October 29, 2024 • 57 mins
In this episode of the podcast, Dr. Ray presents another ramble where he discusses creating order at deeper meta levels. In the Bottom Turtle language, meta level zero is the space of the obvious. This is the space where we draw our axiomatic truths to build a model of reality that everyone can verify. The resulting model is the language of the podcast. At meta level zero, obvious truths like throwing a wine bottle glass on the ground as hard as you can will cause it to shatter cannot be denied. To deny such a truth is to completely reject the concept of truth all together. In contrast meta level one is distinguished from meta level zero by an increase in entropy/uncertainty. That is, consider meta level one as the space of social interactions. This is the first level in the conceptual space beyond the obvious mental constructions provided by our sensory faculties. At meta level one/the social level, it's far more difficult to construct consensus. It's impossible to know your own motivation for an action with certainty let alone the motivations of others. Because of this increase in entropy/uncertainty/ignorance, it is much easier to hide untruths and deceit behind fake intentions. It's also easier to deceive oneself about their own intentions and biases. At meta level one, if you don't want to see the truth, you don't have to. Instead, you can just lie to yourself and cling to your bias.
So join Dr. Ray as he explains how to create order in meta level one and beyond. He argues that this is the job of a theoretical physicist. It is to take obvious truths/observation from meta level zero and construct conceptual objects that are symmetric to the physical system thus creating a literal conceptualization of reality. He also applies this lens of to meta level one to critique wokeness and its use of spiritual violence to control people's free will through repetitional destruction and claims of harm.
Bottom Turtle Podcast YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@bottomturtlepodcast
If you enjoy the podcast, please support us by leaving a review, rating the podcast, and/or telling a friend.
Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast, and leave a review on our FaceBook page at: https://www.facebook.com/thebottomturtle/
If you have any questions or ideas you want discussed on the show, leave us an email at thebottomturtlepodcast@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
In this episode, dr Ray rambles about extending the
objective truth from meta levelzero to deeper meta levels.
Welcome to the Bottom TurtlePodcast.
Hello everybody and welcomeback to the Bottom Turtle
Podcast.
I'm your host, dr Shannon Ray,and today's episode is another
(00:24):
ramble.
I was just editing it and I'mlike do I really want to release
this episode?
I actually recorded it back inJune and there's a reason why I
haven't uploaded it.
It's just another one of thoseexamples of me revealing more of
what's going on in my head tothe world and feeling very
(00:45):
self-conscious about it.
So I didn't really want torelease it.
In fact, during that period oflike I don't know six months
where I didn't release anything,I probably recorded about four
episodes that I was afraid toupload, and that's one of the
reasons why I didn't upload forso long, because it's like and
(01:05):
that's one of the reasons why Ididn't upload for so long
because it's like do I reallywant to put this out there?
But you know, one of the thingsthat I have to accept is that
if I like listening to it and Ifind it compelling, then that's
all I can really go off of as towhether or not people will
enjoy it and find it compelling,and I have to just trust that
gut instinct and put it outthere and see what happens.
So that's why, in the intro tothe first episode of this season
(01:31):
, which is season four, Imentioned that there would be
some uh rambles sprinkledthroughout the season, because I
think that this topic of ethicsand morals and identity and all
this stuff places some contextto these rambles.
That might make it easier forme to upload, might make me feel
(01:54):
more comfortable in uploadingthem.
So you know, it is what it is.
Whatever happens happens.
You know F it, f it.
So, with that being said, Ithink that this particular
ramble fits well with the season, because it's all about making
order at higher meta levels.
So this season is the firstseason where I introduced the
(02:17):
concept of meta level zero andthis recording is the first time
that I actually recorded thephrase meta level zero.
So, so, yeah, so.
So why does this fit well withthe season?
Well, because this season isall about ethics and the point
(02:37):
is is that the concept of ethicsis much more difficult to pin
down.
Obviously, this is a difficultquestion, like what is ethical?
