Proof we are Living in a Simulation? In The Matrix?

Show Transcript

Is there proof we're living in a simulation? Are we in the matrix? Simulation theory has captivated the minds of both scientists and the public, merging quantum physics, reality, and consciousness in a thought-provoking debate. Hello and welcome to this episode of Mysteries with a History. We will be taken on a wild ride into the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious. (00:34) Like you, I have questions, and like you, I want answers. And with each episode together, we will peel away the layers to look for the truth. This is a very complex topic, and there's a lot to cover, so I simply cannot do without my co-host, Jimmy Church of Fade to Black Radio. Jimmy, happy Thursday. Hey. So behind the scenes, before we even get into the simulation theory, we are seeing history happen right before our eyes today at this exact moment in time. (01:10) Are we really? Are you sure? If everything goes well, I guess. Are you sure? Man, today's a big day. It is. Today is history day. on histories with the mystery. That's, that's what's going down. It's a, it's pretty exciting. Okay. So let's get to that in a second and I'll let everybody know. (01:33) I do have, uh, I've got a second channel that is running at the same time, uh, which is the live feed of, uh, Odysseus. So we'll, we'll, we'll get back to that. Christina, what inspired this deep, uh, scientific and philosophical show that we are going to do today. This is just out of nowhere. (02:00) Out of nowhere? I wouldn't say that, but... This is something that people have talked about. I've been prompted to cover this over the years of doing this show. But the thing is that, you know, that eureka moment when you're in the shower, in the bathtub or like right before going to bed, you got these wacky ideas and then your mind just keeps going and going and going and you can't make it stop. (02:23) Mm hmm. This is one of those topics. This is one of those. And I get that. I totally get that. And the more that we look into the subject, are we living in a simulation? Is this the matrix? I remember the more that I research it, the more that I sit back and go, man, I I don't know now. I just don't know. (02:46) But this is a deep, deep thought and thought experiment that has gone back thousands of years. This isn't something new. Before we get started on the history, we'll go backwards first. In less than an hour, everybody, in about 50 minutes, the touchdown of Odysseus is supposed to happen. And when it does, we can break in and hopefully have some good news because this will be the first time that we've allegedly been back to the moon since, you know, 1972. (03:23) And we referring to the United States because there have been other countries that have already placed probes on the moon. Crashed on the moon. Right, right. Right, right, right. So, yeah, so it's a big deal. And when it goes down, which is at 324 Pacific Time, 624 Eastern Time, and I'm looking at the clock now, so I've got 235 on my clock. (03:53) But I've also got the live feed, which is happening here to my left. I wanted to say this. Because everybody is spending time with us while this is going on, and we're not going to leave you in suspense. That wouldn't be cool. This is huge breaking news, and we'll bust into the show. But let me back up and say one thing before we get started. (04:16) In the now-now, when The Matrix premiered, I had, there was a magazine here in LA called the LA Weekly. And I would look in the back and they would have all the premieres of movies coming out. I had not heard of The Matrix. And I see it, right? And I see the description of it. Oh, really? Okay. Premiering when? Tonight? I'm there. (04:41) I don't know what this is really about from the description, but it seems like it's going to be really cool. So I go and I see the movie. I didn't get it. I didn't. It was too much all at once. But I went back the next night, and I watched it again. And then I went back a third night, three nights in a row. (05:06) When was the last time you went to see the same movie in the same theater three nights in a row? I've never done it. But I did that with The Matrix. And by the third viewing... I started to get the concepts, but I really started to think about it. And, you know, simulation theory and the ideas behind it, you know, what is our reality? Now, I had always thought about deja vu, and we'll talk about that too as well today. (05:38) I'd always thought about that stuff growing up. And then when you see something like the matrix, then you jump into the research and start looking at this. Many physicists and scientists have surfaced with alternative ideas with this. But we have other thought leaders around the world that are discussing this now. (06:00) as a possibility of our actual reality. And that's the part that I find really interesting because I'm not a PhD. I'm not. I'm simply not. I'm somebody that wonders about the world and what is going on. But when you have these big, big brains discussing this with Christina, I'm going to say it, with a serious face, right? A serious face. (06:26) You have to wonder, what is it that they know that we don't? So let's jump into it. I'm ready. OK, I'm going to share my screen here and first talk about the butterfly dream that was first contemplated during the fourth century in China. So here is an image, kind of a rendition of what was going on. (06:49) And the butterfly dream is a well-known philosophical narrative from the Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese text attributed to the philosopher Zhuangzhuu. commonly known as the same as the title of the book, who lived around the fourth century BCE, which is a long time ago. And this is during the Warring States period. (07:11) So before China became China, it was a part of the Warring States period. And so this is one of the most fundamental texts of Taoism that would also reflects broader Chinese philosophical ideas and is celebrated for its literary qualities, humor, and deep skepticism of controversial values and knowledge. And to write something already like that in the 4th century BCE is impressive. (07:36) But looking at this, in Chapter 2, it talks about the butterfly dream, and another title for it would be On the Equality of Things. And so how the story goes, at least, is that Zhuangzi dreams he's a butterfly, fluttering very happily, completely absorbed in being a butterfly. He is oblivious to his individuality as a person. (08:02) So suddenly he wakes up and he finds himself as himself, human, once again. And then he ponders whether he was Zhuangzi, dreaming he was a butterfly, or whether he is now a butterfly, dreaming he is Zhuangzi. And so this narrative, while it sounds like, why are you guys talking about this with the simulation? A lot, actually, because the narrative is rich in philosophical implications that have been interpreted in various ways. (08:31) And some themes include the nature of reality and identity, because the story questions the nature, just the full blown nature of reality and identity in itself, because it challenges the distinction between a dream. and the real deal, suggesting that we consider what might be real could be an illusion and vice versa. (08:54) So this transition between Zhang Zi and the butterfly blurs the lines between different states of being, inviting us to consider the fluidity of identity and the possibility that our understanding of the self is not only limited, also subjective, but even potentially an illusion. And when we look at, in today's world, virtual reality, the simulation theory, it's displaying that everything that you are seeing, yourself included, is merely an illusion. (09:29) And this thought, when it was first written down to our knowledge, was the 4th century BCE. It's impressive. Yes, it is. It is. And so the complex mind to think like this is not modern. You have to look at it. We have thought about this. And these are deep, deep, deep philosophical and existential influences. (09:59) Very, very, very deep thought. But to come out of that and to—I'm talking about the dream— To remember the dream, but then to flip it over at 400 BC and write it in such a way that would allow others to think, and I like the word ponder, the same situation. And to sit up and go, wow, okay. That dream seemed pretty real. (10:32) I was flying around from flower to flower. I was free. I was happy. I understood I was the butterfly. I understood what it was like to be free, flying from flower to flower. It was real. But wait a minute. Am I now the butterfly dreaming me? And then he put it into words. Here's the other part, though. His