude, for sure. You fucking tutors. You fucking tutors. Quantum mechanics, bro. Yeah. I'm not good at hydrogen. What are we looking at? What are we looking at? Is this beautiful? Hold on one second. Let's check this out. So that's my spinner for hydrogen.

1:21:42And it's like the mass plus the force. It creates a shape to shift the center of mass, center of balance outside the center of mass. So it can escape the center of the universe. And it comes out as a hydrogen. And then we have energy shells. We're in the second energy level. No, fourth energy level in the second energy gap, which is the first full spectrum transmission. Hold on, let's not let we got. We can only deal with that. This little child is lost. So. Were you following that presentation about the rushing guy effect? You mean you come. Were you following that at all? So yeah. Have you ever tried to relate that to spinners before? I don't. I'm sorry. I don't know. I think that might be an interesting lead for you to trace down honestly. Yeah. So spin flip is a problem or an it's a phenomenon. Yeah. And so spin flip is, you know, notoriously one of the most difficult to track down, but instrumental signals that we get from space because prior to spin flip signals, we weren't able to actually view a neutral hydrogen.

1:22:47And so the spin flip problem might be really interesting with respect to your spin theory of hydrogen. Anyways, I'll just kick that to you. You can take it home and think. James, what the what do you got man? What's going on? Where do you have it? I, I, I, um, I think. It's very important to when you use abstractions to relate them to reality. I don't know if you're failing to do that because I haven't understood what you're saying. But I have a strong feeling that. Like you're not relating the abstractions to reality. Like you mentioned the center of the universe. I don't think there's any evidence that we're aware of a center of the universe. So like, okay, yeah. No, no, I'm not. Hang on, hang on, hang on before we go to your comment. I'll finish, which is. It's in science. The observations need to come first. Like whenever you have an abstraction, it needs to fully come. You need to fully connect that to the observations and reasoning steps that prove that abstraction.

1:23:50And, um, I, when you, when you do that, not only are, you know, do you have the chance of being right. If you don't do it, you're wrong immediately. If you do do it, you have a chance of being right. And then also you'll end up having an easier time explaining it to everyone. So in, in your case, just to be really frank, and I want you to continue on your journey and do the best you can. So like, take this, you know, take this as a constructive comment, take this with love. But like, it sounds like you're not connecting your abstractions to reality. That's the number one piece of advice I give you. Okay. So I'll probably have to change my language a bit because when I say center of the universe, I probably shouldn't say that center of the model. I'm mapping relationships using equations. I don't really think that I'm like doing particle physics here, right? But I'm finding these unbreakable relationships that already exist inside the equations to map environments and then get energy to conform to that environment. If that makes sense.

1:24:51Dude, I fucking love you, man. I take love you, dude. This is so awesome that fucking refrigerator, but repairmen are working on the fucking spinner theory of hydrogen. Like that, it actually gives me hope in the universe, man. Like I truly love what you're all about, man. I don't follow you yet. And I think that if we do a few more of these, like I will. And I genuinely believe in my soul that you have something to offer to this conversation that we're having here about the nature of hydrogen, the nature of atomic, the nature of the ether, the nature of all of these fundamental mathematical phenomena that have no material basis. I'm really interested in your tech on it. I think it needs to be fine a bit more. And I think you can do it. And I'm super stoked to have you join this community. And I'm really, really excited to have you here. Kyle's been around for a long time. Oh, really? Yeah. I see. I see him all over the place. I can't pinpoint exactly where I see you, but I see Kyle's spot. I'm on the Sunday salon, which is fun to watch. Dude, you're mine. You guys are really fucking everyone that goes on.

1:25:51There's so much fun. Dude, I love you, man. I don't know what to say. I just, uh, some, I've meet some people and I'm just like, this guy is exactly what we need. I don't, you're not there yet. It's okay. I'm not there yet either. I'm still working it out myself, man. But, uh, you're on the right track, dude. I think that James's point where it's like the, if you can begin with, with some specific system that you are trying to explain. And then you describe some phenomenon that is yet unknown or yet unexplained and then say, okay, so there's this open problem. And what I have is I have a solution for the open problem. And this is how I think that it works. Then we have someplace where we can start because we can start to build a, a model in our minds. Because when you start to explain the way that the turbine works and the way that like torsion fits into it and pie and everything else. I'm working really hard to understand how all of these things fit together. And what I'm left with is I'm left, you know what?

