January 1, 2026 • 54 mins
Could human dreams really, in some way, predict the future? At first, it sounds like the stuff of science fiction... but the real-life answer may not be as clear-cut as the plot of a sci-fi blockbuster. Instead, it turns out that probability, bias and, perhaps, the bleeding edge of physics may all play a role in the strange phenomenon known as precognitive dreams. Join Ben, Matt and Noel as they search for a scientific take on precognition in the second part of this two-part series.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're back.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Happy New Year, Happy New Year, Happy New Year. No,
happy New Year, Happy New Year, Tennessee. Happy New Year you,
fellow conspiracy realist.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Yay happen yeay? What kind of fireworks do you got
going on right now?
Speaker 3 (00:19):
How is your dog, Dylan? That was a good woo man.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Yeah, thank you. Please stop your fireworks at a respectable
hour for the dog's sake.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
How are your dogs?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
How you DAGs?
Speaker 1 (00:32):
So if you're gonna do fireworks, please respect everybody else's
dogs and do your fireworks indoors. Just kidding like an American.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
So uh, this is uh the second chapter of our
classic series on dreams and predicting the future. Now as
we know, we talked about this in a recent weekly
Strange News segment. There's a lot humans are learning about
the concept of linear or experienced time, and when we
(01:06):
first got into this idea of dreams predicting the future,
we got a lot of feedback, a lot of correspondence,
and we got a lot of people, I think surprisingly, gents,
we had a lot of people calling in to confirm
our findings, which was the most fascinating part about this
(01:28):
for sure.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
So why don't we just jump right in to part
two of Have Dreams Really Predicted the Future?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Already in progress or you know at the beginning.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know? A
production of iHeart Reading.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noel.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
our super producer Paul, Mission control decand most importantly, you
are you. You are here and that makes this stuff
they don't want you to know. This is the second
part of a two part series asking whether dreams have
really predicted the future. We ended the earlier episode without
(02:29):
getting to several things facts for one, science, although we're
able to put some science in the first episode, and
perhaps most importantly, questions that we had promised at the
beginning of the last episode. So please listen to part
one of Have Dreams Really Predicted the Future before you
(02:52):
dive into part two. This is mostly crazy stuff in
the second act, So here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Oh man, as the quickest we've gotten crazy. I think
maybe ever? I love it?
Speaker 5 (03:06):
Do you want to do you a little quick recap
of some of the hallmarks from our last episode.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Some of the historical figures.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
We've got Abraham Lincoln, who seems to have predicted his
own assassination and dream. We have Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain,
who seems to have had a premonition of his brother's
demise in the form of a dream where he was
laid out his brother in a metal casket wearing a suit,
(03:33):
a borrowed suit and also bedecked with like a particular
spray of flowers that lined up with what he saw
in his dream, my crazy dream about Bennett Moon and
then that manifesting in reality in the form of her
calling in to wait, wait, don't tell me what else
we got. I think your great aunt's ben and in
(03:53):
her potential obo playing or lack of in the room.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
No, no, I didn't want to take time in the
show with my own personal anecdotes. I always think of
that scene and as always sunny in Philadelphia, where Dennis
Reynolds is his sister in the show, is talking about
her dreams and he tells her stop. No one wants
to hear about anybody else's dreams. So I think that
(04:19):
affected me because the Great aunt Obo Portugal example is
just is just made up to show the credulous, the
credulous nature of dreams. But we also talked about how
dreams can function as a way of problem solving.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Our brains as problem solvers are sometimes more effective when
our consciousness is less involved. That's how the periodic table
was formulated. That's how many authors discover great works like
Samuel Coleridge wrote Kubla Khan after he he awoke from
(05:02):
a dream. He wrote the poem in his sleep, kind of.
He was also on a lot of opium at the time.
I don't think I mentioned this earlier, but the sewing
machine was also inspired by a dream.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
Yeah, it was a weird one too, a really violent
dream where I believe the inventor was being boiled in
a pot by cannibals and being stabbed with like spears.
And in the dream he recognized that the spears had
holes in the tips, and that's what gave him the
idea for the way you thread the needle or the whatever.
I'm not in a sewing expert on a sewing machine,
(05:39):
it actually is tied to the very tip of the
needle and that's what allows it to kind of continue
to thread and.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Hold on or whatever. But he what a weird way
to come to that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Seriously, and just for a couple of other examples, Albert Einstein,
by his own account, discovered the or you know, hit
upon some of his own revelations in the world of dreams.
At this point, I'd like to recommend a fantastic book
about the nature of time by a guy who I
(06:13):
think he was an m I T an author named
Alan Leitman. He wrote a book called Einstein's Dreams, and
it's entirely almost an anthology or a series of vignettes
of young Einstein working as a sleepy patent clerk, and
(06:33):
every time he falls asleep he encounters another theory of time,
which will also be very very important for today's show.
The point is that if you're listening today, or if
you're if you're if you're like many listeners who have
written to us over the years and said, I love
(06:55):
turning on this show as I fall asleep, which thank you,
I still think that's a compliment. Essentially, if you have
slept regularly over any period of significant time, then odds
are that your brain has done the same thing. Your
brain is attempting to solve problems for you. Some of
those I think it's a point somebody made earlier in
(07:19):
previous episode. Some of those may be emotional problems, you know,
things with which you are grappling, and some may be
scientific things. Some may be like Paul McCartney waking up
and writing a song. Which song was that?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Was it? Yesterday was Yesterday?
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Which is the most covered song of all time. It's
been covered like more than three thousand times. That's a
pretty cool claim to fame. But yeah, and I mentioned
like even being a musical guy, I don't really remember
melodies very much. But all of this stuff. The way
dreams work kind of depend on the way your brain works, right,
Like all of our brains work a little bit differently.
We process things in the waking world differently. So how
(08:00):
dreams function, I think is a big product of who
we are as people.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Right.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
But what if this whole idea of dream you know,
sort of precognitive dreams, isn't so much our brains doing
a thing as it is like a bigger picture thing
that we're experiencing, something tied in with physics, something tied
(08:25):
in with a force larger than ourselves.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
So how do we explain these anecdotes right? You know,
many of which are unprovable, many of which are one
person telling you their opinion about what happened to them.
And how do we explain the robustly documented tales.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Right?
Speaker 2 (08:49):
One idea involves exactly what you're talking about, nol, the
idea of something larger. This is the science I want
to bring to bear today. It involves the concept of
a thing known as retro causality. Strap in. We're headed
for back country here.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
M Yes, causality. You've heard this cause and effect. It's
the thing that happens when you hold a glass out
in front of you and then you drop it and
it hits the ground. Why did it do that? Well,
it's because gravity exists, and that's what happens when you
drop something with mass, it falls to the ground because
of gravity. By the way, gravity is maybe a whole
(09:33):
episode that we could do just about what that really means,
what it is. It's not like gravity doesn't want us
to know something, but it's an odd phenomenon that we
don't fully grasp. It sounds weird to even say that,
but it's true. But This chain of cause and effect
happens in a very predictable order, right, as long as
there's no other thing coming in, Like with the glass example,
(09:57):
there isn't someone jumping to catch the glass, or there
isn't a string wrapped around the glass that pulls it
down and actually makes it swing or hang from another surface.
But so that's cause and effect, right, that's causality. So
what is retro causality?
Speaker 2 (10:14):
The same thing, but backwards. If you ever liked a
song so much that you said, let's play it backwards,
I don't know, probably not. It would have to be
you know, maybe the perfect palindrome of a song to
have that kind of symmetry. But you're right. Retro causality
backwards causation. This is a concept of cause and effect
(10:35):
where an effect somehow precedes its cause in what we
experience as linear A to B two C one to
two to three time, such that we have to walk
slowly through this. Later events affect earlier events. Decisions made
(10:58):
in the future in the lens of retro causality may
affect events in the past. This means this could be
huge things for science if it is ever proven or
agreed upon. It could explain nagging questions about many things
(11:19):
in the physical world. But to explain those things, we
have to understand what retro causality is, and perhaps just
as importantly, what it is not.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
So yeah, I mean, it's literally the idea of backwards causation,
a reverse of cause and effect, effect preceding cause. It's
a concept that is very much tied up into quantum
physics and things like string theory and you know, the
idea of how you know, maybe even a multiverse kind
(11:52):
of situation, because it does sort of lay out this
framework of like, how can something that happens on a
certain timeline effect things that precede it in a different
timeline or earlier on the same timeline. So Lisa Zeyga
puts it pretty succinctly writing for fizz dot Org.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
She describes retrocausality as not.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
Meaning that signals can be communicated from the future to
the past. No such signaling would be forbidden even in
a retrocausal theory due to thermodynamic reason. Instead, retrocausality means
that when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which
to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties
(12:37):
of that particle or another particle in the past, even
before the experimenter.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Made their choice.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
In other words, a decision made in the present can
influence something in the past.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
That is tough to wrap your head around.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
I was thinking at different examples to ground this. It's
sort of like said, it's sort of it's a weird distinction, right,
because a decision made in the present should not be
able to alter the past from everything we know. You
(13:14):
know what I mean. And we can put it in
a whimsical in a whimsical sense by saying, if you
concentrate hard enough in twenty twenty and think I never
watched Police Academy for something, then that would mean in
(13:36):
retrocausality that you might end up not watching it, right,
that's kind of It's still it means that you're not
telling yourself in the past to do something different. You're
not communicating with yourself. The fact that you made the
decision in the present means that the past is changed.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, it's an odd thing. I'm just going to go
back to Lisa's example here, saying that the experimenter, a
scientist somewhere in a lab chooses, you know, use a
dial or something to decide what wavelength they're going to
be looking at these particles with.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
So the concept is that just by making that choice
to select that setting is going to affect the way
those particles exist essentially. But I think more of what's
happening here is that the setting to measure those particles
is going to measure those particles at that wavelength or
(14:42):
at that energy level, right, Rather than the particle actually
changing the properties of the particle changing, you're just measuring
different properties. So it's tough for me to maybe understand
fully what Lisa is saying, just because I maybe I
just don't have that particle physics degree meaning to get that.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
By the way, well it's related to you know, I'm
being a big glib with the I'm playing fast and
loose with the idea of any kind of comparison or
analogy that involves a human being. That's the nature of
this show, and we are going somewhere with this, fellow listeners.