own text, when he wrote, was I Shang Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly, or am I now really a butterfly dreaming that I'm Shang Tzu? And it's such a simple concept. (11:18) But it's very, very easy to understand and then just apply that to everything. It has turned into a monumental thought experiment that has gone down for over 2,000 years now. It is much discussed. We're going to get into, it is such a deep subject, and how the brain works, how dreams are, what our reality is, and then, of course, the technical side of it. (11:49) And could this be a binary ones and zero world like The Matrix? When The Matrix started, the film, when the film started, if you remember, it's binary code that was flooding down the screen. That very existence suggested then in The Matrix about a computer-driven simulated reality, which we found out later in the film, of course, was a giant computer. (12:18) Everybody's plugged into it and you're living in this reality. And to you, it's real. And if you remember, the key moment here is unplugging from the matrix, which has now become a pop culture term, hasn't it? So I think we all understand what it is. The question is, are we? And no one has the answer to that yet. (12:44) When it comes to the butterfly dream, it became one of the foundations of Taoism. And while we're still on that thought, before we continue, we can also look at Buddhism and Hinduism and their concepts, their understanding of samsara. of karma of maya because samsara is not only the realm of suffering but it's also the realm of illusions and delusions maya refers to illusions and karma because this is really interesting because the concept of karma and samsara can be likened to the rules of code governing a simulation, (13:18) just as actions within samsara influence future rebirths, actions within a simulation could determine outcomes within that framework, suggesting that this life that we're living could potentially be programmed in the nature of existence. And when we think of it in that kind of concept, because not everyone's going to agree with that and you don't have to, that's totally fine. (13:45) But if we just hold on to that for a moment, Hinduism has been taught for thousands of years, Buddhism for about a little under 2,000 years. People have been thinking about this for a long time, and here we are in present day, and we still do not have the answer, and yet... People are still pondering on this topic because it is in itself a thought experiment. (14:11) But there have been a handful of tests that have been done that lead people to believe that we are living in a simulation while others completely disagree. And they said, nope, this is my life. This is what I'm going for. And there's nothing else. It's a touchy subject because you're really changing and shifting people's paradigms when you say one thing or another depending on their mindset. (14:40) We can no longer use the word ponder in this show. We've done it four times. Can't do it because that's exactly what we are doing, aren't we? We cannot ponder or use the word ponder anymore. But I will ask this question. Is there something, anything that we can know 100% for certain? That's where all of this leads to. (15:11) Right, so just center yourself on that question. Is there anything that we know that is 100% certain? I'll ask you. If we know it's certain, how do we know that it's certain? What do we use to compare? Yeah, that's right. Because the sub-questions in all of those, like that one, right? And then, okay, let's say, as we try to search for something that we know for 100%, right? Then how would we be able to tell, well, you know, if something is real? But then the other sub-question is, How do we know? (16:02) How do we know? How do we know? How do we know anything? How do we know something? It's one thing about 100% certainty or how we would be able to tell what are the signs of that, but then how would we know something? These are deep, deep, deep philosophical questions that are really addressed nearly perfectly in The Matrix because that's Neo's hero's journey. (16:33) He's out trying to seek these very fundamental answers. It's crazy town to me. Crazy. I look at these questions and to me, I love asking these questions at dinner. I love asking these questions of people. When you hear their answers, and they're all different, that it causes, we keep saying thought experiment, right? It causes you to think and maybe wonder. (17:05) I'll say this before we move on. We've got a lot to cover today. When I was a kid, I had a couple that were neighbors in the military. They were in the Army, a married couple, both in the Army. And they were friends of my dad. But they were cool. I liked them. They were all right. And one of them signed my yearbook, like my sophomore year in high school. (17:33) Same as Steve. But he wrote in my yearbook, Christina. Jimmy, nothing is what it seems. Steve, right? That's all he wrote. That's all he wrote. You know, everybody else, you know, doing their thing. And what... A profound thing to say at that age. But it influenced me for my entire life. And it takes me right here to this moment and this show with you discussing exactly what he wrote in 1977 in my yearbook. (18:14) Heavy, huh? Heavy, heavy, heavy. It is for a high schooler, for sure. Even today. It is. I was like, everything? Everything. So, yeah, yeah. So where do we take this next? I think you laid a great foundation to talk about one of the more famous philosophers that has the most famous thought or quote, and that is, I think, therefore, I am. (18:42) And the person that we're looking at right here, Jimmy, take a guess on who this is. His name's Descartes. That's right. Rene Descartes. And he had several things that he wrote in his book called Meditations. And it's not sitting down in a lotus position and clearing out the mind, but it's more so of a literal thought experiment. (19:04) And his most famous one is number three of his meditations being I think therefore I am. But it goes into more detail on these. And there's I think there's five. I would say there's five. But one that is appropriate for this conversation is it is possible that I'm dreaming right now and that all of my perceptions are false. (19:24) So with all those meditations, they build upon each other. You cannot read one without the other. But the one that we're going to be focusing on is that one in particular, because as it's mentioned, the nature of reality, reality has been pondered by philosophers for For millennia, as you had mentioned, Jimmy. (19:45) But in fact, some of the ideas presented in the simulation theory parallel some of the overarching ideas presented in history's most significant philosophical lessons. And if you take any philosophy class, you will know about him. So have it be Plato or Descartes, we're not really in their sense when covering them talking about the movie, The Matrix, or the entire concept of The Matrix. (20:18) But many people have noticed that the simulation theory is a modern theory. interpretation almost of Plato's analogy of the cave or Descartes' evil demon hypothesis as well. So when we're looking at him in this image here, but also at his work, he provides this foundation that resonates deeply with the simulation theory. (20:45) Because René embarked on a quest to doubt everything he believed to know in order to find the undoubtable truth. He was pulling everything apart, leading him to conclude that while all external reality could be completely deceptive, it could be an entire illusion, and the existence of his own thinking self... was the only thing that was concrete to him, that was a foundation to him, that was undeniable. (21:17) So as long as he was thinking, I think therefore I am, then I know that I'm real. I know that my thoughts are real, but that doesn't mean that the reality around me is real. And so this is just something that catches people's attention, myself included. And if you, if you had your attention caught right there, hit that like button right down below. (21:41) We have 370, 350 people watching this live and 185 likes. If you're enjoying the show, let's get the 200 likes right down below. But Jimmy, I do want to hear your insights when it comes to one of the more famous philosophers. Well, Descartes, his dream argument, which is the way it's framed today, right, his dream argument, it all started with his claim that waking life and a dream can have the same content. (22:18) Therefore, there's a similarity between the two experiences. Dreamers can be deceived into believing that they are having an experience while they are awake, while they are actually asleep and