1:26:51There's no closure. If I can call back to Carl Dietz, there's no ability of taking the thing that you are describing and mapping it onto something that I know is an active problem that needs to be solved yet. But I do think that you have something. That's okay. That's not ever, man. Like, um, it's a, this is a normal thing for all of us to go through. Like, dude, I'm telling you, we just finished a book, right? We're trying to figure out how to explain what the hell we're on about. It is the hardest thing in the world, man, to explain to people why there's even a problem in the first place. And honestly, it's worth spending half of your presentation explaining to people why there's a problem in the first place. And like it's worth contemplating in your spare time, you know. It's like not an easy thing to break down to people why they should even be paying attention. I don't think I was trying to solve a problem just looking at it a different way. So, but I understand what you're saying. But even if you're looking at a different way, like I think that it's okay to be like, okay, so there's this thing that everybody looks at in this way and the way that they see it is perhaps more complicated than they should see it or it's missing something.

1:27:54And I think that this clarifies that's also good. Like even if it's not some open problem where you're like, I have the answer, just to ground it in something that we can hold in our heads because if you start with the problem. And then you're like, okay, and this is how my way of approaching it simplifies it or clarifies it. Then we're grounded as we're listening to give the story as opposed to trying to figure out in real time two things, which is how does your model work and how does it apply to the world? Well, I get what you're saying now. I started right off with the whole, okay, I get it. Okay, all right. So come back next time and give us ground us in something. And then once you've grounded us in something, then push us into the frontiers of what it is that you have discussed. Yeah, let's just again next time Kyle. Man, if you show up, we'll try to pull you out. Though I will say my memory is not good. So send us an email before the next paradigm drift to remind us. Yeah, remind us. We said we're going to pull you. So we'll pull you out next time. I love you Kyle. I appreciate it.

1:28:55You're on the right track, man. We'll get there. Here we are on. Okay, this is fun. Hold on, James. Do you have any closing thoughts? I would just repeat what I said before. I mean, but I would do it more emphatically this time and less nicely. I don't think you know what you're talking about. I don't think. Like you're using a bunch of abstractions. And I don't think you've tied those abstractions to reality in your mind. That's not terminal. That's not terminal. That's actually something that's a solid, but probably telling you this so that you can get better. But like that's my really like firm criticism here is like I think you really need to change your habit. About how you come at abstractions. Like you need to be clear. Like what? What observations am I talking about here when I talk about like torque? Like what does that mean? Right. Like I'm just saying that because that's like one of the few words I remember you saying. Like because they didn't connect to one another. So I don't remember. But like I'm doubtful. You know what they mean.

1:29:56Like I'm doubtful. You know what all. I mean, you probably know what torque means, but like I doubt I doubt you know what the rest of these words mean. Like you need to understand. You need to understand. These things in terms of observations before you can make it as a scientist. And it's a hard road. And I encourage you to go on that road. But I think you know you need some serious improvement here before you have a chance of discovering something new. That's very hard. That's absolutely important. I mean the goal. Look the goal of paradigm drift is to make different scientists real scientists who are actually contenders for the throne. And so guys don't take any of this shit too hard. We're trying to make everybody better communicators. Or do or do take it really fucking hard because like. Because then you'll you'll be better. Talk yeah. Yeah. It's gonna hurt now, but you'll be better as time goes on. Absolutely. That's the point of me being so hard. That's absolutely. Okay. I want you all to be better including especially you Kyle.

1:30:57Absolutely. Think about what I've said and and and and I hope I hope you can improve the way you think about science. All right. We'll see you next time then. Okay. Thank you. Bye. All right. So we have a treat for you. We are going to take a little break from our regularly scheduled participants. And we're going to have one Michael Hughes.

1:32:12All right. Welcome Michael Hughes. I'm very excited to see what you have for us. You have a minute on the clock. My man. All right. It's excited to be here. Everyone. Thank you. So the thing that I want to talk about is that the problem I want to address is I think the scientifically minded and the material minded and the spiritually minded often do not see either I or interact with each other, even though they tend to address the same kinds of problems in the world like health, sickness, death, consciousness, or what I want to talk about today, which is objectivity. And so my paradigm drifting ideas that we make progress by steel many each other's arguments with charity to understand as opposed to strong and put down to try and develop a more cohesive view of the world. By contracting these viewpoints with each other. For example, the loss for iron ran with her philosophy objectives of this objectivism finds objectivity through the use of reason and our perception to find unity with each other through the objective external world that we develop.