That's a difficult question toanswer, and the reason why that
is is because, as we've beenpresenting our ethical arguments
, it's all about relationships,and so this places it in the
(03:05):
realm of the inherently social,and the thing that distinguishes
meta level zero from meta levelone is an increase in entropy.
You know, meta level zero is therealm of the obvious.
It's the realm where it isobviously true that it will hurt
if I punch you in the face.
You know, it's obviously truethat if you throw a wine glass
on the ground as hard as you can, it's going to shatter.
You know, it's obviously truethat if you throw a wine glass
(03:26):
on the ground as hard as you can, it's going to shatter.
And so, for that reason, it isthe realm in which it's easier
to build consensus and it'sharder to hide bullshit.
It's harder for someone to makenonsense claims.
At meta level zero, it's thespace of the obvious.
And so, with this podcast,we're using the space of the
obvious as the space where it'slike the space where we grab our
axioms from the things thataren't proven, the things that
(03:48):
are just accepted as true, andthen the idea is to use logical
(04:14):
arguments to build a sharedidentity or to build an identity
of itself, denying the truth atdeeper meta levels look just as
absurd as denying the idea thatif you jump off of a building
and fall on your head, that youwill be fine, right.
So that's that's the idea.
And another aspect of thisseason is that this season is
(04:39):
also critiquing wokeness, right,and that's because, for me,
whenever, whenever I interactwith woke ideas and I try to
just take them seriously, like,let me just consider the idea,
let me just observe the idea,consider it and think about it
it always seems as thoughthey're presenting fallacious
arguments, especially moral,because there's a lot of
(05:01):
moralizing in it.
So a lot of their moralarguments are clearly false.
But they're not obviously falseto people because they're at
meta level one, they're at thesocial level, and so the whole
point of this ramble is how doyou create order at deeper meta
levels, where those deeper metalevels are characterized by an
(05:24):
increase in entropy, an increaseof uncertainty and a decrease
of the obvious?
How do you create order in thatspace?
So that's what this ramble isall about, and essentially I'm
arguing.
That's exactly what it is to bea theoretical physicist.
This is what our job is.
(05:44):
That's exactly what it is to bea theoretical physicist.
This is what our job is.
Our job is to take the truth,the physical truth at the
obvious, and extend it into theconceptual space, and the
linchpin on how we do that isyou have to create logical
structures that are symmetric tothe physical phenomena that are
(06:05):
being observed.
So I hope that when you listento this ramble, that it is
convincing that this podcast andthe ideas contained within
provide tools for creating orderat deeper meta levels, such
that obvious bullcrap argumentsare exposed as such and it's
(06:28):
easier for us to build consensus.
Because remember, that's thepoint of this podcast we want to
build consensus such that we'renot just fighting with each
other all the time.
So, with that being said,please like and subscribe to the
podcast.
Please leave a review if youhaven't already.
We are doing more video content, so we're moving more into
(06:50):
YouTube, so I'm going to leave alink to the YouTube channel in
the description of this episode.
So if you can go over toYouTube and subscribe to a
YouTube channel, that'd be great.
We'll be releasing more contentover there over time, and
please share the podcast with afriend.
Please give them a link to theYouTube channel as well If you
want to help me in my endeavors.
(07:12):
If you have made a personalconnection with me and you think
you know what I want to do,that do it a favor.
I want to help him however Ican.
Well, you don't have to give memoney, you don't have to do
anything like that.
All you have to do anythinglike that.
All you have to do is like thepodcast, subscribe, leave a
review and share it withsomebody, and I would be so
grateful for your contributionin that way.
So, without further ado, pleaseenjoy this week's episode.
(07:34):
Creating order beyond meta level.
Zero peace.
It's like.
My perception of what's goingon is not crazy, which is
associated with the idea of howI've been perceiving the way
(07:55):
these ideas have grown in power.
This is really important tothink about that, the way in
which these ideas grow in power,because that's the crux of my
problem.
It's not the idea itself, butwhen the idea is demanding that
(08:18):
you agree with it.
Otherwise, you are a bad personand you start enforcing all
these new social laws and socialnorms.
I think that's what it is.