dreaming. It's a paradox. right and the dream argument he took things a step further um when he started to talk about demons and religion and having influence of a demon and the now before you go wait a minute we're talking about two different things no we're not his later argument about demons was that he cannot be sure (23:01) anything I believe, for I may just be, these are his words, being deceived by a malevolent demon. Both arguments have the same structure. Nothing can rule out me being fooled into believing I'm having one said experience when I'm really having another experience. But if I'm... in one and not the other. (23:28) Therefore, my reality cannot have the knowledge of either, and I'm in a third state. That goes right back to what the simulation theory is all about today, right? How do we know? When you start to question everything, what is the real base reality? We simply don't know that. And there are others that that walk around and they can't distinguish or they stop trying to distinguish what is different from the dream state and reality, and they're making it both the same. (24:07) And there's nothing wrong with that either, by the way. Dreams have a heavy influence on people and how they are interpreted. But going into the dream state just may be as real as Another parallel existence as what we consider the waking part of our lives as being the real situation. And that's what's so intriguing about Descartes. (24:34) And for him to think like this back then, it has been debated and talked about and written about ever since. And I just want to bring this in. I really do want to add sprinkles to this layer cake that we're making. I just want to touch on it. Because if we talk about, just for a moment here, astral projection, and you're able to see your body, but you're outside of your body, which one is the real you? Are you looking at it in a simulation? Or is it still a part of you, but not a part of you? Can I plug that in in (25:07) today's conversation? Have you ever dreamed that you were flying? Of course, right? It goes right back to Shang Tzu and the butterfly dream. If you've ever done that, I'm telling you, I haven't done it in a long time. But when I was flying at five years old, having these dreams, that was real to me. (25:36) It was real. How is it possible that a five-year-old mind can go and observe right up and above a playground looking at your friends playing and thinking about a very, very complex narrative like that? How is that possible? Or is it that... it was an astral projection and that it was real. And it goes right back to the butterfly dream. (26:05) Which one? So yeah, absolutely. I think Descartes was right. We need to look at it like this. And if you've ever wondered about an astral body out of body situation, think about when you dreamed flying. Yes. Thank you for indulging me on that little thought right there, because it was burning inside. And I said, it's not in my notes, but I really just want to touch on that. (26:32) So some other things that might lead people to believe that we're potentially living in a simulation. There's a handful of points, and one of them was actually mentioned by Elon Musk in an interview a few years back, actually, of the technological trajectory of these last few years on how our technology has advanced because the rapid advancement of technology, especially in video games and virtual reality, shows that simulate environments are becoming increasingly realistic. (27:07) Good example of this is VR right now, okay? Like the higher version of Sims, someone probably pointed out, maybe Call of Duty as well. And so with this kind of progress, it's theorized that civilizations perhaps far in the future or eons more advanced than ourselves could create simulations that would be indistinguishable from a real civilization. (27:36) So that's one of a handful of points that people kind of look at and they scratch their head and they say, especially in today's world in 2024, where VR is becoming more prevalent, there are videos of people wearing the VR goggles and walking out in the city. It's kind of spooky. But then we can even bring Neuralink into this and having a chip inside where we are always plugged in, where we're always connected, more so than having screens and getting bad eyesight, as Elon Musk has mentioned before. (28:09) But to have it implanted, would that be evidence maybe of living in a simulation in that moment when more people have chips in their mind? I had a friend that I had, I still do, that has a company, and he sent me some of their work. And, and I'm looking at it. And so it was, uh, of a home in Palm Springs in the desert. (28:43) And you could go with your mouse and, or, or your keyboard and just walk around and explore and check things out. Okay. So I'm doing it. It's just incredible. And I'm picturing, so I get them on the phone and I go, Scott, dude, how much video how did you because it's not real I go what because it's not real that's all that's all artificial what do you mean what what part all of it All of it, all of it, outdoors, indoor, everything was a simulation. (29:26) I thought he was shooting with 3D cameras and he had some kind of way of getting this all together. No, it was all simulated. And I'm telling you, Christina... It was real, real, real, real. Now, if you take that idea and that concept and you go into Neuralink, forget about VR glasses, right? Okay, I get that. (29:50) I understand that. I've done that. But if you could plug his software directly into your brain, You wouldn't know. Simply, you wouldn't know. Which takes us to, I'm going to talk about, let's flow right into Nick Bostrom. And the reason why I want to go with Nick, because Nick, when he started talking about this, it's a while ago. (30:17) And everybody can go, and I've read it many times, you can read his original paper, which is called The Simulation Argument. And you can go and read, it's 14 pages, and you can find it online. But he's been talking about this for a very, very, very long time. And then Elon comes along and a few others going, well, you know, I think that there's a 99. (30:42) 9% chance that we are living in a simulation. That's pretty good odds, right? That's pretty good odds, 99.9% chance. So I'm going to read the opening, it's very short, paragraph. written by Nick about his paper, The Simulation Argument. And this is what he writes. He says, this paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true. (31:09) One, the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a post-human stage. Two, any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history or variations thereof. Or three, we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become post-humans who run ancestor simulations. (31:50) Now, and if you, unless, and that idea is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. Now, it seems deep and it seems complex, but it's really not. The reason why I listened to Nick, but also backed off of his version of this, is he is talking about the future. When we get the ability to have a simulation and we have non-player characters, and then you take those characters and you make those your relatives, and you put your relatives' minds into that, that if we got to that technical advancement, (32:41) that we would interact with our past and our past would be real. And the past would be a simulation. And we could go and experience all of that. And if that is possible, then why wouldn't it be possible? If that is indeed the case, then we could be in a simulation today. And that's what he postulates. (33:02) And it's a very interesting one. The only caveat here is that he is talking about us in the future with the ability to go post-human right now. Right. Would that indicate that in the future, if we could access the future, that this is going on and therefore we would be living in a simulation? You have to test Einstein's theory of relativity, leave the earth and come back in the future and see. (33:29) But wouldn't that be interesting? And the way that Nick does it and the way that he proposes it, it makes sense and it works. The numbers play out. And he was one of the first modern day scientists to dedicate an entire paper to it and really ponder the possibilities as his first version of his paper was written back in 2001. (33:51) And then it was published in 2003 in the Philosophical Quarterly. But when we're looking at this, one big point that he makes is if and if is in all caps, if we do not destroy ourselves and if we are advanced enough, we will be able to create a simulation at some point in time. But he really emphasizes the word if we do not destroy ourselves and