1:33:20A few years before on ran there is a mystic philosopher called Gerget who calls on us to develop an objective consciousness through inner exploration of ourselves to find how a plurality of viewpoints composed of unity. And we have to discuss with yet another prolific mystic thinker, real designer who calls on us to build an objective view of the spiritual world through employing our scientific faculties beyond the material world. So this all adds up together to kind of see how the elephant looks different if we all sum it up in this way. Alright, oh, they got a shot fired against the objectivists. I'm not sure how much I like that. I can't say we're always talking about all what we can get as a see what you guys trying to say is see how ads up and we're comparing in class and these viewpoints at the post of trying to figure out which ones the right one is just steel man or imposition. We're trying to find interesting fits in other people's work as well. That's that's fucking right exactly. Alright James, I'm not even going to answer this.

1:34:22I'm going to leave it to you my friend. You're the objectiveist in the room. So, so, so it sounds like you're drawing inspiration from both objectivism as well as spiritual thinkers. Is that correct? Yeah, yeah, I'm basically saying that we're all trying to describe the same elephant, but we're just looking at focusing on different parts. Okay, so, um, these tell me what you mean by these I haven't heard of these spiritual thinkers you're talking about. What do you mean by a spiritual? What do you mean by spiritualism or the spiritual approach? So, it's a great question. I have a really broad view, but I could consider like I'm ranked as a spirit of that she's trying to get across and where that she holds the world. But like much more rigorously, the two people I talk about was just keep it to them, Gergiff and Steiner. They are working off of previous text, previous ideas that they have inherited and that they're building upon and sharing their view of it.

1:35:22In all of these ways, I think that the most rigorous approaches people humanity has been building these stories for a long time. And science kind of comes onto the scene and has a new way of viewing the world and the problem that we could come across is that they just throw away everything that happened before in humanity. And I think that there's a lot to listen to. So, Gergiff and Steiner are highlighting and building really rigorous, right? Like not spiritualists that are really flimsy. And really rigorous viewpoints of how these concepts work together to inform our reality and then spaced in all human thoughts, basically myths and legends and what they really mean and how they actually describe our objective reality. So, what would give me an example of one very important particular that the spiritual thinkers offer to this integrated worldview that someone like Ayn Rand would not? If we consider human evolution, we might, if Ayn Rand is relying on something, the material like Darwinism's theories and basically our skeletal record per describing human evolution, then we can only go so far because we don't have access to a lot of information, right?

1:36:30We can like interview someone from past time. But now these spiritualist thinkers, they employ a concept that not only is the human body evolving, but also the human conscious experience, like what it is to be a human is also changing. And that we won't be able to understand our past, our future or each other with this. And an additional point on top of that is that the spiritual thinkers have a goal for humanity. They feel that they know what the end point is that we're moving towards. And the definition of a mystic is someone who in essence their job is to try and help like get humanity there. So they have a explicit endpoint in mind that they're trying to build to. I'm not always sure that the scientists are trying to do that, right? They're kind of just seeing where the data takes being really good scientists. But a scientist is trying to take us somewhere in particular also, but I mean, they'll that's more of a technologist. So like I'll use a technologist in more your field, which would be like say a therapist, like a therapist is a technology is you can think of them as like a technologist of the mind, like and there's definitely

1:37:39you know, scientifically verified methods that are verified through introspection in you know the practice of CBT, you know, cognitive behavioral therapy like this is this is sort of you can think of it as sort of like on the Rand side of psychology and you know, and it you know it has a it has a really good track record. I'm I'm not sure I'm I'm still not really sure what you mean by spiritual or mystic these are words I'm highly opposed to but I hesitate to be opposed to you because you haven't told me what those things mean of course a lot of times someone you know, you know, I don't want to presume anything about you but the majority of the time when someone doesn't tell you what they mean it's because there's no evidence for what they're talking about. So again, I don't want to presume that of you but maybe try again and tell me what is meant by the spiritual approach as opposed to the objectivist approach.

1:38:40So it's hard for me to be as I kind of use the word spiritual as like these are the labels that other people give them so it's just easy to move through society using those words but the thing that will be the finding difference between I ran and both these people is that these people will use what I ran considers nonsense or not a sensory perception. But these people will consider an extra sensory perception to come to the conclusions and move through the world and perceive it and so they'll be incorporating what we might consider like additional or not recognizing as sensory perception that they might consider like us you know we might call psychic or intuitive and these are words that I ran is definitely heavily opposed to using. And so the point that signer builds that there's a more objective way that we can use these these ideas. So we can well I'm not sure what extra sensory perception means because like if if it's perception then it is like a sensor like you're if you're getting information from the outside world than that is right.