So I want to say, you're familiar with the uncertainty principle, right,
(15:27):
the famous experiment where the double slit experiment, which we
have talked about in the past. It's similar to that
the idea that an observer affects what is being observed
and to some degree may determine it by taking a measurement.
I mean, this is this is fascinating stuff. But maybe
(15:49):
we put this aside and keep building our case and
then come back because to your point, Noel, we need
to consider how retro causality may give us a new
perspective on quantum theory. And ever a real life story
about this too.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
Oh, I can't wait to hear it really quickly too.
It is also kind of tied up in one of
my favorite scientific descriptive things of all time, Einstein's concept
of spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement, which
is the idea that objects can be affected by other
objects without being physically touched. And that's sort of the
(16:29):
basis for this, the idea that these completely separate things
in time and space can have an effect on one another.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
All right, So let's dive deep into that. And to
do so, we're gonna have to get out our textbooks.
You don't have to, don't worry, we're gonna get ours out.
You can. You can just keep listening, and we'll do that.
Right after a word from our sponsor, and we're back. Okay,
(16:57):
we're opening our textbooks now and going to talk about
quantum physics. So the one we hear about in schools
often is called the Copenhagen interpretation, and this version argues
that until a system's properties are physically measured in some way,
they can encompass essentially a myriad, a large number of
(17:20):
different values, different properties.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Right, solid matter is a conspiracy. That's kind of what
the argument becomes at this level.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
At a.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Like the closer and closer you look further and further
you dive down into reality, you see that particles do
not behave the way that solid matter would behave. Imagine
reality is a big pool table. It's not the most
creative idea, but fine.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
We need to like like billiards.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yes, like billiards exactly, Matt. So, So the the the
every particle in the universe of this pool table is
maybe a little ball, a little ball on the pool table,
a six ball, and eight ball, a que ball, and
they should be their solid matter rolling from one definite
(18:17):
point in space and time to another definite point in
space and time. That is not the case at a
fundamental level. Instead, these particles are like this blurry, shifting
cloud of possibility. You know, think of the old descriptions
of angels or divine beings that were constantly like their faces.
(18:42):
We're shifting and all this sort of stuff. Right, These particles,
these billiard balls, pool balls, aren't just shifting on the table.
They're like also in maybe other tables that also may exist,
or there's another there in the air. They're under the floor,
meaning we can be aware of the cloud of possibility.
(19:05):
We know that a cueball could be hitting an eight ball,
we know it could be missing an eight ball. At
the same time, we know it could be doing any
number of things, maybe especially scratching, right, especially scratching. The
probability is high. Uh. And the weird thing is the
(19:29):
spooky thing, and we do have spooky action coming up
here later in the show. The weird thing is that
as soon as you look at that cueball, as soon
as you focus on measuring that in some way and
seeing how it hits the eight ball, you will only
(19:50):
ever see that cueball, let's say, hitting the eight ball
in one place into one of four corner pockets. You'll
never see those countless cueballs hitting countless eight balls into
every pocket or every direction at once. Think of Schrodinger's cat, right,
this is Schrodinger's cat as a pool shark.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Wow, you know it reminds me of video in a way.
I'm just imagining someone dancing very very fast, or dancing
with lots of intensity. Right. If you're watching it on video,
you get kind of the full picture. But if it's
just a snapshot or just that one moment right in time,
it just looks like somebody in kind of a strange
(20:30):
position or a weird pose, right, But you wouldn't get
the full picture of what's occurring. And when you're when
you're thinking about video in general or life in general,
and the way to capture things, we can only capture
images as frames essentially, right, as the.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
I really like this comparison met.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Right, So there's no way for us to just have,
like the video that you're watching now or any video
you watch online, you're seeing frames of moments, and there
is no way for us to just have to just
measure a constant or measure all moments at all times
when you're looking at something or observing something. It's very
(21:14):
strange to think about that.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Well, And that's a really great example because that's on
like sort of like a micro level, but on a
macro level. It's like, think of the universe in those terms,
like what would a snapshot of the universe of all
points at all, Like you can observably, you know, measure
these things in a person like I was doing a
goofy dance when you're saying that a minute ago, and
then you freeze and you might get a sense of like, Okay,
(21:38):
I'm frozen in this horrible rictus kind of pose, but
you can't understand the badassness of my dance moves surrounding
it in the same way that you couldn't understand like
the totality of all possible moments happening, you know, in
time and space, you know what I mean. I think
that's really app math. That's super cool.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
And this is strange because this touches on actually some
concepts that are present in ancient religions. This kind of
implies the idea maybe of destiny, the idea of some
sort of I don't know, it would be misleading to
call it predetermination. We're not being calvinist here, but and
(22:25):
no offense to calvinist in the audience. But the point
is this cloud of possible unobserved potential possibility. This cloud
of unobserved possibility exists free of a fixed position in
time or space. And shout out to one of my
favorite pieces of listener mail. Ha ha ha remember that guy,
(22:47):
the morphic resonance. Yes, yes, that's my favorite laugh. I
hope you are still listening, but yes, time space six.
On one hand, this idea of existing in more than
one spot at once is commonly called superposition. It only
collapses into a single state or position when the systems observed.
(23:12):
Everyone observing, even the most accomplished physicist, can never precisely
predict what state what the state will be when it collapses,
and some physicists believe a very controversial idea because we
(23:32):
have to keep in mind, when you go far enough
to the edge of physics, you are in the realm
of metaphysics, philosophy, and sometimes spirituality. So some physicists for
a long time believed that this collapse of super position
upon observation meant that consciousness, the mind itself, the software
(23:55):
of the brain, not the hardware. The presence of an
observer caused right causation caused the superposition to collapse into
a single point in space, time, the universe forty two,
et cetera. This is weird because it implies some very
(24:15):
strange things about time, things that we wish Einstein was
here in our franchise of time to talk about and
think about, because you know, to your earlier point. Now
those quirky, quirky things about quantum mechanics, spooky action at
a distance, entanglement, one bit of one bit of something
(24:40):
on one side of the universe. It's a very misleading
way to describe the universe. But one bit of something
very far away turns left or up or down in
some direction, and then at the same time, in an
immensely far away place on the other side of the universe,
(25:00):
the same thing happens. These are connected, right, There's like
a push pull symmetry. This is called spooky action because
there's not a local action that can explain it. But
what if it is evidence of time symmetry. What if
(25:21):
at this level of reality, instead of flowing in one
direction A to B, two C one to two to three,
time flows at the same speed in multiple directions. What
if what if at the quantum level, time as we
understand it flows in the past, the present, the future,
(25:46):
all possible futures, all possible presence. What if on an
extraordinarily fundamental level, time becomes less like an arrow shot
to a particular destination and more like the air through
which that concept of an arrow moves.
Speaker 5 (26:04):
Yeah, I mean it seems like quantum physics in general
as a discipline, it seeks to explain this kind of phenomenon.
Because you know, what we heard from Lisa Zeiga at
the beginning of the episode was what retro causality is
not is the concept that a signal can be communicated
from the future to the past. It's more about the
relationship of those two events and less about like sending
(26:27):
messages back and forth in time. Just wanted to put
that out there again.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Now, it's a good thing to keep in mind, but
it's a massive tangent and I'm not going to go
down into it. But this concept been of time flowing
and like in all directions equally. It reminds me of
the physical representations that physicists and scientists used to represent gravity.