the way that things are going and have been, I would say, for a few decades. (34:21) Do you? I don't know how much longer we have left, but when we're looking at this and if we are, I know Jimmy's laughing at me, but if we're able to technologically advance even more, Yeah. The Sims could be real. Here's an example. Have you ever gone out in public? Okay. Which is going to be a yes for a lot of people. (34:43) You go out in public and there's just some people that aren't fully there. Like they're not acting like people in the sense of like, they're just not consciously doing the things that they're supposed to be doing. And they stand out like a sore thumb. And you think to yourself, are they an NPC? Like what's going on? here like their interactions with you maybe aren't fully there maybe they're standing on the busiest road in the middle of the road where cars must be going and they're just not (35:12) aware aware of what's going on right right right can that potentially be an example of a simulation where some are conscious and other ones just haven't upgraded yet well okay it's how you observe it So maybe in their world at that moment that they see the world differently. It's going to take us straight into Schrodinger's cat if you think about it in those terms. (35:47) If you think about it in those terms, which Schrodinger's cat... which is exactly what Christina is talking about, but it gets more complex. And the reason why I bring this up, like I do Rodinger's cat, like even the idea is a very simple one. His, his ideas behind it dealt with physics. All right. But the idea behind it is simple. (36:16) You have a cat in a box and, Until you open the box, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Now, don't scratch your head and go, what? Well, you don't know until you open it up. Until you observe it and change its state. That's it. But you can take that into modern physics today in quantum computing because now the phrase cat state refers to the GHZ state where qubits are an equal superposition of all being zeros and all being one at the same time. (37:02) Now, according to... at least one proposal with this, it may be possible to determine the state of the cat before observing it. Now, wait a minute. How is that possible? Here's the thing. Big brains, this very simple idea laid out by Schrodinger was a thought experiment and he wanted everybody's input on this and to cause people to start thinking. (37:33) But then suddenly we had the Copenhagen interpretation. We had the Von Neumann interpretation. We had Bohr's interpretation. We had the Many Worlds interpretation by Hugh Everett. That was in 1957. You think that the Many Worlds idea and that this is all modern Marvel Comics stuff? It's been discussed for a very long time, all because of Schrodinger. (37:57) You have the ensemble interpretation. You have the relational interpretation. You have the transactional interpretation. And each one of these, and when I say here's a list, This is off the top of my head. There's an infinite amount of interpretations that you can apply with this. It is indeed a true thought experiment, and it has extended out beyond that. (38:24) So with Schrodinger's cat and the idea of us living in a simulation is how you perceive it. And when you observe something, you can change its state. And that just right there, when When physicists and scientists and lab experiments, and we'll talk about entanglement and deja vu and everything else here during this show today. (38:53) The science behind looking at something and changing its state so it can be measured is nuts. But this is the basis of quantum mechanics. This is the basis of quantum theory. This is the basis of Schrodinger's cat. And is a particle a wave? Is a light a wave? What is it? Is it matter or not? Well, it depends if you're looking at it and you can change its state. (39:28) And so, yeah, are we living in a matrix? Are we living in a simulation? It's how you may observe it. And this screen will make sense to some people. But before I get to that, HQ says, like in a video game, objects aren't rendered unless it is in view of the player, which kind of touches on Schrodinger's cat. (39:51) But you were touching about quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, and we simply cannot talk about that without giving an experiment. And in this case, it is the double split experiment, which... In many ways, it stumped people during the time frame when the experiment was conducted. And even today, people think to themselves, I get it. (40:12) I get it. I get it in writing. OK, I can see the evidence, but I don't get it. Like, I don't get how it works. And even today, there are potential theories, but there are no extreme definite answers. Whereas you've heard the quote and you can take that to the bank. You can't with this one. And I love it so much. (40:36) So tell us a little bit about the double split experiment, Jimmy. Well, the double slit. Okay. So you can say split. The double slit experiment, again, is framed in such a way. It was designed differently. We have light. We see light. And it was always assumed, we didn't really know, but what is light? Is it a particle or is it a wave? Okay, and how would you prove that? So now you can picture light. (41:16) You've got two slits in a piece of paper, a board, a piece of wood, piece of metal. You've got two slits. And then in front of it, you have a bunch of water. And when you hit the edge of the water, the water makes ripples and waves, right, and moves across. And when it goes through the two slits, those waves are going to break apart and then recombine. (41:45) Okay, so picture that in your mind. Now, when you put light through it, what would happen if light is a wave? Well, what ended up happening and what surprised everybody is that the pickup on the other side, instead of it being what you would imagine, it was specs. and it was divided up. So therefore, when you are looking at light in one state, you're looking at a wave. (42:20) You're looking at it in this other state, and you're looking at particles. Therefore, right it's the same thing at the same time depending on how you observe it now I would call it a phenomenon in that we can't explain it a lot it's very very difficult to understand light and to hear a physicist discuss this you're going to hear different opinions uh there are uh it's it's How long does the energy last? What is really going on? It gets involved, of course, with the speed of light and (42:58) these other basic properties that Einstein has written about. I get all of that. As much as we know, we don't know a lot. And the double-slit experiment is proof of that. And when this was demonstrated throughout the world, I mean, it was like a big deal. Wait a minute. You mean light's not a wave? It's particles? Well, it depends on when you observe it. (43:25) And you can change something's state. It's crazy. It is. It is. And not only that, this was conducted like the original double slit experiment was performed in 1801 by Thomas Young at the Royal Institution. And what's what baffles a lot of people is that this. This paradoxical behavior defied the classical understanding that entities could only exist in one state at a time, introducing this concept that the act of observing could fundamentally alter the outcome of an experiment. (44:04) Now, you could think to yourself, this is either super wacky or you're God. All right. Where if you see something, bam, it's going to happen. Now, can it happen in your favor? Yeah. Gotta be a wizard for that one. But it goes right back to Schrodinger's cat, right? And our base reality, and it goes back to the butterfly dream. (44:27) All of these concepts all tie together. Now, in the end of this show, and I just jumped in and interrupted you. At the end of this show, everybody's going to be thinking the same thing. okay am I real or not which version of me right now is the real me and and here's the other one last little thing when you are having a conversation with somebody think about that too as well personality conflicts type a type b type c type d who are you talking to they are talking to somebody they may not understand, right? (45:10) Observe, observe who you're talking to. And so you can, they can understand what you're saying and get into a level playing field of understanding, which comes down to communication. So there you go. Just think about these concepts. You're going to be doing it a lot tonight after this show. At least we hope that you do. (45:30) The show is meant to encourage inquisitive minds, excuse me, and to ask bigger and better questions. Just touching on quantum entanglement, and I wish we kept