It's almost like it's not justthat these things are accusing
you of something, it's that theaccusations are actually being
(08:43):
used to wield power.
That's the problem.
It's like the accusation isbeing used to enforce social
norms and to inject ideas inplaces in which society has not
agreed to do this yet.
It's like it feels like it'strying to subvert the typical
process for an idea to gainpower, and typical process I'm
(09:09):
referring to is the idea of ifyou have an idea, you're allowed
to share it and try to convincepeople of it, but you're not
allowed to, like, force themwith a gun to believe it.
Not in a free, fair society.
They're not allowed to use aforce with a gun to believe it.
Not in a free, fair society.
They're not allowed to use aforce with a gun.
And so that idea of not usingforce with a gun is essentially
(09:33):
like the problem is to use theforce.
Like we know that it also hasthe additional data of well,
you're physically trying tocontrol their body to do
something like capturing someoneor making them a slave.
Like you're using physicalviolence to achieve your goal.
And so I think that a lot ofpeople view that as physical
(09:55):
violence.
Like the significance isphysical violence.
But what if the significance isjust violence?
And then you have to definewhat violence is.
So now you start thinking toyourself how can I be violent
with words?
What does that look like?
Being violent with words doessaying something like you must
(10:17):
agree with this, otherwise I'mgoing to accuse you of being
racist, or I'm going to accuseyou of harming people and being
immoral.
And then I'm going to do stufflike kick you off of platforms
and say that no, if someonedoesn't agree with these
language, it's perfectly validto kick them off a platform for
(10:38):
expressing a different opinion.
It's.
Does that sound like a way tobe violent with words?
You know what I mean.
Like reputational violence, likewe all know how reputations
work.
We all know how social normswork Right, and we know how
these things are related.
Violating social norms orsocial expectations Like, for
(10:59):
instance, raping people Istypically frowned upon.
Stealing from people.
We know that if you gain areputation for breaking typical
social norms associated with agood citizen, then you gain a
bad reputation and it affectsyour spirit and how you interact
(11:23):
in the world and what you'recapable of and what you have
access to.
So it's like, okay, well, itsounds like you're using these
words to demote people's spiritsand in some cases, you know,
actually insist on usingphysical force, like in general.
Can you imagine a scenario inwhich someone comes up to you
(11:45):
and says you must agree, youmust believe that saving all the
homeless veterans is the mostimportant thing we should be
doing and I've come up with aplan to help them?
Unless you agree, it's not evenwhether or not, whether or not
you agree that they need help,or that you think or you've come
(12:07):
up with your own way to helpthem.
It's like you have to agreewith a specific way in which I
think we should help them, whichis to change all language to
make them feel better.
So if someone comes to you withthis homeless veteran thing and
started accusing you of that,you'd be like what is wrong with
this person?
I don't agree.
Like, I have other things toworry about.
(12:28):
Like, why do they think thatthe thing they think is
important is so important thatthey're able to start damaging
my reputation and spirit andstart creating social norms that
are designed to remove me fromspaces?
You know what I mean.
Like this seems really, reallyviolent.
But because this violence isnot obvious physical violence,
(12:51):
people pretend as though, like,like you have the freedom to
choose to not see it.
Like you have the freedom to.
There's always a reasonabledoubt.
If someone caught someone on acamera shooting someone or
threatening them with a gun andputting them in the back of the
trunk of a car, and everyonesees it and like everyone agrees
that there's nothing doctoredhere, and then the person's like
(13:12):
, yeah, that's the person thatdid it, and then it's pretty
much impossible to disagree thatviolence was used to control
somebody, that violence was usedto control somebody.
But if it's more like someone isusing a tactic that is designed
to hurt your reputation, thatlives in the subjective realm of
(13:33):
your model of reality and so,depending on how you typically
interact with the world, ifyou're someone who's used to
deceiving themselves, you don'tknow how to be honest.
You know what I mean.
If you're someone who has aconsistent pattern of not being
honest with themselves, then ifit is the case that there's an
obvious case of social violencebeing used, spiritual
(13:57):
reputational violence being usedon someone, if it's like
obvious that that's what's goingon, you can just turn that off
and pretend as though that's notthe case.