(26:55):
When you know, you show like a essentially the warp
of space time, right, it reminds me of that kind
of only in the opposite as in wherever the present is,
wherever that is located, like the moment of consciousness, of
(27:16):
being aware. It feels as though it's almost like in
a mountaintop, and then in all directions is moving downwards
and all of the various possibilities in all directions. I
don't know, it's not a very good image, but I'm
just imagining it in the same way we represent gravity
and mass and how that affects gravity. Like it's almost
(27:38):
as if conscious awareness or observation is that same thing
for time.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
You're reading my mind. This was something I wanted to
I was going to save till the end of the episode.
But I think we're we're on the edge of time.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Now, right.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
As a concept, it doesn't really matter apparently when things happen. So,
so what I like about this concept, and I think
you and I are on the same page here, is
that you're talking about distortion, right, the way mass can
distort gravity, right when you drop a ball onto a
taut sheet.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
So I was thinking of the same thing, and I
had followed it down the rabbit hole of information as
mass observation is mass. So perhaps a specific event in
what we understand as lindear your time. Perhaps the more
it is observed, the more concrete or quote unquote heavier
(28:39):
it becomes, and the more it distorts, you know, that
sort of ambient field or fertile soil of reality and time.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
I know.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
But so that's don't worry. We're getting to dreams. We're
talking about this trippy stuff where reason. In twenty twelve,
there was a physicist named Q. Price who claimed that
if the strange things we know to be true about
quantum states reflect something real, and if nothing restricts time
(29:14):
to one direction, not the band, just the direction of
linear time, then the eight ball in our earlier example,
in that pool hall cloud of maybe some what ifs
could theoretically roll out of the corner pocket and knock
the cue ball itself.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
I love physicists so much in the way they talk
and the concepts that they that they have to attempt
to distill for people like me who just don't get
it a lot of times.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Well, it's so interesting too, because so much of this
stuff is like, you know, thought experiments until it becomes real.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
Like I mean, even like Einstein and.
Speaker 5 (29:55):
His whole idea of quantum entanglement and spooky action at
a distance. He sort of wrote it off himself, like
this is way too weird and I'm gonna kind of
let this go. And then sure enough, science came around
and a study shown that quantum entanglement very likely is
a thing, very much in the way Einstein envisioned it.
But he had to have done it on a purely
conceptual level at the time, because it's not like it's
(30:16):
something that could ever be tested, especially in those days.
So it really is a whole different set of equipment
that these folks have, you know what I mean, that
allows them to think in these purely conceptual realms that
end up kind of connecting with reality a lot of
the time.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
It's fabulous, agreed, And this may seem like a tangent,
but it is an important tangent, even if it does
not seem immediately related to dreams. What we're saying is
that as you are listening to this episode, some of
the most intelligent people in the world are arguing over
(30:54):
the fundamental concept of linear time.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Wow, I'm just trying to think all the other things
I have to do today, and I'm wondering if they're
actually going to come later or maybe already did them
just tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Decide that you've done them tomorrow perfect or maybe because
you are deciding that you maybe because tomorrow you are
thinking of doing these and remembering that you have done them,
that means you've already done I don't know, you see,
I see the problem.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
If only it were so simple, and it absolutely is it.
And we're going to talk about why that is and
how this connects up with dreams after one more quick sponsor.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Break and we're back. Bell's theorem it plays a big
role here. It's an idea proposed by one John Stuart Bell,
the concept that bizarre things happening in quantum physics can
never be explained by actions taking place nearby. It's like
(32:02):
we know that billiard balls are moving in all these
different directions, but we have no idea what's causing them.
We don't see the great grand pool queue. I guess
which some people say is God? You know what I mean?
That's how that's how strange this stuff becomes.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
The prime mover? Right? Is that another name for a
god in the situation?
Speaker 1 (32:22):
M h.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
And so.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
This this leads us to ask, then what if we're
what if we're looking in the wrong realm? What if
the cause of these movements is not happening somewhere else,
somewhere nearby, but some when else. If causality, yep, if
causality runs backwards, it means that this particle can carry
(32:47):
the action of its measurement back in time to when
it was originally entangled, affecting its partner, which is this other,
this thing observed in another version of time. Anyway, this
is all still considered fringe science, but the problem is real.
We do not fully understand the actions of the quantum realm,
and one of the things affecting our lack of understanding
(33:08):
may be our assumption of linear time. So the big
question is what does this mean for dreams? Where does
the brain come in? Is the brain somehow quantum?
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Uh? Well, I mean it's made up of the same
things that the pool balls are made of in our example, right,
It's all just a lot of atoms arranged very intricately
in there, at least I hope they're intricately arranged. Hmm. Gosh, Okay,
(33:45):
so we know that if our cells are made up
of atoms, and atoms follow these laws of quantum physics,
even though we don't fully understand them, right, then yeah,
our brains are quantum What a weird thought. I'm just
gonna I'm just gonna sit here for a while and
(34:07):
think about that.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yes, do we I mean, you're right, We're made of
the same stuff right within our bodies are the building
blocks of the stars and the cosmos, dirt and everything else.
But do we need quantum physics to explain this thing,
this phenomenon that we call consciousness? Right now, A lot
(34:31):
of physicists and philosophers are gonna say no, because science
is about explaining things in the most efficacious, accurate, and
simple way. Right We talked about brevity being the soul
of wit in literature and in the creative realm, but
(34:52):
the realm of science takes it to another level. People
like Paul the Guard, who is a philosopher at the
University of Waterloo. It says there is evidence building. It
says we can explain everything in the human mind in
terms of interactions of neurons, So we wouldn't need to
(35:13):
add quantum physics and the dilemmas inherent in this concept
would need to add that to the engine for the
engine to run and for us to understand the process.
It's like if you already have a working car, why
would you add another engine on top of it? Right?
(35:36):
Why would you need two engines if you can already
drive with just one?
Speaker 1 (35:41):
Because you want to go really fast?
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Right?
Speaker 3 (35:44):
Right?
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Because you think linear time exists, things can happen faster.
So I mean it's true. You're right though, and this
is of course a statement from a philosopher, but we
know physicists tend to that's right.
Speaker 5 (36:01):
And then we have David Deutsch, who is a physicist
at the University of Oxford, who says, quote, is there
any need to invoke quantum physics to explain cognition? I
don't know of one, and I'd be amazed if one emerges.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
That's interesting.
Speaker 5 (36:17):
He's sort of like putting these in two distinctly different buckets,
So you kind of have two sides of that argument there.
So if the brain does engage in any of this
quantum you know, shenaniganry during what we call thought, then
there's a particularly popular theory about how all of this
could go down, and it involves something called microtubules, which
(36:42):
are protein tubes that make up the.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
Neurons in our in our brains, in our bodies.
Speaker 5 (36:47):
Specifically, these support structures within neurons, and that is what
potentially quantum you know, physics would would enact upon the
idea that microtube can exploit quantum physics quantum effects rather
to exist in superpositions of two different shapes at the
(37:09):
same time. So this goes back to what you were
talking about earlier with the idea of superposition.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
We want to do a quick refresh on that.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Well, you can think about it quickly this way. Those
neurons are, if this is to be believed, all of
your neurons are simultaneously activated and not activated. If you
think about it as an io switch or something a
state of being on or off. All of your neurons
(37:38):
are both on and off at all times. That's what
this is essentially saying. Unless I'm getting that incorrect.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
It's yeah, it's existing in multiple states that we would
normally think are mutually exclusive. Right, So each of these
shapes in this theory amounts to a tiny bit of
what you're talking about, Matt, classical information we would consider it.
(38:05):
So this shape shifting quantum bit a cubit, right, that's
the fundamental unit here. Each of those can store twice
as much information as their classical counterparts and then we
add entanglement to the mix. I would love to see
(38:26):
this explained in the format of a YouTube cooking show. Right, So,
this is where someone sprinkles in entanglement and starts stirring
that stuff in. This is the feature we've been talking
about that allows these units, these cubit states, to remain
intertwined even when they're not in local contact. That means
(38:49):
that we can rapidly build what's called quantum computer, something
that can manipulate and store information far more efficiently than
a classical computer. Or because to your point, Matt, they
do not have to they do not have to be
restricted to a one zero one thing one at a time.
(39:10):
So if retrocausality is also in play, that means that
these tiny, tiny, tiny tubes, these tubes are protein that
you just described, these pieces of neuron structure could be
interacting with time in a way that we do not understand. Fascinating, funky,
(39:32):
an amazing concept, also very far from proven. As we
record this right now. All the quantum stuff we're talking
about is incredibly fragile. It's not a house of cards
in a windy room. A more accurate description would be
like an upside down pyramid constructed out of the idea
(39:56):
where cards might sometime be balanced on the nose of
a blindfolded circus cloud with big clown shoes writing a
unicycle across a very high tight rope for the very
first time at their first day working for the circus.