this name as our everyday reference to quantum entanglement, and that is spooky action out of distance. Thank you. Thank you so much, Albert Einstein, for that. (45:50) But unfortunately, we don't use it that often anymore. And I wish it kept that title. I just wanted to put that out there. And maybe we should start changing that, Jimmy, as of today. I'm just going to let everybody know we've got about 15 minutes to touchdown. I've got it here live. There's a lot of flurry now, a lot of excitement going on in mission control, but I will keep everybody posted here. (46:14) Yeah, entanglement. Okay. So, and we've got to wait till we get to deja vu and the Mandela effect. I think all of these come into play here. Entanglement is a crazy thing. And now let me go simple. I talk about this all the time. And so to put it simply, I'm going to put it the Jimmy Church version of this, the simple version. (46:46) Quantum entanglement means that the state of one particle, right? Okay, I got a couple of pens. These are two particles. The state of one particle... of an entangled pair depends on the state of the other particle, no matter how far apart they are. Now, wait a minute. That doesn't make any sense. So let me pull up the pens again. (47:20) The state of one depends on the other. The pen flips, this pen flips, but not like that. They will do it at the same time, always, no matter the distance. So with this in mind, a particle spins, okay? Spins, it spins in one direction. And if it's entangled with another particle, it's also spinning. If you change the spin and reverse it on this particle, this particle will reverse its spin at the exact same time, even if they are on the opposite sides of the universe with stars and planets and antimatter in between, (48:12) no matter what. That's a crazy concept. So when you take the simulation theory and are we living in a simulation and we apply that idea to it and it goes all the way down to quantum computers, is that what if my brain, brain, all the particles are entangled with another brain on the other side of the universe? Would that enable communication? Not one particle at a time. (48:41) That would take forever. But if one particle can be entangled, couldn't an entire brain be entangled to another brain? And I would suggest that ET would know how to do this. And this would answer all of those communication problems at the speed of light. That's the first thing. But you know what else it does? channeling and channeling information. (49:10) So when Descartes, Yang Tzu, Da Vinci, these brainstorming monumental ideas come in, are they channeled from somewhere else? Are we entangled with another mind on the, you know, on the other side of the universe? Well, science says yes. And the entanglement happens at the speed of now. There's no delay. And how is it possible that two particles on the opposite sides of the universe can react at the exact same time? It goes against all of Einstein's work with nothing can be faster than the speed of light. (49:56) Now, quantum entanglement, before anybody wants to start arguing about this, has been demonstrated experimentally with photons, with electrons, and even diamonds. The use of entanglement in communication, computation, quantum radar is an active area of research with state actors, universities, and corporations all around the world. (50:24) They are all working on this right now. This is part of our base reality. If that is indeed the case, then what is real? That's it. Don't know. I don't have much to add to that because you went into great depths. And just like yourself, I am not a PhD when it comes to physics or quantum entanglement or anything in between like that. (50:57) However, it is things that any mind, any mind can consider, can contemplate, but not necessarily conquer. The next piece I want to get into, before we get into déjà vu and the Mandela effect and a few other tidbits, while we're still in the concept of science, is just quickly touching on the holographic principle. (51:23) I'm going to... Jimmy, I will spit out his coffee. Yeah, let's go deep. You want to go deeper? Let's go there. Yeah, absolutely. Let's pull this one up. Because the holographic principle suggests that the information contained within a volume of space can be represented on a boundary to that space like a holographic image. (51:48) And this theory emerged from string theory and quantum gravity research implies that our 3D reality represents might be projected from information encoded on a 2D surface, very much like a projector. I think that's a decent example, right? So to some, this principle hints at the possibility of our universe being a kind of projection or even a simulation where the fundamental reality is a two-dimensional surface and what we perceive as three-dimensional space is just a phenomenon. (52:26) We're one minute from touchdown. Less than a minute. Less than a minute. It's going down right now. I think the countdown is on my other screen. But anyway, it's going down right now. It's going right down. That was the animation of the touchdown. I can't play the audio, everybody, so don't ask. (52:54) And they had said before the touchdown was going to occur, they were going to run this animation. I just saw the countdown. It was at a minute and 15 seconds. It is showing the touchdown here. I don't know if we are quite there. Are we watching a simulation, right? See, look, simulation right there on the screen. (53:22) And isn't that appropriate for what's going on right now? You've got to make sure it lands. And we can keep this up on the screen, and we'll see. We'll get the – oh, you've got the like button covering mission control. Oh, I can take that off. Not a problem. And if you're enjoying the live coverage, hit that like button right down below. (53:51) Yeah, this is pretty cool. I'm waiting for everybody to stand up and applaud. I think that's the key here. And, okay, so what were we just talking about? The holographic principle. The holographic principle. If we go back to Plato's cave, which was, again, a thought experiment about a 2D existence, and then it went on with other philosophers, your shadow on the ground, right, of you. (54:25) Is that you or a 2D version of you? And then that 2D reality started to come into play. Not flat earth, but a flat world, right? Where everything is interacting, but they're interacting on a flat plane. Could that be another reality for us? And that's where the concepts of the holographic side of things and launching into a 3D version of us came from. (54:53) It's a very interesting concept. It's something that people would say, oh, flat earthers, that's what this topic's about. And no, the answer is no to that one. And that's all it is, is just merely a theory. It is a thought experiment and is something that is worth your time to consider once in your lifetime. (55:21) Just once. I mean. Maybe more. That'd be kind of nice. But once is enough for this one. Now that we've covered the basics of the scientific aspect, the scientific research, we can definitely begin to look at, for instance, the Mandela effect. Now, Jimmy and I have done an entire show on the Mandela effect and even did a fun quiz as well. (55:43) Jimmy had to guess which one was which. if it was real or not. And if you haven't watched it, that's a really fun episode. But the Mandela effect refers to a phenomenon where a large number of people remember an event or detail differently from how it actually occurred. And this collective misremembering of common events or details first emerged as a popular concept in the early 2000s because it was coined by Fiona Broom after she discovered that she, along with other people, falsely remembered Nelson Mandela dying in the 1980s in prison when, (56:24) in fact, he was actually released in 1990 and then passed away in 2013. Now, if you look at your... or maybe like pop artists, whatever it may be, you might think to yourself, I remember this. And then when you look it up, it's not there. I'll give you an example, a very personal one. oh my gosh, now her name is escaping me. (56:47) But the lady that researched chimpanzees, Jane Goodall, Jane Goodall, okay? I thought she passed away a few decades ago until I went online and I saw her on someone's story and I was like, what? She's still alive? That's not how I remembered it. That's not how I learned it in school. She had passed away, I want to say like in the 90s or the early 2000s. (57:12) And then I found out that she didn't. And I was like, my memory might not be pucker. Okay. But I remember that as a diddly darn fact. And that's just one of so many examples. And yes, I did go online to see if other people felt the