1:39:41So maybe you discovered some other than the five senses but like that would just be another sense. Right and so let's take like a more mystical type experience where someone has what they might call like a permit a permission or a strong feeling or in this case like a medium so there are recorded instances and there is like a rigorous scientific study into media and ship especially in the late 1800s early 1900s. Even Nobel Prize winners around those years spent a lot of time investigating these topics and some of them did come away thinking that there was genuine mediums right and so. A medium will use their voice and you'll use your ears and eyes to perceive something that the medium tells you but this information might be really hard right so like an example might be. So they're not just a medium saying where they're contacting a spirit in their view and the spirit tells them where like their dead body is and so they go there and they dig up a leg right so they the sense you just heard sound waves of this medium telling you this information but then you verify it and it's really hard to place how that medium got that information right and so we could all to like resort to tricks and chicaneery but people have tried to control for this a lot too.

1:40:59So you're going to have to do a full part with chains and Michael I think this is going to be sick actually personally. We have because so James is making the argument that okay so if you sense it in some way what you have done is you have created sensory perception and whether or not it comes from some yet undefined sense you still haven't gotten outside of the bin that is required under this. Sense first ontology which is that you're still sensing it some way we don't know exactly how it is that you're sensing it yet it still comes through the senses and so there's no real violation here. Yeah but that's that's not what Michael's talking about he's talking about like intuitions and I mean this is. I mean it's very important for us to differentiate between intuitions and sensory experience because your intuitions are they come from your subconscious giving you material it's sort your intuitions are sort of like your personal AI or LLM like giving you readouts that are based on your prior readouts and it's very important to check these readouts and what do you check them in the

1:42:20readouts and what do you check them against you check them against your sensory perception so I mean I think I think giving giving the same kind of primacy to intuition that you give to direct observation is just it's just a direct it's just a direct repudiation of the entire scientific method. I hesitate to write anyone off like immediately that's a really good question actually so michael's a michael's a badass scientist by day. He's kind of like Clark Kent here right so michael's pretty well he's like published in science and shit right he's like a straight up like a lead scientist right he's a G and then he has this entire other spear in which he operates which is entirely mystical and so Michael I just want to. We've had you on the podcast much times but maybe you can elaborate on the dichotomy in your experience between these two modes of apprehending nature. Right so i'm a biochemist and a structural biologist in my training in my PhD and so that means that I spent time getting crystal structures of proteins to blast them with x-rays to get a picture to know where each atom is and this is wonderful this is extremely material there's so much information right like once you get a crystal structure of everything you see the machine.

1:43:35Right it's so powerful for trying to dissect what is happening in the unknown so I am first and foremost right there like that is turning something into sense perceptible and we are using that sense perception to check our intuition about whether a hypothesis is right or wrong about the world and that's just how to operate and I a Gergiff or Steiner will not disagree with this that you must absolutely check your intuitions with sense perception and you must do these tests and the weird thing about iron rands objective is him. Where we're agreeing on external world real signer and Gergiff are allowing for a more internal one that you can start to check with yourself and so the most weird way to enter into this is kind of even the concept of a placebo right like the chemistry of a sugar pill. I know a lot about that in a sense it seems strange that it could be 20% effective at healing anything but and so are we looking at the material for where this effect lies and even if we decide that maybe it's just strong positivity or a change of outlook right like I think that we can argue that there is something here to dissect that is still a bit stranger even if we materialize it and that we can consider like the brain or intuitions as potentially a sense perception or a sense perception or a sense perception.

1:44:49Right like in the sense the mystic or the medium or the clairvoyant would be using their brain and thoughts as they have to get they have to sense percept something and turn it into reality so clearly the brain is on some level of perceiving or getting these ideas these intuitions and you absolutely have to test them right it's not rigorous otherwise. So I mean so you're saying you still the final arbiter still is direct observation but our intuitions can give us you know insights into things to test. Right and maybe even like cheap possibility space right like we want to talk to a psychic because they get us the answer without us having to bumble around first and so that's like that you're then a random walk and that's really important James at a psychic. James would be the most argumentative vision recipients that there has ever been in the history of the world I feel like well I don't think you know my wife and I actually did go to a psychic at a Halloween party once but we like to do it.