The slightest change in anything will cause a quantum state
(40:18):
to break down as far as we know.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
And here's the other thing about your brain, you guys,
it isn't exactly fit for this kind of quantum system,
at least from what we understand right now, right deep
inside there in your head of yours. Go go ahead
and feel it if you can, if you've got a freehand.
(40:41):
That's just your skull. Remember that's the hard part inside there.
It's really warm, it's wet, it's kind of gross, really,
and it's just not suitable for any kind of quantum
system to really survive for any length of time. But again,
that's our understanding of matter and how quantum system work
right now, because it's what we have been able to
(41:03):
achieve thus far.
Speaker 2 (41:05):
Yeah, and as we're recording this, there are numerous people
who are chasing down the possibilities right trying to determine
whether there is a possibility of a quantum state in
the human brain. Well, one person of particular note would
be Matthew Fisher. Fisher is an expert in developing quantum computers,
(41:26):
and he believes there is more to the story. If
you're interested, I highly recommend reading a little bit more
about his proposed experiments. Because we have to remember, as
mentioned in a previous episode, science is a long conversation
and it argues with itself, and there are many many
(41:48):
things that, for one reason or another, our species rejected
as nonsense, only to later learn that those things are true.
So to bring it all back around precognitive dreams, there
are so many anecdotes, there's so many arguments, there's so
many fascinating experiments. I wanted to mention one that got
(42:13):
me involved in retroactive causality a number of years ago.
You guys have heard of McSweeney's, right, Yeah, so you've
heard then of Walten. I know I'm cheating. I know
you guys have heard about it because I wouldn't shut
up about it off air when I was very into it.
So Walfen is sort of like a magazine made of
(42:36):
short films, and Walfin issued number seven included a strange
bonus like a bonus article, but it was a bonus
DVD that had a scientific experiment in retroactive causality. And
the idea was that you, without spoiling it, as the audience,
(43:01):
the observer of the experiment that is on this DVD,
may somehow affect the results of the experiment just by
watching it. I still have it somewhere. I'll send it
to you guys if you want to, if you want
to check it out. It's it's controversial, but it sure.
(43:23):
You don't have to you don't have to buy it,
just borrow it. But the but the idea here is
is that we see experiments with this stuff. It's ongoing,
and we know that people many listening in the audience
today do feel and do believe that they have had
some inexplicable encounter with reality through the world of dream. So,
(43:50):
if retrocausality is real, if time, as we understand it,
flows in more than one direction at the quantum level,
and if the in the human brain function in some
way like what we would call a quantum computer or
a quantum system, a lot of ifs here, and if
(44:10):
this system in a human brain is somehow able to
not even communicate information, but to influence information on what
we call the consciousness or the subconsciousness in an understandable way.
Then there may just be a theoretical way for our
(44:31):
brains to understand time beyond the concept of one second
forward to the next. It took a long time for
us to get there, but we had to lay out
we had to lay out the case. There is actual science, and.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
That's really what this comes down to. There's already some
science that appears to show it could be true, which
is you know, fascinating and hopeful to me thinking that
there might be a way for us to see a
mistake that's coming our way, or to see, you know,
(45:08):
to help somebody who may need our assistance, and somehow
we could be aware of that through this connection in
some way.
Speaker 3 (45:19):
I love. I love the.
Speaker 1 (45:21):
Possibility that exists here, and and just knowing that if
there's already science that's leaning you know, in this way,
or at least hinting at this, then it probably says
that within you know, our lifetimes, we're going to find
out more and we're we may even be able to
prove at some point that we are more deeply connected
(45:43):
to each other and to ourselves and to everything than
we already understand.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
Yeah, that's the mission, right to have to in some
way illuminate a bit more of this cavernous, strange thing
called the universe, reality and life as we know it.
Speaker 1 (46:03):
This giant shadowy jemba that we all exist in.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Ah, the shadowy Jemba. I love that it's such a vision. No,
it's such a good visual and it's fun to say.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
And your lighting looks really, really awesome. This is a
plug to check out the YouTube channel, which has been
resurrected if you are listening in the audio version. So
I have to ask. I know that the three of
us have various questions that we want to ask each other.
So I have to ask you, guys, do you believe
(46:37):
that precognitive dreams exist.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
It's tough for me. I would have to say yes,
because I have experienced a few things where either I
have been given information that I did not have, or
I came to information that I was seeking within a
(47:00):
dream state and and it you know, maybe maybe that
is just my brain doing the defrag process that we
talked about at the top of last episode, but or
maybe it is some connection that I don't fully understand
(47:24):
and it is some kind of precognitive situation. Honestly, I
would have to say, I would have to say, oh God,
this is the stance I always take. I want to
believe it so badly that I'm leaning towards thinking that
something is there.
Speaker 5 (47:37):
I'm with it, man, I mean. And it's one of
these things too, where it's so arrogant of us. We
don't understand this quantum physics stuff, and we see the
smartest people in the world, like Einstein, kind of coming
up with these concepts that can't be tested and then
maybe even abandoning them, and then later it turns out that,
oh he was onto something. So it's like, we're not
even going to be around long enough potentially to see
(47:59):
the stuff, you know, fully play out as to whether
there's truth to this or not, or the way the
human mind works. Or one of the ideas that we
discussed on a recent news episode about that sense of
communicativeness between like, you know, beings, like like communicating through
a look or knowing if someone is staring at you
really hard. What was the name of that.
Speaker 2 (48:18):
It was called morphic resonance.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
Morphic residents exactly I mean, that's, you know, still on
the fringes. But I send some truth to that, and
I send some truth to this.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
How about you, Ben?
Speaker 3 (48:31):
Ah?
Speaker 2 (48:32):
Yeah, Well that's what I was getting to. There is
no there's one question that people keep missing when they
talk about precognitive dreams. Whether we consider ourselves skeptics, whether
we consider ourselves profits or oracles, or just people who
know there's more to the iceberg of reality than what
(48:53):
we see drifting above the surface. The question is this,
if someone has a dream and they use what happened
in the dream to better their situation, right, avoiding the
car accident that we mentioned earlier, staying away from that
(49:16):
dropping piano, which I don't think ever really happens. I
think that's a cartoon thing. But you know what I mean,
If they have a dream and that dream helps them
somehow in the waking world. Does it matter if it's precognition,
Does it matter if it's coincidence. Does it matter if
it's the brain playing the probability game? I would argue no.
(49:38):
I would argue it's very easy to get lost in
our own personal feelings about what quote unquote psychic powers are.
If it's like the Turing test, kind of like whether
or not something is a robot or a human, whatever
the whatever. The behind the scenes picture is, if you're
(50:01):
still having a good conversation, it's still a good conversation.
All that being said, without don't spend too much time
talking about myself here. I come from a long history
of people who are absolutely convinced that they do have
(50:22):
some kind of precognitive dream capacity. And I'll probably hear
from extended family members when this episode comes out, and
they will probably not be super happy with me for
the way that we approach this.
Speaker 1 (50:38):
Maybe they'll get in touch with you prior to the
episode coming out.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
That's right. If you can prove precognition, we would love
to hear from you. Write to us on Friday, August first,
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
Will double check our inboxes that day and let you know.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
I don't know if that does. That joke even work.
Speaker 1 (50:57):
I think it does work, But this is I think
works better if you truly that was a joke, right,
but truly if you are experiencing us in some way
right now as we record this on Friday August twenty first,
twenty twenty, this is what I would say if you
(51:19):
have access to a phone, give us a call. Our
number is one eight three three STDWYTK. Now it's really important.
It's vitally important that you do this on Friday, August
twenty first, twenty twenty. So any voicemails that come in today,
I'm checking them for you. I'm going to be listening
(51:39):
for you. Please do it brilliant.
Speaker 3 (51:43):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (51:44):
And there's another thing we can check right now from
you social media. You can find us on Facebook, you
can find us on Instagram. You can find us on
Twitter where we are conspiracy Stuff on Twitter and Facebook
also travel to Here's where it Gets Create, which has
been universally lauded by us as the best part of Facebook.
(52:06):
You can find us on Instagram where we're a conspiracy
stuff show, and you can also find us should you
choose as individuals on the social meds.
Speaker 5 (52:15):
If you would like to find me, I am at
how Now Noel Brown on Instagram where I post stuff
from my core life and you know, music production and
video game stuff. My kids cosplays all that stuff. You
can find them exclusively on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (52:33):
And it's kind of work on Twitter if you wish
to free up your stream of various posts on Instagram.
You can follow me Matt Frederick underscore iHeart as you
will not see anything from me.
Speaker 2 (52:47):
And if you are opposed to social media, if you
are against the idea of calling people on the phone,
if you've had a bad dream about it, but you
need to tell us some more importantly, your fellow listeners,
a story about dreams, some new information about the possibility
(53:07):
of precognitive dreams. You can always reach us via our
good old fashioned email address where we.
Speaker 1 (53:13):
Are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. But wait, remember YouTube
dot com slash conspiracy stuff. Stay with me YouTube dot
com slash conspiracy stuff. Just think it all the time,
know it, feel.