same way. And many agreed, not everyone, but a good majority of people. The, the Mandela effect. (57:35) Okay. Let me pull this up really quick. I'm not seeing any excitement here. Let me see. Well, while Jimmy does that, when we're looking at the Mandela effect here, people consider it to be evidence of a glitch in the matrix, a glitch. Okay, they're cycling the ground transmitter. I think there are some issues. (58:06) I think there is some issues here. Let me pull this down for now. And if I get an update, I'll bring it back. I don't want to have sad news live on the show. With the Mandela effect, where the ideas, and you go to the pure definition, right? You go and you look and see what people are actually calling this. (58:31) They are saying that it is an observed phenomenon. in which a large segment of the population misremembers a significant event, and I disagree with that, I would say remembers, not misremembers, or shares a memory of an event that did not actually occur. Now, that's the way doctors are looking at that. This is the way the education system is looking at the Mandela effect. (59:01) I totally disagree with that. I remember. I don't misremember to suggest that I'm not remembering it correctly is wrong. And you are also, you can't do it that way. And you are also labeling millions of people that are remembering things a certain way as having a mental issue or that they've got problems. (59:31) They've got somebody they've schizophrenia. There's some kind of psychosis going on. It's a, it's a dream. It's they've, No, no. My memory is my own, and I remember it that way. And when I go down a long list of stuff that I remember a certain way, and it is symbolized and represented differently today, I sit back and scratch my head. (1:00:02) That's it. But I'm not thinking that I'm misremembering it, that I'm remembering it wrong. No, no, my memory is my own. And I would suggest, it forces me to think, Christina, that either we're living in a different reality, a different parallel world, something has intersected between two worlds, the multiverse is colliding with each other. (1:00:30) Is it time travelers from the future going back in time and changing something? They can't change our memories, but they can change the event. There, we remember, therefore, we remember what was real and but they have changed the facts in the past, right? And that's the way I look at it. I cannot accept that millions of people misremembered the same thing. (1:01:00) No, no, no, no, no. I think there's something much more simpler involved here than a mass psychosis in humanity. This is why this is a topic that needs to be addressed when it comes to the simulation theory, because are there those that got the upgrade and others that didn't? And how come you're able to catch a few of them, a few tidbits that don't look right that you see today while you don't catch others? And how come not everyone agrees with you? There are so many questions when it comes to the (1:01:32) Mandela effect and then putting it into the concept of the simulation theory. That's where your hair will immediately turn white from all of the intense thinking that you'll be doing. But when we're still looking at time, we need to bring in deja vu into this because it says that two thirds of people encounter deja vu. (1:01:53) I've never had it. But theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku believes that deja vu is a form of memory glitch that happens when, quote, fragments of memory stored in the brain are elicited by moving into an environment that resembles something we've already experienced. Jimmy, have you ever encountered deja vu? I do it all the time, and I love it. (1:02:17) And Michio Kaku is wrong. Okay? All right? He's wrong. He's wrong. And I'll argue. I'll debate this point. I don't like debating. But he's wrong. And let me tell you why. Deja vu. Okay, first off, it's French. So let's start there. Deja revé. It's French meaning already dreamed, which is the feeling of having already dreamed something that is currently being experienced. (1:02:51) The phrase déjà vu is borrowed from French and means already seen. All right. Now, you just stated approximately two thirds of everybody surveyed populations around the world say that they've experienced deja vu at least once in their life. Christina is saying she is part of the third that has never had a deja vu. (1:03:19) I'm not buying that for a second. She just doesn't want to talk about it, but that's fine. The explanations behind deja vu, all of them, I believe, are wrong. And I'll give you my reasons why, but let's go over a few. It's dream-based, right? You dreamed it, and now you're confusing the dream with the real-time experience that you're going through. (1:03:48) That's wrong. That's a very popular concept. The dual neurological processing explanation of this. There's that. You have cryptominesia, which is an illness where you are confusing things, right? You have memory-based problems. explanations to this. You're just remembering. You've got an old memory. (1:04:16) It's in your brain. Your brain is using that old memory and applying it now to real life, and you are confusing a memory with what is going on now. You have the split perception explanation. You have temporal lobe epilepsy, a brain injury. Explain it. So, So millions of people around the world have temporal lobe epilepsy. (1:04:47) Millions of people at the same time are having split perception reality issues, right? Cryptomanesia. Everybody, no. Everything that I just listed is wrong. A 2008 study found that deja vu experiences are unlikely to be pathological dissociative experiences. And now when I experience a deja vu, I'll give you a classic example. (1:05:18) When I go into a room and I'm listening to a conversation between two people and I'm experiencing this and I know exactly the next question to be asked and the answer and how this conversation is going down and my reality of knowing that I'm watching this go down. And I sit back and enjoy the experience. (1:05:47) This is not epilepsy. This isn't a brain injury. And I have had these experiences since I was a little kid. And I have said since I was a little kid over and over again, somebody has read my book, my book of life, right? Before I've experienced it, somebody's read it, and they know it, and it's being played back now. (1:06:18) I've said this when I was eight years old. Somebody's read my book. Somebody's read my book. How does somebody know that this is about to happen, and I realize that it's happening right now? That is not from a dream. It isn't a shared memory. It isn't a split memory. It isn't a brain injury, and it isn't an illness. (1:06:43) Now, I can't explain deja vu. I only know when it happens, and I enjoy it. When I have a deja vu, I'll do it out loud. I'm having a deja vu right now, and this is really cool. I'll say it. I'll say it out loud. I love it when it happens. And everything that I just said, and including Michio Kaku, they're all wrong. (1:07:08) Every one. Ansari says, if we make a simulation, which is as good as real life, and we're in a simulation, we made a simulation in a simulation. This is actually, and thank you for that, by the way. But this is something that has been talked about by different scientists and researchers that have taken the concept of the simulation theory seriously. (1:07:34) and they mentioned that if we are an advanced enough species or if there is another species that's advanced enough to create a simulation then when that simulation is becomes gets all of its updates and its best programming then they can create a simulation and then it goes on and on and on as if you are looking at a mirror through a mirror or with a mirror where you have that infinity loop going on. (1:08:00) And if you haven't done that, it's really interesting, especially for children. They absolutely love that kind of stuff. But it is a possibility, and that's all it is at this moment. It's a possibility that something like that could happen. It's the same instance, I think a decent example is the video game sims you have this character you're the one in control of it and that character is able not only to act in its in its environment but I think in the new updates it can also play on the computer (1:08:30) right correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I haven't played that in gosh forever But let's say it does. Let's say that Sims character can play a game on its laptop and then play Sims on its computer. Then yes, you're having this loop go on. So it is a concept that kind of like makes your brain hurt a little bit. (1:08:55) Well, what's wrong with that concept? And