1:45:58We just we did it for for laws like I mean I didn't argue with her because it was just I don't know do you do argue with the movie like Captain America isn't a real person like you don't you know it we we just did it to be entertained like I mean I think I don't I look like there's something there's something really interesting. I don't think this is a valid scientific method like and you know I can say things like oh well you know you're still making truth of I I gave you sort of an escape hatch like oh well truth is the final arbiter I'm sorry you know observations the final arbiter you just use your you know you just use your intuitions to like generate hypotheses that you then check but I mean you know I gave you sort of an escape hatch there but I think like it's really easy for bad scientific method or I think I'm going to do it. So I think it's a good idea to see this like a scientific method or bad ideas generally to sort of see cover in you know plausible plausible excuses like this so I but at the same time like our cutting edge science like cosmology or some of the stuff that's talked about on the podcast a lot right they had the answer and they're always trying to like retroactively right so I'm not so I'm trying to make the juxtaposition that like the spiritualist aren't so much worse than a lot of our cutting edge science with some of the strange abstractions that they hold on to me.

1:47:20That's fucking absolutely true. Look yeah but there's so much worse for both them and the spiritualist the key is to become more rational more observation based and this is like yeah good. That's what I do. But hold on I will say this I think that there is a weird place which is the place that ideas come from. Yeah that's what I was going to say. Oh like we spend too much time together. We really do. Go ahead no no no no no I think there's some look what I think we can all agree and even if we have like a mainstream physicist like we're about to have on the show in the room right now everybody would agree that science is stuck right it's got these. It's got these cannons that it's just beating on about it can defend them to the end of the world I mean honestly a good lawyer can argue their way into poisoning the kaihoga like it's possible you can do that. Question is where does inspiration for new ideas come from and Michael's making a case it seems like to me that inspiration comes from some other realm that we are trying to put our finger on.

1:48:27And personally I've experienced this and honestly I miss much of an objective scientist. I mean I'm a real asshole about it on the show. I really hold people to that I expect them to make sense I expect them to explain their ideas a b c. And yet there is still the question of where does the initial spark come from and it does seem to be something that denies a pure hardcore materialist observation list frame because some program happening in the back of your head at all times that's putting these together like when you wake up in the middle of the night and you finally realize something. And that happens almost every night for me personally and when you look at the history of science or at least the history of physics you find that this absolutely is not the case there is always a completely reasonable explanation in terms of direct observation for how these insights occur. But it's about putting the insights together right so like new. Yeah, I'm a little bit of a game process that's a rational process.

1:49:27But the new insight is gained in this very strange way like if you listen to people who've come up with bad ass ideas there often like having dreams so they're waking up in the middle of the night like not to a stand right. I mean this is my experience to like when we're sorry Michael I'll let you get the floor in just a second look is we're putting this book together and we're like putting our own theory on the table which is the closest I can get to actually making a scientific idea of my own. I'm waking up in the middle of night and I'm like holy shit we didn't connect a B and C ideas together in a way that's legible and like I don't know where that came from it just fucking woke me up in the middle of the night and I think that's the thing that Michael's trying to put his finger on. Absolutely the case and I think that there also is an alarming if not strange number of scientists who do trace their inspiration to strange things example being one of the pioneers of computerships with dig tunnels and mine in his backyard and talk to nomes for inspiration.

1:50:29What is this? I'll have to Google the name but truly like this this will come up on Google if you like sketch out the story. I'll and then I had another one. I would see if I can remember another one of a strange inspiration. I had a few but there's an alarming if not strange number of scientists. Seymour Cray. Yeah that's the one right. So he had elves that would tell him how things worked. Michael have you fucked around with DMT at all? I'm sorry James. My body is not great with it every time I've experienced with it it feels like every part of my being every part of my body tastes like plastic or and so my whole skin so I've never like broken through or done anything particularly exciting because it's been yeah it's not for me. James you got anything you got any closing thoughts on this I think we should basically get a Michael I love you man you're awesome you're such an important part of this project and yeah it's a little I haven't got a little bit of pain in my heart for not having you as the co-host but James is killing over here in the corner.