Speaker 2 (53:31):
It, and go anifest it.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yes, all right, that's it. Stuff they don't want you
(53:57):
to know. Is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts
from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows.
We're back.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Happy New Year, Happy New Year, Happy New Year. No,
happy New Year, Happy New Year, Tennessee. Happy New Year you,
fellow conspiracy realist.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Yay happen yeay? What kind of fireworks do you got
going on right now?
Speaker 3 (00:19):
How is your dog, Dylan? That was a good woo man.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Yeah, thank you. Please stop your fireworks at a respectable
hour for the dog's sake.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
How are your dogs?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
How you DAGs?
Speaker 1 (00:32):
So if you're gonna do fireworks, please respect everybody else's
dogs and do your fireworks indoors. Just kidding like an American.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
So uh, this is uh the second chapter of our
classic series on dreams and predicting the future. Now as
we know, we talked about this in a recent weekly
Strange News segment. There's a lot humans are learning about
the concept of linear or experienced time, and when we
(01:06):
first got into this idea of dreams predicting the future,
we got a lot of feedback, a lot of correspondence,
and we got a lot of people, I think surprisingly, gents,
we had a lot of people calling in to confirm
our findings, which was the most fascinating part about this
(01:28):
for sure.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
So why don't we just jump right in to part
two of Have Dreams Really Predicted the Future?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Already in progress or you know at the beginning.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know? A
production of iHeart Reading.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noel.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
our super producer Paul, Mission control decand most importantly, you
are you. You are here and that makes this stuff
they don't want you to know. This is the second
part of a two part series asking whether dreams have
really predicted the future. We ended the earlier episode without
(02:29):
getting to several things facts for one, science, although we're
able to put some science in the first episode, and
perhaps most importantly, questions that we had promised at the
beginning of the last episode. So please listen to part
one of Have Dreams Really Predicted the Future before you
(02:52):
dive into part two. This is mostly crazy stuff in
the second act, So here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Oh man, as the quickest we've gotten crazy. I think
maybe ever? I love it?
Speaker 5 (03:06):
Do you want to do you a little quick recap
of some of the hallmarks from our last episode.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Some of the historical figures.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
We've got Abraham Lincoln, who seems to have predicted his
own assassination and dream. We have Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain,
who seems to have had a premonition of his brother's
demise in the form of a dream where he was
laid out his brother in a metal casket wearing a suit,
(03:33):
a borrowed suit and also bedecked with like a particular
spray of flowers that lined up with what he saw
in his dream, my crazy dream about Bennett Moon and
then that manifesting in reality in the form of her
calling in to wait, wait, don't tell me what else
we got. I think your great aunt's ben and in
(03:53):
her potential obo playing or lack of in the room.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
No, no, I didn't want to take time in the
show with my own personal anecdotes. I always think of
that scene and as always sunny in Philadelphia, where Dennis
Reynolds is his sister in the show, is talking about
her dreams and he tells her stop. No one wants
to hear about anybody else's dreams. So I think that
(04:19):
affected me because the Great aunt Obo Portugal example is
just is just made up to show the credulous, the
credulous nature of dreams. But we also talked about how
dreams can function as a way of problem solving.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Our brains as problem solvers are sometimes more effective when
our consciousness is less involved. That's how the periodic table
was formulated. That's how many authors discover great works like
Samuel Coleridge wrote Kubla Khan after he he awoke from
(05:02):
a dream. He wrote the poem in his sleep, kind of.
He was also on a lot of opium at the time.
I don't think I mentioned this earlier, but the sewing
machine was also inspired by a dream.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
Yeah, it was a weird one too, a really violent
dream where I believe the inventor was being boiled in
a pot by cannibals and being stabbed with like spears.
And in the dream he recognized that the spears had
holes in the tips, and that's what gave him the
idea for the way you thread the needle or the whatever.
I'm not in a sewing expert on a sewing machine,
(05:39):
it actually is tied to the very tip of the
needle and that's what allows it to kind of continue
to thread and.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Hold on or whatever. But he what a weird way
to come to that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Seriously, and just for a couple of other examples, Albert Einstein,
by his own account, discovered the or you know, hit
upon some of his own revelations in the world of dreams.
At this point, I'd like to recommend a fantastic book
about the nature of time by a guy who I
(06:13):
think he was an m I T an author named
Alan Leitman. He wrote a book called Einstein's Dreams, and
it's entirely almost an anthology or a series of vignettes
of young Einstein working as a sleepy patent clerk, and
(06:33):
every time he falls asleep he encounters another theory of time,
which will also be very very important for today's show.
The point is that if you're listening today, or if
you're if you're if you're like many listeners who have
written to us over the years and said, I love
(06:55):
turning on this show as I fall asleep, which thank you,
I still think that's a compliment. Essentially, if you have
slept regularly over any period of significant time, then odds
are that your brain has done the same thing. Your
brain is attempting to solve problems for you. Some of
those I think it's a point somebody made earlier in
(07:19):
previous episode. Some of those may be emotional problems, you know,
things with which you are grappling, and some may be
scientific things. Some may be like Paul McCartney waking up
and writing a song. Which song was that?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Was it? Yesterday was Yesterday?
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Which is the most covered song of all time. It's
been covered like more than three thousand times. That's a
pretty cool claim to fame. But yeah, and I mentioned
like even being a musical guy, I don't really remember
melodies very much. But all of this stuff. The way
dreams work kind of depend on the way your brain works, right,
Like all of our brains work a little bit differently.
We process things in the waking world differently. So how
(08:00):
dreams function, I think is a big product of who
we are as people.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Right.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
But what if this whole idea of dream you know,
sort of precognitive dreams, isn't so much our brains doing
a thing as it is like a bigger picture thing
that we're experiencing, something tied in with physics, something tied
(08:25):
in with a force larger than ourselves.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
So how do we explain these anecdotes right? You know,
many of which are unprovable, many of which are one
person telling you their opinion about what happened to them.
And how do we explain the robustly documented tales.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Right?
Speaker 2 (08:49):
One idea involves exactly what you're talking about, nol, the
idea of something larger. This is the science I want
to bring to bear today. It involves the concept of
a thing known as retro causality. Strap in. We're headed
for back country here.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
M Yes, causality. You've heard this cause and effect. It's
the thing that happens when you hold a glass out
in front of you and then you drop it and
it hits the ground. Why did it do that? Well,
it's because gravity exists, and that's what happens when you
drop something with mass, it falls to the ground because
of gravity. By the way, gravity is maybe a whole
(09:33):
episode that we could do just about what that really means,
what it is. It's not like gravity doesn't want us
to know something, but it's an odd phenomenon that we
don't fully grasp. It sounds weird to even say that,
but it's true. But This chain of cause and effect
happens in a very predictable order, right, as long as
there's no other thing coming in, Like with the glass example,
(09:57):
there isn't someone jumping to catch the glass, or there
isn't a string wrapped around the glass that pulls it
down and actually makes it swing or hang from another surface.
But so that's cause and effect, right, that's causality. So
what is retro causality?
Speaker 2 (10:14):
The same thing, but backwards. If you ever liked a
song so much that you said, let's play it backwards,
I don't know, probably not. It would have to be
you know, maybe the perfect palindrome of a song to
have that kind of symmetry. But you're right. Retro causality
backwards causation. This is a concept of cause and effect
(10:35):
where an effect somehow precedes its cause in what we
experience as linear A to B two C one to
two to three time, such that we have to walk
slowly through this. Later events affect earlier events. Decisions made
(10:58):
in the future in the lens of retro causality may
affect events in the past. This means this could be
huge things for science if it is ever proven or
agreed upon. It could explain nagging questions about many things
(11:19):
in the physical world. But to explain those things, we
have to understand what retro causality is, and perhaps just
as importantly, what it is not.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
So yeah, I mean, it's literally the idea of backwards causation,
a reverse of cause and effect, effect preceding cause. It's
a concept that is very much tied up into quantum
physics and things like string theory and you know, the
idea of how you know, maybe even a multiverse kind
(11:52):
of situation, because it does sort of lay out this
framework of like, how can something that happens on a
certain timeline effect things that precede it in a different
timeline or earlier on the same timeline. So Lisa Zeyga
puts it pretty succinctly writing for fizz dot Org.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
She describes retrocausality as not.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
Meaning that signals can be communicated from the future to
the past. No such signaling would be forbidden even in
a retrocausal theory due to thermodynamic reason. Instead, retrocausality means
that when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which
to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties
(12:37):
of that particle or another particle in the past, even
before the experimenter.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Made their choice.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
In other words, a decision made in the present can
influence something in the past.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
That is tough to wrap your head around.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
I was thinking at different examples to ground this. It's
sort of like said, it's sort of it's a weird distinction, right,
because a decision made in the present should not be
able to alter the past from everything we know. You
(13:14):
know what I mean. And we can put it in
a whimsical in a whimsical sense by saying, if you
concentrate hard enough in twenty twenty and think I never
watched Police Academy for something, then that would mean in
(13:36):
retrocausality that you might end up not watching it, right,
that's kind of It's still it means that you're not
telling yourself in the past to do something different. You're
not communicating with yourself. The fact that you made the
decision in the present means that the past is changed.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, it's an odd thing. I'm just going to go
back to Lisa's example here, saying that the experimenter, a
scientist somewhere in a lab chooses, you know, use a
dial or something to decide what wavelength they're going to
be looking at these particles with.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
So the concept is that just by making that choice
to select that setting is going to affect the way
those particles exist essentially. But I think more of what's
happening here is that the setting to measure those particles
is going to measure those particles at that wavelength or
(14:42):
at that energy level, right, Rather than the particle actually
changing the properties of the particle changing, you're just measuring
different properties. So it's tough for me to maybe understand
fully what Lisa is saying, just because I maybe I
just don't have that particle physics degree meaning to get that.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
By the way, well it's related to you know, I'm
being a big glib with the I'm playing fast and
loose with the idea of any kind of comparison or
analogy that involves a human being. That's the nature of
this show, and we are going somewhere with this, fellow listeners.