if, okay, so we talked about dreaming. What if we are in a simulation and we go to bed and we dream? Now we are dreaming. And what if we dream about dreaming a simulation? Right? And then inside of that dream, it goes back to this image that you have here on the screen. (1:09:26) I would postulate that if you uploaded your consciousness onto a computer and you're living the matrix and you are Neo, and Neo in the matrix is what? A computer programmer, right? So if that's your gig and you are a coder, you write code in this 2D existence, right? And you upload yourself and now you're coding in this on a chip and you code a simulation on the chip. (1:10:04) How far does this go? And, Everything is mathematically possible here. This is not crazy town conversation. The ability to have a brain, Neuralink is here, to have a human brain computer interface in play, and that kind of interaction happens, and you are writing code while you are inside of the computer, and that code is a simulation. (1:10:33) What does that change in our reality? What does that change in me? What does it change? Would I know? Would you know? And the deeper, deeper question, very philosophical, is what does it change? What does it change? And how would you know? How would you know? How would you know? How would you know? And what would it matter? Could we add in the conversation destiny into this? Free will? That's where it gets complex. (1:11:09) And I want to address Android here. And thank you for that. It says, if life's a simulation, then I think it's not a technical simulation. It's an organic chemical simulation created by the dream of God. Just my thoughts. Could be. And let's say, let's go on with this thought just for a moment. (1:11:29) It's still a simulation no matter who's in control of it. So then do you really have the rights to your life? Do you still have the rights to free will? Does free will even exist? Can you actually change destiny if it's binary code and it's a program that you have to go from point A to point B? Yeah, it's simpler than that. (1:11:51) Yes, it's a great question, but it's not complex. The code for a non-player character in like a game like The Sims, very simple, very simple code. And so you write what this, the characteristics behind this character, And then the character is off doing its own thing in the game. You're not going to control all of it. (1:12:19) It's got in its own way, its own free will. You're not controlling it. But it only does when you're looking at it. That's the thing with video games. Okay. Okay. Okay. Let's circle back to that. All right. If we are in a simulation right now, are we being controlled by something external? Or is our coding just embedded and we have that free will to go and do whatever our NPC character would do? And again, I'll ask the fundamental question. (1:13:01) What does it change? Why would you care? Would you know? People would assume that you would be able to make wiser decisions, better decisions, feel more empowered possibly by knowing that information. But what would it change? What would it change? Would you change your life because of it? Would you change your sleeping habits? Would you change your favorite colors? Would suddenly, would you quit your job? Do bills stop coming in, right? Does the sun not come up tomorrow because suddenly you've gotten this information? (1:13:44) What does it change? And I would argue that it changes nothing. I still enjoy what I enjoy. I'm drinking a nice hot mocha right now. And if it's not real, I don't care. It tastes great, right? And it's kind of like the matrix, actually. And so, yeah, what would it change? And I would suggest that it changes nothing. (1:14:13) Well, we can apply that same mentality, that same mentality to all of the issues, all of the good things that are happening on planet Earth. You can look at those that are creating nuclear weapons. We can look at those that are living their lives happily or depressed. You're right. I wouldn't say you're right here, but information... (1:14:36) only matters when you apply it. Otherwise, all that information that's out there, your phone, it's a walking computer in your pocket. You have access to almost everything, but a good majority of people use it for mere entertainment, for social media, when you have the world's information, to an extent, at your fingertips. (1:14:59) Things don't matter until you apply it. things don't matter until you know about it and mysterious mystery says here everything that exists or ever will already exists in binary we are just discovering pre-existing code when we're talking about code binary code this is I've had this conversation before and that is how do we know binary code is universal like it makes sense to us to humans because We know what's up. (1:15:35) We understand what it means because we created it with the ones and zeros. But let's say we're another civilization just for a moment here. Let's just indulge on this thought. They wouldn't have ones and zeros. Maybe it could be different symbols. Maybe it could be different numbers. Who knows? The thing is that people say that math is universal. (1:15:52) And I want to agree and disagree simultaneously like Schrodinger's cat, because to us, number one, Makes perfect sense to us. But when we're trying to explain it to another entity that didn't originate on Earth, they're going to be like, what the heck does this symbol mean? I can maybe understand the outcome of it, of what you're attempting to achieve. (1:16:12) But because I do not understand the symbols, it has no meaning to me. Therefore, everything that you're telling me doesn't matter. So. Yes, let's talk about consequences and free will. Okay, so we're living in a simulation. Does that mean you can fall down the stairs and not break your leg and have pain, burn your hand on the stove and not feel the pain of a burn, jump off of a building, fall out of a window and not die? No, actions have consequences. (1:16:53) and you still have feelings, and you still have all of the actions that happen from the action, right? And that is part of all of this. So I would say that free will is in play. The ones and zeros part with the binary explanation, that's where the argument about free will falls short. And a lot of physicists will say there is no such thing as free will. (1:17:24) And I understand the reasons why for that. Math is math. Particles are particles. Things are going to react the way that they're going to react and everything will develop. That's how the universe, that's how our existence happened here. It is a sequence like a Fibonacci sequence. It's just constantly moving forward and evolving. (1:17:44) And whatever is going to happen is going to happen and you can't change it. Therefore, free will is not in play. But I would argue that. And the reason why I would argue that, that makes a lot of sense. It really, really does. It's a hard thing to get around. But if you have a machine learning program, forget about us and free will. (1:18:09) Do I want vanilla or chocolate ice cream or hot or iced coffee? Okay, that could be determined. And I understand that. But let's go the opposite. What if you programmed... in a program, options. And those options are influenced by something. And again, artificial intelligence, machine learning. This doesn't seem as determined to me, although it's a binary existence. (1:18:42) How can you predict what a computer would do? In a predetermined situation or in a determined world, in a reductionist world, you can. There it is. It landed. It landed. They are in contact. Wow. It looks like everything is good. Now, they're having some communication. Hey! We landed on the moon, allegedly, after over 50 years. (1:19:20) That's pretty nuts, isn't it? It is. Now, what's interesting about this is that it was a private company. It wasn't a government agency that was able to land on the moon. It only was with the assistance of SpaceX. But it is the I Am Mission. I Am Mission One, I believe. I Am One. I Am One. I Am One, yeah, which is a private company that wants to – place cargo not cargo but like yeah cargo on on the moon at some point and also collect data and find water on the moon as well and I don't want to say (1:19:54) mysterious mysteries but it is easily translatable referring to ones and zeros how do we know that uh that's my question here is like it's easily translatable to us we have the technology we have the understanding but how so is it to do the same on a totally different scale of symbols and language to an entity that maybe we just don't understand just yet. (1:20:14) And hey, correct me if I'm wrong. That's totally okay. That's why we have these