Well, there's a million excusesyou can make.
There's a million ways todefend it.
There's a million ways tobelieve whatever you want to
believe.
You see what I mean.
(14:18):
It's not as obvious as someoneoh, this person was caught on
video kidnapping someone with agun.
And so I call this differentlayers of reality meta level
zero and meta level one.
Meta level zero is where theobvious exists.
You jump off a building that's100 stories, fall headfirst on
(14:43):
concrete and you're dead.
Any idiot knows that.
It does not take a genius tounderstand that.
It's extremely simple, becauseeverything can be verified.
If someone does 30 backflips ina row, you don't have to
question whether or not thisperson has done something
impressive.
Like oh, obviously, he just did30 backflips in a row.
You don't have to questionwhether or not this person has
(15:03):
done something impressive Likeoh, obviously, he just did 30
backflips in a row.
Like that's not a commonoccurrence, that just happens
every day.
Think about all theconditioning, all the practice,
all the skill, all the awareness, all the connection of
relationship with your body.
Think about all the things thathave to come into play and have
to be done for someone to do 30backflips in a row.
You see them do it and you gooh yeah, I couldn't do that.
(15:24):
So you can measure howdifficult you think it would be
for you to do it, and then youlook at them doing it and you go
, oh impressive, that's thecalculus.
It's really simple.
It does not take a genius to dothis.
But in meta level one, that'swhere all the social
interactions are going on.
That's where things are farmore subjective, which is
(15:47):
there's an increase in entropyfrom meta level zero to meta
level one.
There's an increase in entropy.
You're going a layer deeperinto reality.
You're going a layer deeperinto reality and in that deeper
layer you have more freedom todetermine what reality is.
But that freedom, there's twotypes of freedom.
(16:12):
There's freedom in terms ofwhat you value and what your
perception is, in which caseyou're going to develop a
different lens than someone elsewho values and has a different
set of perceptions, a differentlens than someone else who
values and has a different setof perceptions.
But if you guys are bothdedicated and loyal to the
spirit of truth, then thatchoice is literally just purely
(16:34):
a matter of perspective.
Neither one of you are wrong.
Like both of you have purelenses.
You have a pure relationshipwith the spirit.
The second way to choose is tolie to yourself.
It is to willfully Reject thestate of reality, the causal
(17:00):
structure, the logic, the stateof reality, the causal structure
, the logic, and construct amodel of reality entirely based
off your bias of what you wantto believe.
So it's very, very, very easyto avoid wanting to see the
(17:23):
truth if you don't like it.
That's what happened at metalevel one.
It's so obvious and it's soclear.
And so at meta level one I'msaying this as an objective fact
(17:44):
there is an increase in entropy.
There is an increase in entropy, there's an increase in
uncertainty.
It's far more difficult to knowwhat happened really, or to
know whether or not what youthink happened is actually
correct.
What if I am just using my bias?
What if I don't have all theinformation?
And that's exactly what entropyis.
It is to not have information,it's uncertainty, it's unknowing
(18:06):
, it's ignorance.
It's it's literal ignorance.
Entropy is ignorance.
And so if you're going from metalevel zero to meta level one,
you have to put order on it.
Like all that increase inentropy means that you have to
put order on it.
Like all that increase inentropy means that you have to
place order on that structure.
(18:29):
So you have to ask yourself howdo I create order?
At meta level one, logic works,and so now it's like, okay, how
do I make order in meta levelone?
And my answer is listen to mypodcast.
Like, seriously, and what I'mexplaining is objectively true,
(18:50):
meaning you can't disagree withit, meaning that I'm claiming to
you guys, in meta level one, Ihave made an objective object,
an objective structure that canbe used to create order.
Objective object, an objectivestructure that can be used to
create order, and then, once youhave a relationship with that
object, you can go down todeeper meta levels, and the
(19:19):
bottom meta level is God.