So I want to say, you're familiar with the uncertainty principle, right,
(15:27):
the famous experiment where the double slit experiment, which we
have talked about in the past. It's similar to that
the idea that an observer affects what is being observed
and to some degree may determine it by taking a measurement.
I mean, this is this is fascinating stuff. But maybe
(15:49):
we put this aside and keep building our case and
then come back because to your point, Noel, we need
to consider how retro causality may give us a new
perspective on quantum theory. And ever a real life story
about this too.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
Oh, I can't wait to hear it really quickly too.
It is also kind of tied up in one of
my favorite scientific descriptive things of all time, Einstein's concept
of spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement, which
is the idea that objects can be affected by other
objects without being physically touched. And that's sort of the
(16:29):
basis for this, the idea that these completely separate things
in time and space can have an effect on one another.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
All right, So let's dive deep into that. And to
do so, we're gonna have to get out our textbooks.
You don't have to, don't worry, we're gonna get ours out.
You can. You can just keep listening, and we'll do that.
Right after a word from our sponsor, and we're back. Okay,
(16:57):
we're opening our textbooks now and going to talk about
quantum physics. So the one we hear about in schools
often is called the Copenhagen interpretation, and this version argues
that until a system's properties are physically measured in some way,
they can encompass essentially a myriad, a large number of
(17:20):
different values, different properties.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Right, solid matter is a conspiracy. That's kind of what
the argument becomes at this level.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
At a.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Like the closer and closer you look further and further
you dive down into reality, you see that particles do
not behave the way that solid matter would behave. Imagine
reality is a big pool table. It's not the most
creative idea, but fine.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
We need to like like billiards.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yes, like billiards exactly, Matt. So, So the the the
every particle in the universe of this pool table is
maybe a little ball, a little ball on the pool table,
a six ball, and eight ball, a que ball, and
they should be their solid matter rolling from one definite
(18:17):
point in space and time to another definite point in
space and time. That is not the case at a
fundamental level. Instead, these particles are like this blurry, shifting
cloud of possibility. You know, think of the old descriptions
of angels or divine beings that were constantly like their faces.
(18:42):
We're shifting and all this sort of stuff. Right, These particles,
these billiard balls, pool balls, aren't just shifting on the table.
They're like also in maybe other tables that also may exist,
or there's another there in the air. They're under the floor,
meaning we can be aware of the cloud of possibility.
(19:05):
We know that a cueball could be hitting an eight ball,
we know it could be missing an eight ball. At
the same time, we know it could be doing any
number of things, maybe especially scratching, right, especially scratching. The
probability is high. Uh. And the weird thing is the
(19:29):
spooky thing, and we do have spooky action coming up
here later in the show. The weird thing is that
as soon as you look at that cueball, as soon
as you focus on measuring that in some way and
seeing how it hits the eight ball, you will only
(19:50):
ever see that cueball, let's say, hitting the eight ball
in one place into one of four corner pockets. You'll
never see those countless cueballs hitting countless eight balls into
every pocket or every direction at once. Think of Schrodinger's cat, right,
this is Schrodinger's cat as a pool shark.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Wow, you know it reminds me of video in a way.
I'm just imagining someone dancing very very fast, or dancing
with lots of intensity. Right. If you're watching it on video,
you get kind of the full picture. But if it's
just a snapshot or just that one moment right in time,
it just looks like somebody in kind of a strange
(20:30):
position or a weird pose, right, But you wouldn't get
the full picture of what's occurring. And when you're when
you're thinking about video in general or life in general,
and the way to capture things, we can only capture
images as frames essentially, right, as the.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
I really like this comparison met.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Right, So there's no way for us to just have,
like the video that you're watching now or any video
you watch online, you're seeing frames of moments, and there
is no way for us to just have to just
measure a constant or measure all moments at all times
when you're looking at something or observing something. It's very
(21:14):
strange to think about that.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Well, And that's a really great example because that's on
like sort of like a micro level, but on a
macro level. It's like, think of the universe in those terms,
like what would a snapshot of the universe of all
points at all, Like you can observably, you know, measure
these things in a person like I was doing a
goofy dance when you're saying that a minute ago, and
then you freeze and you might get a sense of like, Okay,
(21:38):
I'm frozen in this horrible rictus kind of pose, but
you can't understand the badassness of my dance moves surrounding
it in the same way that you couldn't understand like
the totality of all possible moments happening, you know, in
time and space, you know what I mean. I think
that's really app math. That's super cool.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
And this is strange because this touches on actually some
concepts that are present in ancient religions. This kind of
implies the idea maybe of destiny, the idea of some
sort of I don't know, it would be misleading to
call it predetermination. We're not being calvinist here, but and
(22:25):
no offense to calvinist in the audience. But the point
is this cloud of possible unobserved potential possibility. This cloud
of unobserved possibility exists free of a fixed position in
time or space. And shout out to one of my
favorite pieces of listener mail. Ha ha ha remember that guy,
(22:47):
the morphic resonance. Yes, yes, that's my favorite laugh. I
hope you are still listening, but yes, time space six.
On one hand, this idea of existing in more than
one spot at once is commonly called superposition. It only
collapses into a single state or position when the systems observed.
(23:12):
Everyone observing, even the most accomplished physicist, can never precisely
predict what state what the state will be when it collapses,
and some physicists believe a very controversial idea because we
(23:32):
have to keep in mind, when you go far enough
to the edge of physics, you are in the realm
of metaphysics, philosophy, and sometimes spirituality. So some physicists for
a long time believed that this collapse of super position
upon observation meant that consciousness, the mind itself, the software
(23:55):
of the brain, not the hardware. The presence of an
observer caused right causation caused the superposition to collapse into
a single point in space, time, the universe forty two,
et cetera. This is weird because it implies some very
(24:15):
strange things about time, things that we wish Einstein was
here in our franchise of time to talk about and
think about, because you know, to your earlier point. Now
those quirky, quirky things about quantum mechanics, spooky action at
a distance, entanglement, one bit of one bit of something
(24:40):
on one side of the universe. It's a very misleading
way to describe the universe. But one bit of something
very far away turns left or up or down in
some direction, and then at the same time, in an
immensely far away place on the other side of the universe,
(25:00):
the same thing happens. These are connected, right, There's like
a push pull symmetry. This is called spooky action because
there's not a local action that can explain it. But
what if it is evidence of time symmetry. What if
(25:21):
at this level of reality, instead of flowing in one
direction A to B, two C one to two to three,
time flows at the same speed in multiple directions. What
if what if at the quantum level, time as we
understand it flows in the past, the present, the future,
(25:46):
all possible futures, all possible presence. What if on an
extraordinarily fundamental level, time becomes less like an arrow shot
to a particular destination and more like the air through
which that concept of an arrow moves.
Speaker 5 (26:04):
Yeah, I mean it seems like quantum physics in general
as a discipline, it seeks to explain this kind of phenomenon.
Because you know, what we heard from Lisa Zeiga at
the beginning of the episode was what retro causality is
not is the concept that a signal can be communicated
from the future to the past. It's more about the
relationship of those two events and less about like sending
(26:27):
messages back and forth in time. Just wanted to put
that out there again.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Now, it's a good thing to keep in mind, but
it's a massive tangent and I'm not going to go
down into it. But this concept been of time flowing
and like in all directions equally. It reminds me of
the physical representations that physicists and scientists used to represent gravity.
(26:55):
When you know, you show like a essentially the warp
of space time, right, it reminds me of that kind
of only in the opposite as in wherever the present is,
wherever that is located, like the moment of consciousness, of
(27:16):
being aware. It feels as though it's almost like in
a mountaintop, and then in all directions is moving downwards
and all of the various possibilities in all directions. I
don't know, it's not a very good image, but I'm
just imagining it in the same way we represent gravity
and mass and how that affects gravity. Like it's almost
(27:38):
as if conscious awareness or observation is that same thing
for time.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
You're reading my mind. This was something I wanted to
I was going to save till the end of the episode.