conversations. But as my current understanding, and it will change tomorrow, I hope, I don't know how that's plausible at this point in time and lou thank you for that that is so kind I do appreciate it and it's exciting that the intuitive machines one did land on the moon today live we were able to see it right here right now it's exciting pretty nuts man that's pretty nuts is that real okay so Taking this concept one step further, (1:20:48) something that's easy to digest, but, and I was talking with somebody the other night on the show about this. Right now, you and I are looking at avatars of us. We're not in the same room, right? In fact, we've never met. right but we are looking at and communicating with images on a screen okay all right our audience is watching this images on a screen What is the difference between this and how information is processed through our eyeballs and into our brain? Those are all electrical signals. (1:21:39) Those are all calculations going down at the same time. What is the difference? I would suggest nothing. Because you and I have met virtually, if I was walking down the street and saw you, I would know you, right? I would recognize you. My brain would make that calculation the same way that it calculates and understands my environment around me. (1:22:10) So I would suggest again, what would the difference be? And to take all of this a step further, and to suggest that it is possible for all of these calculations to be recreated and put into our heads where this is the same as a reality, would we know? Probably not. What's the Star Trek, the holodeck? Same idea. (1:22:40) It's the same concept. Now, the ideas of time, before we run out of time, the ideas of time, when we go into Descartes' version of the dream state, or Shang Tzu, and others that have talked about this over the years, when we go into that dream state, how is it possible that we know that we're awake, We go into the dream state, we fall asleep for 15 minutes, but we dream an entire day in our head and we wake up 15 minutes later. (1:23:23) We know we just dreamed the events of going to the zoo and looking at this and that. All of this happened in 15 minutes. How is that possible? Was it done fast forward? right and if you look at it that way which is the reality and are we going to another reality when we dream which takes us back to which one is real and when shang tzu said I was dreaming as a butterfly but it seemed real but now I'm out of the dream and am I the butterfly dreaming me Which one is real? These concepts are complex. (1:24:06) They really are. And again, the concern or lack of concern from an Elon Musk or the head of the CEO of Google, pick some big tech company out, somebody that's running something, they're supposed to be really, really smart and says, well, I think we're living in a simulation. What is it that they know? And if they can accept that and say it without sounding crazy or appearing crazy and running a big company, then maybe it is real. (1:24:45) But what does it change? Again, I think the deep philosophical answer to that is it changes nothing. And it changes nothing because it can't be applied or it changes nothing because that information is insignificant to our everyday lives. Okay. So check this out. I'm just going to pop this up. I don't know who this is. (1:25:10) Phil Francis. One and zero is tech, not spiritual. Right? Wrong. Wrong. 100% wrong. You know why? If we're living in a simulation, religion is in there. Therefore, one and zeros are very spiritual. The ideas of consciousness. Spiritual connection, empathy, dreaming, awareness, giving, right? Service to others. (1:25:45) These deep spiritual concepts that have been laid down for millennia. If we are living in a simulation, then therefore it's ones and zeros. So I'll say it again. Change is nothing. Change is nothing. I'm okay with it. I really am. Miss Firejack says, it may be a simulation, but we are still alive and aware. (1:26:09) We affect each other and every action creates a ripple, real or not. We are connected. And then Camp says, it's all metaphysics. And thank you guys. That could be metaphysics. It could be metaphysics. I like that. I like that. I like that a lot. I like that idea a lot. It could be. It really could. And what I really enjoy about this is, I laid it out because earlier where I was just listening, these ideas, Schrodinger and Niels Bohr and everybody jumping in on this action all the way through to today, Michio Kaku and Neil (1:26:49) deGrasse Tyson and Brian Green and Sean Carroll, these big brains are all, Max, they all jump in on this and have their own take on it. These are heavy, heavy, heavy questions. And I think that everybody's got their own view on it. And I would suggest this, and then I'll part ways and say goodbye, everybody. (1:27:14) I want to go and enjoy this moon landing and check this out so I can talk about it later. Is this, Christina, what would happen? Think about this. What would happen if we took your VR glasses and put them on a chimpanzee? And he's looking at another world. What does he see? What does he see? She. Right. Takes them off and then looks around. (1:27:52) Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. What are the implications of that? And I think about that all the time. There's an ancient metaphor here where you have a fish in a fishbowl. That's its world. That's all it knows, right? That's its world. Looking out above the water into this, They don't understand that. (1:28:26) They don't understand that. Their world, all that exists to them, there's no space. There are no stars, right? And if you take that concept with a chimp, chimp is experiencing this world, but doesn't understand physics or the metaverse. the many worlds theory, but you go and throw on VR glasses and suddenly change everything for them, what do they think? I'll leave you with that. (1:29:03) They would be in a realm of fascination, seeing a difference between the two right in front of their eyes, wearing VR glasses, and then seeing their reality when they take off the glasses. And the question is, which one really is reality? How can we decide which one is which? Think about that. Christina, great show today. (1:29:23) You're the very best. Historic show. History on Histories with a Mystery. Thanks, Jimmy. It was, it was a really fantastic show out of all the scientific experiments and the stories and other pieces that we mentioned. What aspect of this was your favorite? Let me know in the live chat. Please let me know in the comments as well. (1:29:45) John aside. Thank you for that. Hello, UFO gowned off and mysteries. Mysterious mysteries says the difference is language. Yes. Language labels. They do really affect on how people perceive things. And once those things are removed, I am ready for telepathic communication. I feel like it would just make everything a million times easier because there's no language there. (1:30:06) I mean, you could have language, but just using imagery, feeling all the senses, smell, taste, touch, right? It would make such a big difference. And there wouldn't be this extreme level of misinterpretation of things. And Mark, thank you for that as well. But before I head out, I do want to see and hear what piece was your favorite. (1:30:28) For Paul, it was Quantum Entanglement. Yes, that one's a classic. You can't go wrong with that stuff. It is really fascinating. jimmy says it changes nothing quote me lol jimmy as in my co-host jimmy church of faint of black radio if you enjoyed the show please hit that like button right down below not only does it help me in the sense of like letting me know that you like the show but it also says youtube we really like this content and you need to make and push more of this type of content so please hit that like button (1:31:03) because it's a really fantastic way to support this channel, if and only if you actually enjoy the content that goes in here. But tomorrow is going to be strange weekly news. You do not want to miss it, as it will be live. Also, follow me on Twitter at eyes underscore on the skies for all of my updates and news. (1:31:21) And with this QR code, it will take you to all of my social media links. Also, you can find those links in the description box below. But I do make space ambient music. Do check out that channel. It is called Cosmic Portals. And once again, that is space ambient music. And then for all of the shows that we do right here, I'm now writing articles for it. (1:31:40) You can find it on my website or on Medium as well. If you just scan this QR code, it will take you right there. I will see you tomorrow. Be safe. And remember, keep your eyes on the skies.