1:51:41James is far more bad Michael by the way this is our first live stream so Michael's if you're just joining us for the first time Michael's usually the co-host for this project. I'm really freaking love Michael. Yeah James you got any closing thoughts I think we should basically do one more guest and then close it up the evening because it's been a riot of an experience honestly. No I don't have any more James would you be down to do a podcast with like an anti-objectivist. I mean I mean yes on this subject. It's my favorite book in high school with a bouncing head. Me too me too. Me three. Sorry guys chill out. Anyways all right we'll circle back on that. I think it'd be really fun so I loved objectivism when I was in college.

1:52:43It was a little later for me. I was late. I would love to actually have somebody to provide a counterpoint so Michael you know just be fair I don't know I'm probably wasting time here but Michael came out in Hong Kong with us for a week. I love Michael and I love you and I love your family. Michael's got a new baby on the way congratulations. I'm not looking with you guys too it's so cool to have been able to visit. It was so cool man hanging out with you because you have this entire internal religion which is entirely your own that you abide by and it would be really fun to square you off against an objectivist because your objectivists are notoriously anti-religion and that would be I don't know I think it'd be a really fun live streamer podcast. We'll work on James on the back. James is thinking about it. James got that look on his face. He's like that's the closure is occurring. Yeah I mean I think I think in the modern day religion is the number one threat to religion and mysticism or broadly is the number one threat to the persistence of our civilized society so as as much as it is distasteful to me to

1:54:00to dignify it by debating with it I guess that's maybe what our culture needs right now. Holy shit. Wow. Alright there we go. That's awesome. Alright settle down. Thank you so much man. Sorry we didn't get you in as the coast but as you can see this is been a right having to bless thanks for having me on for a minute and I think that the coach always be shared and yeah we love hanging with you guys love these experiences. If only we knew more than two brilliance of here in the universe that we could invite for a cause. We're willing to do an anonymous. Alright guys let's do one more and let's close it out for the evening so. Alright we got explorer Clinton Norton on deck we'll see you next time Michael.

1:55:48Alright welcome explorer let's good to see you again in a minute on the clock. Let us know when you're ready. Integrated reality is the complexity cosmology that doesn't presume to one of five unified or oversimplify the complex objects connections and relations of our universe this cosmology proposes that there are at least eight fundamental properties of reality. A primary tenet of integral philosophy is that everyone knows a piece of the truth some know more than others so what if everybody is right idealist materialist atheist and theologians what if pan panpsychism pantheism and pan in theism are simply different perspectives of the same phenomenon what if naturalism and animism are just.

1:56:54Things viewed from different colored lights. What are the foundational observations of each of these integrated reality tries to make sense of this possibility. On the dot. Absolutely yeah I actually think that's a huge challenge out of us this integrating reality so we have a scientific approach to reality in my own life in our own lives we spend a lot of time on the weirdo side of things which is art. Right so we do a lot of music here secretary of nature shout out and I think integrating reality is actually a huge huge hurdle because how do we approach our lived experience in the context of objective measurable reality so James what do you think man.

1:57:54Yeah you guys go. Are you holding a staff right now. I'm making a comment on your social observation from the last time I'm grand out the side I mean I'm explore the sage this time. So much so I mean I think that this is deeply fundamentally aligned with the way that I see the world which is that you enter into a room and everybody is convinced that they have the answer. And when you spend time looking at the answers that people have you discover that nobody has the full story and so if you're trying to actually tell the full story realize that there's these multiple perspectives from which you have to be able to see it and so this pearls of wisdom in all of the perspectives that lead you back to a holistic view of the world because and I know that this is something that.

1:58:55James probably disagrees with pretty strongly but I think that there is an element of like spirit in the world that defies traditional like material of like experiential description and yet it still operates inside of all of us in between us. And I think that like if we if we try to solely border our world view on something that is about the materials themselves we lose a dimension of experience. Exactly. James is a fucking cowboy last time we saw him so I'm sorry. I feel like more prospector. Yeah, I do that we can embody many reality out of it. So I'm going to put you on the spot here so do you think that there is like a single perspective that can really encompass the entirety of existence.

2:00:04You're asking actual James yes we haven't found we haven't found all of it yet but like but yes like the sun pulls on the earth. The alternatives to that are wrong. I would agree with that end of it like end of and so like so like there's just so many different perspectives that are wrong and this isn't like this isn't just like oh cute there's other ideas when you pick the wrong idea like. People die like look at communism there's a there's a body count of hundreds of millions of people because someone had an idea that sounded really good and it was awful it was a nightmare people starved to death were eating corpses like the like shitty ideas kill people like and I mean. I don't know and and so like there you know like it's not that everyone has something to contribute like some of its garbage danger it's not it's not just garbage it's poison it kills people.