But the bottom meta level isn'tanother explanation, because if
you're trying to find anexplanation, something that can
be spoken, then it's turtled allthe way down.
That's the problem Looking foran idea, looking for something
that can be said.
If you try to do that, thenyou'll just be going through an
(19:40):
infinite loop down.
To actually stop going down theinfinite loop, you need
something that's not based offof thought.
You need nirvana, you neednirvana, and so what you need is
a relationship with the void,the pure symmetry.
(20:02):
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
So I'm saying, ok, I'm tryingto give you an object that can
allow you to go down and see thevoid, the pure symmetry, the
gauge gates.
But to do that, you have topurify your land first, which is
to not lie to yourself.
(20:23):
So if you're lying to yourselfand being delusional, you're not
going to make it.
You're not going to make it.
You have to purify yourselffirst of lies and deceit.
You have to purify yourselffrom the spirit of Satan, which
is the spirit of lies and deceitand distortion and delusions.
You got to purify yourself ofthat.
Without that, you can't besincere and honest.
(20:49):
And so, given this, the firstobject you need is a
relationship with sincerity,which is to purge yourself of
Satan, which is to purify yourBuddha, to get to a purified
Buddha land.
That's what you need.
The second thing another thingyou need, not even a second,
(21:10):
just another thing you need isonce you have that, then you can
create logically soundstructures, ie logically sound
models in your head, where theselogical structures are a
language, and that languagecreates perceptions, and that
perception is associated withthe spirit, because your spirit
depends on how you program theuniverse and how you program by
(21:31):
the universe.
It depends on how do youinteract with reality, how do
you make the universe evolve.
So that's what perceptions areassociated with.
You need a sound logicalstructure, something that can
read in data and write out aninterpretation in a way that's
perfectly logically consistent.
Everything follows.
(21:52):
There's no logical fallacies.
So once you have something likethat, you didn't need to feed
it data.
So this is where science comesin.
Now that you have a logicallysound structure, you can state
things like I believe my keysare on the table.
That is a model of reality andthat can be verified.
(22:14):
You can walk into your room andsee are the keys on the table?
Oh, the keys are on the table.
I was able to use that topredict the future.
I believe that this is so.
Therefore, when I take thisaction this should happen the
action I take is I walk into mykitchen, I look at the table.
The keys are there.
So what follows is I'm finishedlooking for my keys.
(22:38):
Then I do the next thing aftergetting the keys.
That's what I predict willhappen if my model of reality is
correct.
That's the scientific process.
It's really that simple.
You have to have a structurethat can create objective
meaning, which is how languageworks, and then, from that,
predict the future.
So then, once you are able topredict the future with your
(23:01):
model, then you say ah, thismodel seems to have truth
because I can use it to reduceentropy.
You see, I can use it to reduceentropy, to reduce uncertainty,
to reduce ignorance.
And if I walk into the kitchenand my keys aren't there, then
(23:22):
I'm like where are my keys?
You're still ignorant.
You don't know where your keysare.
It's literal ignorance.
Entropy oh shoot, I still don'tknow.
So entropy is ignorance.
You have to understand that forone, that's just what it is.
So whenever you hear someonetrying to explain what entropy
is and they're getting allscientific and stuff, it's like
(23:42):
no guys, look, you guys all knowwhat ignorance is right.
That's what entropy is, periodDone.
You don't have to think aboutanything else.
Entropy is ignorance.
This is an objective fact, aliteral fact.
Just believe me, don't thinkabout it, just believe me.
And so entropy is ignorance.
(24:03):
And so the point is is thatwhen you have a model that has
truth, it can predict the future, which is to reduce the
uncertainty of a measurementoutcome.
The measurement is go, look andsee.
(24:24):
See that they're on the table.
Then the experiment is done,your model was correct.
So in other words, it's likehaving information is to reduce
entropy.
That's the relationship, like,if I have information, then I'm
not ignorant.
(24:45):
So recap I've defined meta level0 and meta level 1.
Meta level 0 is the realm ofthe obvious.