But I think we're we're on the edge of time.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Now, right.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
As a concept, it doesn't really matter apparently when things happen. So,
so what I like about this concept, and I think
you and I are on the same page here, is
that you're talking about distortion, right, the way mass can
distort gravity, right when you drop a ball onto a
taut sheet.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
So I was thinking of the same thing, and I
had followed it down the rabbit hole of information as
mass observation is mass. So perhaps a specific event in
what we understand as lindear your time. Perhaps the more
it is observed, the more concrete or quote unquote heavier
(28:39):
it becomes, and the more it distorts, you know, that
sort of ambient field or fertile soil of reality and time.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
I know.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
But so that's don't worry. We're getting to dreams. We're
talking about this trippy stuff where reason. In twenty twelve,
there was a physicist named Q. Price who claimed that
if the strange things we know to be true about
quantum states reflect something real, and if nothing restricts time
(29:14):
to one direction, not the band, just the direction of
linear time, then the eight ball in our earlier example,
in that pool hall cloud of maybe some what ifs
could theoretically roll out of the corner pocket and knock
the cue ball itself.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
I love physicists so much in the way they talk
and the concepts that they that they have to attempt
to distill for people like me who just don't get
it a lot of times.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Well, it's so interesting too, because so much of this
stuff is like, you know, thought experiments until it becomes real.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
Like I mean, even like Einstein and.
Speaker 5 (29:55):
His whole idea of quantum entanglement and spooky action at
a distance. He sort of wrote it off himself, like
this is way too weird and I'm gonna kind of
let this go. And then sure enough, science came around
and a study shown that quantum entanglement very likely is
a thing, very much in the way Einstein envisioned it.
But he had to have done it on a purely
conceptual level at the time, because it's not like it's
(30:16):
something that could ever be tested, especially in those days.
So it really is a whole different set of equipment
that these folks have, you know what I mean, that
allows them to think in these purely conceptual realms that
end up kind of connecting with reality a lot of
the time.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
It's fabulous, agreed, And this may seem like a tangent,
but it is an important tangent, even if it does
not seem immediately related to dreams. What we're saying is
that as you are listening to this episode, some of
the most intelligent people in the world are arguing over
(30:54):
the fundamental concept of linear time.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Wow, I'm just trying to think all the other things
I have to do today, and I'm wondering if they're
actually going to come later or maybe already did them
just tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Decide that you've done them tomorrow perfect or maybe because
you are deciding that you maybe because tomorrow you are
thinking of doing these and remembering that you have done them,
that means you've already done I don't know, you see,
I see the problem.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
If only it were so simple, and it absolutely is it.
And we're going to talk about why that is and
how this connects up with dreams after one more quick sponsor.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Break and we're back. Bell's theorem it plays a big
role here. It's an idea proposed by one John Stuart Bell,
the concept that bizarre things happening in quantum physics can
never be explained by actions taking place nearby. It's like
(32:02):
we know that billiard balls are moving in all these
different directions, but we have no idea what's causing them.
We don't see the great grand pool queue. I guess
which some people say is God? You know what I mean?
That's how that's how strange this stuff becomes.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
The prime mover? Right? Is that another name for a
god in the situation?
Speaker 1 (32:22):
M h.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
And so.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
This this leads us to ask, then what if we're
what if we're looking in the wrong realm? What if
the cause of these movements is not happening somewhere else,
somewhere nearby, but some when else. If causality, yep, if
causality runs backwards, it means that this particle can carry
(32:47):
the action of its measurement back in time to when
it was originally entangled, affecting its partner, which is this other,
this thing observed in another version of time. Anyway, this
is all still considered fringe science, but the problem is real.
We do not fully understand the actions of the quantum realm,
and one of the things affecting our lack of understanding
(33:08):
may be our assumption of linear time. So the big
question is what does this mean for dreams? Where does
the brain come in? Is the brain somehow quantum?
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Uh? Well, I mean it's made up of the same
things that the pool balls are made of in our example, right,
It's all just a lot of atoms arranged very intricately
in there, at least I hope they're intricately arranged. Hmm. Gosh, Okay,
(33:45):
so we know that if our cells are made up
of atoms, and atoms follow these laws of quantum physics,
even though we don't fully understand them, right, then yeah,
our brains are quantum What a weird thought. I'm just
gonna I'm just gonna sit here for a while and
(34:07):
think about that.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yes, do we I mean, you're right, We're made of
the same stuff right within our bodies are the building
blocks of the stars and the cosmos, dirt and everything else.
But do we need quantum physics to explain this thing,
this phenomenon that we call consciousness? Right now, A lot
(34:31):
of physicists and philosophers are gonna say no, because science
is about explaining things in the most efficacious, accurate, and
simple way. Right We talked about brevity being the soul
of wit in literature and in the creative realm, but
(34:52):
the realm of science takes it to another level. People
like Paul the Guard, who is a philosopher at the
University of Waterloo. It says there is evidence building. It
says we can explain everything in the human mind in
terms of interactions of neurons, So we wouldn't need to
(35:13):
add quantum physics and the dilemmas inherent in this concept
would need to add that to the engine for the
engine to run and for us to understand the process.
It's like if you already have a working car, why
would you add another engine on top of it? Right?
(35:36):
Why would you need two engines if you can already
drive with just one?
Speaker 1 (35:41):
Because you want to go really fast?
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Right?
Speaker 3 (35:44):
Right?
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Because you think linear time exists, things can happen faster.
So I mean it's true. You're right though, and this
is of course a statement from a philosopher, but we
know physicists tend to that's right.
Speaker 5 (36:01):
And then we have David Deutsch, who is a physicist
at the University of Oxford, who says, quote, is there
any need to invoke quantum physics to explain cognition? I
don't know of one, and I'd be amazed if one emerges.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
That's interesting.
Speaker 5 (36:17):
He's sort of like putting these in two distinctly different buckets,
So you kind of have two sides of that argument there.
So if the brain does engage in any of this
quantum you know, shenaniganry during what we call thought, then
there's a particularly popular theory about how all of this
could go down, and it involves something called microtubules, which
(36:42):
are protein tubes that make up the.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
Neurons in our in our brains, in our bodies.
Speaker 5 (36:47):
Specifically, these support structures within neurons, and that is what
potentially quantum you know, physics would would enact upon the
idea that microtube can exploit quantum physics quantum effects rather
to exist in superpositions of two different shapes at the
(37:09):
same time. So this goes back to what you were
talking about earlier with the idea of superposition.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
We want to do a quick refresh on that.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Well, you can think about it quickly this way. Those
neurons are, if this is to be believed, all of
your neurons are simultaneously activated and not activated. If you
think about it as an io switch or something a
state of being on or off. All of your neurons
(37:38):
are both on and off at all times. That's what
this is essentially saying. Unless I'm getting that incorrect.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
It's yeah, it's existing in multiple states that we would
normally think are mutually exclusive. Right, So each of these
shapes in this theory amounts to a tiny bit of
what you're talking about, Matt, classical information we would consider it.
(38:05):
So this shape shifting quantum bit a cubit, right, that's
the fundamental unit here. Each of those can store twice
as much information as their classical counterparts and then we
add entanglement to the mix. I would love to see
(38:26):
this explained in the format of a YouTube cooking show. Right, So,
this is where someone sprinkles in entanglement and starts stirring
that stuff in. This is the feature we've been talking
about that allows these units, these cubit states, to remain
intertwined even when they're not in local contact. That means
(38:49):
that we can rapidly build what's called quantum computer, something
that can manipulate and store information far more efficiently than
a classical computer. Or because to your point, Matt, they
do not have to they do not have to be
restricted to a one zero one thing one at a time.
(39:10):
So if retrocausality is also in play, that means that
these tiny, tiny, tiny tubes, these tubes are protein that
you just described, these pieces of neuron structure could be
interacting with time in a way that we do not understand. Fascinating, funky,
(39:32):
an amazing concept, also very far from proven. As we
record this right now. All the quantum stuff we're talking
about is incredibly fragile. It's not a house of cards
in a windy room. A more accurate description would be
like an upside down pyramid constructed out of the idea
(39:56):
where cards might sometime be balanced on the nose of
a blindfolded circus cloud with big clown shoes writing a
unicycle across a very high tight rope for the very
first time at their first day working for the circus.
The slightest change in anything will cause a quantum state
(40:18):
to break down as far as we know.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
And here's the other thing about your brain, you guys,
it isn't exactly fit for this kind of quantum system,
at least from what we understand right now, right deep
inside there in your head of yours. Go go ahead
and feel it if you can, if you've got a freehand.
(40:41):
That's just your skull. Remember that's the hard part inside there.