2:01:11But James if we didn't have some kind of socialism we wouldn't have insurance companies. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna. I think the James is probably anti insurance companies as well. I mean capitalist killed me I don't know I just I don't want to I just I'm I'm I'm I'm kind of there are good ideas and there are bad ideas that's in some sense that would be five years from now that's what we hope to do with this show right so the first step is people be able to present their ideas the mix. Shiloh keeps resizing the window. I mean is by itself is a bad idea your capitalism by itself is a bad idea. I mean that's different. I mean that's a different that's a different debate that we can have on whether capitalism is good or not I think capitalism is 100% good when understood correctly but I mean it's just I think I yeah I don't really want to I don't really want to like talk I don't really want to talk about perspective that thinks like every single perspective.

2:02:36There's a good side. I think that the point is that there's like there's a germ of something that warrants attention right because it's like if we if we contrast the like pure capitalism versus pure communism. The like theoretical ideal behind communism is that like we should take care of each other and the theoretical like germ that is behind capitalism is that we should ensure the conditions where those that have the best ideas can succeed. And both of those things seem to be reasonably compatible with one another and they are not in in their isolation. Like purely functional because like as you said communism is responsible for some of the greatest horrors that have been visited upon this earth for the last 100 years and so clearly there is something absolutely horrifying within that ideology that when taken to the extreme brings.

2:03:40Like untold suffering onto the face of the earth but I think they can also flip that and you can say that any ideology that people are fully entrenched in brings this brings a similar level of suffering where it's like if you allow for pure like free market. And development of every single natural resource on the planet and the poisoning of all of the rivers and everything else like you end up with an indirect suffering that is just as bad. And so the like the totality of a balanced worldview requires at least a balancing of perspectives rather than a fundamentalism because the fundamentalism seems to be the place where all of the greatest problems arise. Like if the Soviet Union wasn't fundamentally communist but if it was only like a little bit communist like maybe it would have worked it was the fundamentalism that broke it. And so maybe it's like United States the United States was founded upon a fundamentalist philosophy and it was and it set mankind free.

2:04:44Like the enlightenment was a fundamentalist philosophy based on the primacy of reason and it's the only reason that we're having this conversation over miles and miles and not killing each other. Yeah, I just I don't I don't agree with this. I don't agree. I don't I think it's I think it's a really really dangerous idea that you know every perspective has something good in it. Let's shift out of political economics and focus on idealism and materialism. If we like I said in my presentation if we pull everything back down to the observations of both the observation of materialism is that matter exists. You can't reduce it any farther than that matter exists.

2:05:48When you pull the idealism down to its basic concept consciousness exists. Now there are a few people who say that consciousness comes from matter. There's a lot of the people who say that matter comes from consciousness but those are interpretations. Let's say that we just pull it down to their flat out their fundamental observations. These things exist. So how do we make it work together? You can't matter created consciousness not the other way around like you can't you can't you definitely can't have it both ways. If you try to have it both ways you never figure everything out things are or they aren't like things are a like a is a and a is not at the same time not a like you can't you can't just have it every way all at the same time like.

2:06:57I mean I think that there is you cannot take things as a whole but I think that there is a space for contemplation where the idea that consciousness is fundamental on on a level of cause and effect doesn't really make much sense because then you have to ask like where does this consciousness come from if it's not coming from something that's material you're stuck with. I think that there's something to that theory that says that okay well it is I think that what it's trying to point out is that you you cannot place like one above the other in terms of importance. Like whether or not you go back back to some hypothetical first origin point and you say okay at this origin point what was there I think that that's kind of an absurd question but if you're asking the question of what shapes the appearance of the universe.

2:08:00Then I don't think that you can say that like matter alone shapes the appearance of the universe or consciousness alone shapes the appearance of the universe like they work together because. It's a feedback loop of the one layer working on the other layer in the other layer working back on the other layer like consciousness changes. Yeah but look you're you're talking about this on like you're you're talking about this in a completely different respect like the question was like does matter arise from consciousness or just consciousness arise from matter and like we can disagree on that I mean there's a right answer there but like I'm willing to debate that but like it can't be both at once when you. No but that's the thing that's the thing about people about these two ideas being right at the same time is not that they're right and their specifics it's that they're right in the sense that they push you to consider a perspective and fold it into a world view. Not in not in the way that it is presented but in some other way that like forces the theory to change shape.