It does not take a genius tounderstand that if you jump off
a 100-story building headfirstonto concrete, you're going to
die, you're going to splatter onthe ground.
Anyone can verify that.
It's obvious.
Now meta level 1 is wherethings are less obvious.
(25:07):
And I made this distinctionbecause I was talking about the
world of the subjective, theworld of human interactions, the
world in which it's easier tolie to yourself about what
you're doing and why.
To lie to yourself about whatactually is going on, and so
that's meta level one.
Why to lie to yourself aboutwhat actually is going on?
And so that's meta level one.
And that realm is inherentlymore entropic.
(25:28):
There's more uncertainty there,there's more freedom to make up
bullshit and there's morefreedom to just choose what you
want to pay attention to, whatyou're aware of, which then you
know chooses what spirit's inrelationship with.
But then it's your choice tomake sure that you purify that
relationship by not lying toyourself, so that the perception
(25:49):
you have is merely just amatter of choice.
It's not that you're wrong.
There is a unitarytransformation between all of
those.
There's a unitarytransformation between all
purified Buddha lands, so thatmeans all Buddhas are one.
So there's a unitarytransformation between all
logically sound perceptions.
And so the point is that theselogically sound perceptions are
(26:12):
the things you need to createorder so that you can see
clearly in the realm of higherentropy, higher darkness, more
uncertainty, and so you have tohave a logically sound structure
, and then that thing has to beable to predict the future.
So then you know that thatmodel maps to this aspect of
nature, and this is basicallywhat scientific theories are.
(26:33):
This is basically what anytheory is.
This is what it is to write athesis.
This is my model of reality.
This is what I think isliterally the relationship.
This is what I think isliterally the relationship.
This is what I think isliterally going on.
And the thing is that peopledon't understand that, as a
scientist, what are we doing?
Like I'm a theoreticalphysicist, so what is my job?
What am I doing?
Literally, like someone,someone asks as a mathematician,
(26:56):
here's what I'm doing, and Iwant to explain this using using
an example, because I'm tryingto I'm trying to use this
example to explain what the wordliterally means.
So what we do is we createmodels of reality.
We create mathematical machinesthat are meant to model the
(27:21):
nature of reality, that aremeant to model the nature of
reality, and so what we have todo is find the machine that has
the same characteristic or thesame nature as the physical
system that we're trying tomodel.
So an example that I use allthe time is the idea of a
pendulum Simple harmonic motion.
(27:41):
Don't even make the pendulumswing too large, so it's like
you know.
Make it just a smallperturbation, simple harmonic
motion.
You take a pendulum that'shanging straight down, it's like
you know, some weight at theend of a string, unperturbed.
You perturb it slightly fromits rest position and then you
let it go, assuming that it canonly move in a two-dimensional
(28:05):
plane.
So it's not, you know,processing all over the place.
It starts off at the beginning,where you displaced it.
You let it go, it goes back toits rest position, it goes to
the opposite side of its cycle.
It stops once it gets to theopposite side, changes
directions, goes back in theother direction, hanging
(28:26):
straight down, and then goesback to the starting point.
That is a cycle, and so inmathematics we model that cycle
with a circle.
So you have something that weuse like.
If you want to studytrigonometry, like the basics of
trigonometry, what you need tounderstand is something called
the unit circle.
That's like one of the mostfundamental mathematical objects
(28:47):
on the earth.
Everyone uses the unit circle.
You know where sines andcosines and tangents and all
that stuff comes the unit circle.
And so with the unit circle,you know you have a circle with
an xy-axis in it.
So you have a vertical which isthe y axis, the horizontal is
the x axis.
And so if you go to the rightof the vertical axis along the x
(29:10):
axis until you touch thecircumference of the circle,
then that's usually defined asangle zero.
And then the intersectionbetween the y axis and the
circumference of the circle,that's 90 degrees, and then the
intersection between the y-axisand the circumference of the
circle, that's 90 degrees, andthen the direction on the
opposite side, that's 180degrees.
Then the one going straightdown is 270 degrees, and then
(29:33):
the one coming back to zero is360 degrees, and we all know
that zero equals 360 degrees.