It's really warm, it's wet, it's kind of gross, really,
and it's just not suitable for any kind of quantum
system to really survive for any length of time. But again,
that's our understanding of matter and how quantum system work
right now, because it's what we have been able to
(41:03):
achieve thus far.
Speaker 2 (41:05):
Yeah, and as we're recording this, there are numerous people
who are chasing down the possibilities right trying to determine
whether there is a possibility of a quantum state in
the human brain. Well, one person of particular note would
be Matthew Fisher. Fisher is an expert in developing quantum computers,
(41:26):
and he believes there is more to the story. If
you're interested, I highly recommend reading a little bit more
about his proposed experiments. Because we have to remember, as
mentioned in a previous episode, science is a long conversation
and it argues with itself, and there are many many
(41:48):
things that, for one reason or another, our species rejected
as nonsense, only to later learn that those things are true.
So to bring it all back around precognitive dreams, there
are so many anecdotes, there's so many arguments, there's so
many fascinating experiments. I wanted to mention one that got
(42:13):
me involved in retroactive causality a number of years ago.
You guys have heard of McSweeney's, right, Yeah, so you've
heard then of Walten. I know I'm cheating. I know
you guys have heard about it because I wouldn't shut
up about it off air when I was very into it.
So Walfen is sort of like a magazine made of
(42:36):
short films, and Walfin issued number seven included a strange
bonus like a bonus article, but it was a bonus
DVD that had a scientific experiment in retroactive causality. And
the idea was that you, without spoiling it, as the audience,
(43:01):
the observer of the experiment that is on this DVD,
may somehow affect the results of the experiment just by
watching it. I still have it somewhere. I'll send it
to you guys if you want to, if you want
to check it out. It's it's controversial, but it sure.
(43:23):
You don't have to you don't have to buy it,
just borrow it. But the but the idea here is
is that we see experiments with this stuff. It's ongoing,
and we know that people many listening in the audience
today do feel and do believe that they have had
some inexplicable encounter with reality through the world of dream. So,
(43:50):
if retrocausality is real, if time, as we understand it,
flows in more than one direction at the quantum level,
and if the in the human brain function in some
way like what we would call a quantum computer or
a quantum system, a lot of ifs here, and if
(44:10):
this system in a human brain is somehow able to
not even communicate information, but to influence information on what
we call the consciousness or the subconsciousness in an understandable way.
Then there may just be a theoretical way for our
(44:31):
brains to understand time beyond the concept of one second
forward to the next. It took a long time for
us to get there, but we had to lay out
we had to lay out the case. There is actual science, and.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
That's really what this comes down to. There's already some
science that appears to show it could be true, which
is you know, fascinating and hopeful to me thinking that
there might be a way for us to see a
mistake that's coming our way, or to see, you know,
(45:08):
to help somebody who may need our assistance, and somehow
we could be aware of that through this connection in
some way.
Speaker 3 (45:19):
I love. I love the.
Speaker 1 (45:21):
Possibility that exists here, and and just knowing that if
there's already science that's leaning you know, in this way,
or at least hinting at this, then it probably says
that within you know, our lifetimes, we're going to find
out more and we're we may even be able to
prove at some point that we are more deeply connected
(45:43):
to each other and to ourselves and to everything than
we already understand.
Speaker 2 (45:48):
Yeah, that's the mission, right to have to in some
way illuminate a bit more of this cavernous, strange thing
called the universe, reality and life as we know it.
Speaker 1 (46:03):
This giant shadowy jemba that we all exist in.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Ah, the shadowy Jemba. I love that it's such a vision. No,
it's such a good visual and it's fun to say.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
And your lighting looks really, really awesome. This is a
plug to check out the YouTube channel, which has been
resurrected if you are listening in the audio version. So
I have to ask. I know that the three of
us have various questions that we want to ask each other.
So I have to ask you, guys, do you believe
(46:37):
that precognitive dreams exist.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
It's tough for me. I would have to say yes,
because I have experienced a few things where either I
have been given information that I did not have, or
I came to information that I was seeking within a
(47:00):
dream state and and it you know, maybe maybe that
is just my brain doing the defrag process that we
talked about at the top of last episode, but or
maybe it is some connection that I don't fully understand
(47:24):
and it is some kind of precognitive situation. Honestly, I
would have to say, I would have to say, oh God,
this is the stance I always take. I want to
believe it so badly that I'm leaning towards thinking that
something is there.
Speaker 5 (47:37):
I'm with it, man, I mean. And it's one of
these things too, where it's so arrogant of us. We
don't understand this quantum physics stuff, and we see the
smartest people in the world, like Einstein, kind of coming
up with these concepts that can't be tested and then
maybe even abandoning them, and then later it turns out that,
oh he was onto something. So it's like, we're not
even going to be around long enough potentially to see
(47:59):
the stuff, you know, fully play out as to whether
there's truth to this or not, or the way the
human mind works. Or one of the ideas that we
discussed on a recent news episode about that sense of
communicativeness between like, you know, beings, like like communicating through
a look or knowing if someone is staring at you
really hard. What was the name of that.
Speaker 2 (48:18):
It was called morphic resonance.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
Morphic residents exactly I mean, that's, you know, still on
the fringes. But I send some truth to that, and
I send some truth to this.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
How about you, Ben?
Speaker 3 (48:31):
Ah?
Speaker 2 (48:32):
Yeah, Well that's what I was getting to. There is
no there's one question that people keep missing when they
talk about precognitive dreams. Whether we consider ourselves skeptics, whether
we consider ourselves profits or oracles, or just people who
know there's more to the iceberg of reality than what
(48:53):
we see drifting above the surface. The question is this,
if someone has a dream and they use what happened
in the dream to better their situation, right, avoiding the
car accident that we mentioned earlier, staying away from that
(49:16):
dropping piano, which I don't think ever really happens. I
think that's a cartoon thing. But you know what I mean,
If they have a dream and that dream helps them
somehow in the waking world. Does it matter if it's precognition,
Does it matter if it's coincidence. Does it matter if
it's the brain playing the probability game? I would argue no.
(49:38):
I would argue it's very easy to get lost in
our own personal feelings about what quote unquote psychic powers are.
If it's like the Turing test, kind of like whether
or not something is a robot or a human, whatever
the whatever. The behind the scenes picture is, if you're
(50:01):
still having a good conversation, it's still a good conversation.
All that being said, without don't spend too much time
talking about myself here. I come from a long history
of people who are absolutely convinced that they do have
(50:22):
some kind of precognitive dream capacity. And I'll probably hear
from extended family members when this episode comes out, and
they will probably not be super happy with me for
the way that we approach this.
Speaker 1 (50:38):
Maybe they'll get in touch with you prior to the
episode coming out.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
That's right. If you can prove precognition, we would love
to hear from you. Write to us on Friday, August first,
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
Will double check our inboxes that day and let you know.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
I don't know if that does. That joke even work.
Speaker 1 (50:57):
I think it does work, But this is I think
works better if you truly that was a joke, right,
but truly if you are experiencing us in some way
right now as we record this on Friday August twenty first,
twenty twenty, this is what I would say if you
(51:19):
have access to a phone, give us a call. Our
number is one eight three three STDWYTK. Now it's really important.
It's vitally important that you do this on Friday, August
twenty first, twenty twenty. So any voicemails that come in today,
I'm checking them for you. I'm going to be listening
(51:39):
for you. Please do it brilliant.
Speaker 3 (51:43):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (51:44):
And there's another thing we can check right now from
you social media. You can find us on Facebook, you
can find us on Instagram. You can find us on
Twitter where we are conspiracy Stuff on Twitter and Facebook
also travel to Here's where it Gets Create, which has
been universally lauded by us as the best part of Facebook.
(52:06):
You can find us on Instagram where we're a conspiracy
stuff show, and you can also find us should you
choose as individuals on the social meds.
Speaker 5 (52:15):
If you would like to find me, I am at
how Now Noel Brown on Instagram where I post stuff
from my core life and you know, music production and
video game stuff. My kids cosplays all that stuff. You
can find them exclusively on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (52:33):
And it's kind of work on Twitter if you wish
to free up your stream of various posts on Instagram.
You can follow me Matt Frederick underscore iHeart as you
will not see anything from me.
Speaker 2 (52:47):
And if you are opposed to social media, if you
are against the idea of calling people on the phone,
if you've had a bad dream about it, but you
need to tell us some more importantly, your fellow listeners,
a story about dreams, some new information about the possibility
(53:07):
of precognitive dreams. You can always reach us via our
good old fashioned email address where we.
Speaker 1 (53:13):
Are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. But wait, remember YouTube
dot com slash conspiracy stuff. Stay with me YouTube dot
com slash conspiracy stuff. Just think it all the time,
know it, feel.
Speaker 2 (53:31):
It, and go anifest it.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yes, all right, that's it. Stuff they don't want you
(53:57):
to know. Is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts
from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.