2:09:06I think that's a reasonable and completely over generous interpretation of. Something something very important to remember Shiloh and Sasi like everyone everyone who's trying to convince you of an absurdity who has two brain cells to rub together has experience trying to convince other people of absurdities and. And the number one way they can do that is by making it sound plausible to someone who actually cares about the truth and they'll use the generosity of such honest seekers of truth against them so you got to watch out for this I don't think you guys know this is that like like like people people with bad ideas a lot of times they're liars like they're and they the number one thing is they lie to themselves they're.

2:10:06They're lying to themselves about the nature of existence because everything they see across all of reality goes against what they think sounds like every politician ever. Yeah right almost all politicians are examples of this so like so so you like you you got to you got to watch out for this you got to realize like you know we got to watch out for a lot of times that's what's going on with someone who's trying to convince you of an absurdity. And if you open your mind to such things like that like well I don't know you can have your mind open to it but like you you like it's it's really easy to like accept what they're saying like on the margins oh maybe it's like that like you you you have to really require evidence of such people like you really and and know that like and know that they are like the same thing. But they could be really trying to deceive you because then they have a lot of experience doing it because the number one person they deceive is themselves right on man they have a ton of experience doing it right on.

2:11:21Clint do you want to have the last word. I'll throw in a question from him I'm not too good with names I'm sorry. How do you define consciousness. I don't want to engage. Consciousness is awareness I'll leave it up there. Consciousness is not awareness awareness is a multifold function. It's the sense of that look. I really really would love to have you we got a band one of my favorite podcasts of the whole year I don't think it's going to do numbers but it's my favorite conversation I've had all year was with a gentleman from University Chicago talking about the way that the ancient Chinese thought about consciousness. I really love to hear your response to that so if you can drop us a line after you check it that's going to come out on Tuesday I would love to hear from you guys.

2:12:24I love you man it's great to have you here you you did a great job last time too and you always spice things up it's been fantastic. We're going to take a minute now to debrief with James before we let everybody go for the nights but it's been a hell of a paradigm drift. Thank you Clint being part of it. Thank you. See you next time guys give a round of applause this has been great. Thank you. Alright James. Thank you for closing five. Final countdown. What's your reflections on this experience? This is your first time doing paradigm drift. This is the first ever live paradigm drift which has been a freaking blast. Thank you guys for all hanging out in the chat and keeping things interesting. What's your experience been like my bro? I should have I should have watched these before I only really want to do this again if we if we kind of if we tighten up our standards a lot.

2:13:26Like the first guy the first guy had an idea I mean I have no idea if it was right or not but like I understood what he was saying I actually have a little bit of reason to think he was wrong but then but then he said like yeah the earth is. You know it's not a perfect sphere so maybe it does do the twerly Russian guy effect like okay yeah I understood the I wish I remembered his name because he was our best contested dude I heard his name Thomas Burwell. Yeah Thomas yeah okay yeah so like that was good like we understood he had his idea like let's hear ideas from a bunch of guys at least at that level. My friend Dan Harris who you know like he tried out for this show and you didn't pick him out of the hat and that's fine but it's just like we're hearing you know you know freaking wizards in front of a mountain or in front of a freaking waterfall telling us that like we can have it every way at the same time like come on we can we can use our time better here.

2:14:34Once it's fair I actually think you're absolutely right the first step is to make sense. It's like we can't evaluate your idea if you don't make sense that means you tell us what the problem is with the status quo what it is that you're actually solving and then you spend a narrative that actually freaking makes sense that's the first step and that's been a little bit of a struggle tonight. So I think that your criticism is actually quite valid. I think so. Anyways James we really appreciate you being here man I appreciate you giving us your time and anyways check out James channel he's got a freaking badass YouTube channel he's doing stuff nobody else is doing over at Indoctica and I think you guys will absolutely love what he's got going on. So let's give him a round of applause for being here tonight guys come on. Yeah. Absolutely. Alright let's call it. You got any closing thoughts James for we sign off for the night?

2:15:35No well thanks for having me on. Do better everyone says James. Makes sense making sense matters guys you must fight say hey by the way we'll see you guys tomorrow morning we're going to be doing a livestream on we're going to keep going through paradox loss we're going to get into light which is the back half of the book. We're going to crack it open to my morning so we'll see you guys all there. Alright and then people are asking the chat the channel for James is Indoctica. Alright play a sad shailo. People in the chat love the James.