360 means you've come back towhere you started.
So within physics we have thesethings called phase angles,
phase angles.
What's a phase angle?
A phase angle is telling youwhere something is along the
phase of its cycle.
And so the phase angle of thependulum when it's being held at
(30:04):
its starting point, its initialdisplacement is zero.
When it's hanging straight down, when it's made a quarter of
its journey, it's 90.
90 degrees.
When it's on the opposite sideof its journey, it's 180.
When it comes back to thecenter, it's 270.
When it comes back to itsinitial start, it's 360 degrees.
So we have a physical objectthat has a cycle, and then we
have this thing.
Then we use this unit circleand its angles to model it, and
(30:29):
then just think about the amountof math that just uses circles
to model cycles, because thewhole point is that this
mathematical language, thisstructure, has a perfect
symmetry with the observedphysical phenomena.
It's literally the same thing,literally.
And that's what we do.
And so it's literally my job toconstruct logically sound
(30:56):
models of reality in the realmsof quantum physics, general
relativity, computationalgeometry, quantum statistical
mechanics, quantum informationtheory.
That's literally what I do fora living.
So then you have to ask yourselfwhat type of person would I
trust to guide me down metalevel one, two, three and four,
(31:20):
someone whose literal job andtraining has been entirely
designed to go into some of themost complicated meta spaces.
I don't even know what metalevel fucking theoretical
physics is that?
What meta level is that?
2000, like?
How far down is that?
I don't know.
It's definitely way past metalevel one.
(31:42):
You, you see what I'm saying.
It's like I have been trainingfor over 15, 16 years I don't
know how long it's been at thispoint Doing one thing, and that
is learning math, learningphysics, doing calculations,
(32:03):
writing computer code,understanding extremely
complicated conceptual spacesand creating order there.
And not only do I create orderby being able to comprehend the
space, the language, the syntaxof general relativity and
differential geometry and fiberbundles, general relativity and
(32:23):
differential geometry and fiberbundles, and not only can I go
there and see, but I'm a creatorthere, I create art there.
It's something that 99% ofpeople who listen to this will
not do, will not ever do andcannot do.
Who listen to this will not do,will not ever do and cannot do.
(32:48):
And so it's like, yeah, I feellike this guy might be a good
person to listen to when tryingto create order in the
conceptual space.
It should be obvious.
So then your only questions areone of are the realms of physics
and mathematics and theoreticalphysics and general relativity,
are those real spaces, or is itall just complete nonsense that
(33:11):
has nothing to do with realityand it's just a bunch of people
sitting around jerking eachother off with ideas that
they're just making up at ourass that have nothing to do with
reality?
Is that, is that what spacesare?
Because if those spaces reallyare the spaces in which we build
satellites, send people to themoon, build airplanes, build
computers, structures and allthese other things, if it really
(33:32):
is actually that space which,given the observation of
technology and all that it works, then you'd have to think, oh
yeah, well, obviously, metalevel zero.
Again.
It's clearly not fake.
Science isn't fake, physicsisn't fake, so clearly there is
a real space there.
So then the only next questionyou have to ask yourself are
well, who is this guy?
(33:52):
If this space is real, is thisguy a legit scientist?
It's like well, just look at mypapers.
My papers are legit, elite,good papers.
Like papers Like I'm not goingto like I'm a good scientist.
So I mean, it's very anothermeta level zero.
You just Google me, google mywork, google my papers I've
published Google who I'vepublished with Google my like
(34:15):
citations I've had, who I'vebeen cited by.
It's very easy and I canguarantee no matter what work
you pick up from mine, you'regoing to look at it and you'll
be like, oh, this person's ascientist, it's just.
And so OK, so OK.
So now we're like all right.
Well, questions one is sciencereal?
I think it's reasonable to sayyeah, probably.
(34:36):
Question number two is this guya scientist?
Oh, yeah, I think, given hisworks of art and just listening
to him, that yeah, he's probablya scientist.
And then the third question isbut is this guy just delusional?
Just because those other twothings are true doesn't mean
that he's some master atcreating conceptual spaces and
(34:58):
all this stuff.
I mean, that doesn'tnecessarily follow, but it's
like yeah, but if you're goingto imagine a person that you
thought would be able to do that, wouldn't you not be surprised
if that person was a theoreticalphysicist and a mathematician?
You know what I mean.
So I'm saying this because thenit's a matter of like.
Hmm, maybe I should payattention to this person who
(35:22):
says that he thinks that he'sfigured out all of reality and
he's explaining it with a thesisin a podcast.
My podcast is a thesis ofreality, which means that
everything is based off ofreality arguments, and the way
these arguments work is that Ido exactly the thing that I said
(35:44):
I was doing in the example ofthe circle and the pendulum.
It's like my podcast works bylooking at things about reality
that are at meta level zero,that you would have to be an
insane person to deny, and thenI simply logically follow.
I create a logically soundstructure and just say this must
(36:04):
follow from this, then thismust follow from this, then this
must follow from that, soeverything can be verified with
the obvious observations at metalevel zero, and then you just
have to spend some effort tothink about whether or not the
logic works, and I know thatit's not the easiest thing to
understand the stuff I'm saying,but it's not the most difficult
(36:26):
either.
If you are a fairly competentperson, you can understand what
I'm saying.
The only problem is whether ornot you think that what I'm
saying is worth paying attentionto.
That's the thing.
That's the thing, and I canguarantee you that if you listen
to me, you will discover thingsabout reality that you were
(36:46):
like oh shit, this is how itworks.
Yes, yes, yes, this makes sense.
Oh, yes, yes, I can guaranteeit.
I can guarantee it.
You will create order in waysthat you didn't even know were
possible.
I can guarantee it.
So the point of my podcast isthat it's doing exactly the
thing that I mentioned in thecircle in the pendulum example,
(37:09):
which is that I'm creating amodel of reality that is literal
, which is to say that it'sobjective, which is to say that
it's real, like as real as that.
I'm listening to this recordingon my phone.
If you're listening to it onyour phone, it's as real as that
(37:31):
.
And so one of the things that Iuse in the podcast a lot is the
idea that when I'm talking toyou, I'm programming you like a
computer.
So when you're listening tothis, I'm programming you a
computer.
So when you're listening tothis, I'm programming you
literally, programming youliterally, and it's like and the
way that you can verify that is, if I tell you a secret, then
you can get up and walk intoanother room and tell someone
(37:54):
that secret, which means that ithad to be stored in your
physical system, like memory ona memory card, because you were
able to carry it into anotherroom and tell someone so.
So that means that when you'relistening to this, I'm
physically, I'm literallyprogramming you like a computer.
So the point is is that I'mcreating a model between you and
(38:15):
computer and programming.
I'm using computer andprogramming in the conceptual
space to map to somethingphysical, at mental level zero.
And then the observation thatanyone can verify is that if I
tell you a secret, you can walkinto another room and tell
someone that secret, so you?
So you therefore know.
Ah, yes, that is objectivelytrue, because essentially what
(38:37):
it is is that both humans andcomputers are physical
subsystems of the universe thathave the capacity to be put in
many different configurations,and the configuration they're in
depends on how they processdata and which data they've been
given.
And so you know that, as ahuman, you can have something
(38:57):
like an estimation of yourdegrees of freedom how many
configurations can you be placedin?
How intricate of a computer,how many bits do I have?
And then just think about allof the states of being you could
be in as a human, happy, sad,scientist, gymnast.
Think about all of thedifferent ways in which humans
(39:22):
express themselves, and theneach one of those expressions is
associated with a spirit.
So think about the set of allspirits that humans can embody.
So, in other words, the nextstep is to see how, now that
we've connected programming andcomputers, we now see that
(39:44):
they're the relationship betweenyour configuration and what
spirit you embody, how youprogram the universe and how
you're programmed by theuniverse.
That's what spirit is.
It has to do with how youevolve the universe, how do you
create what happens when thingsinteract with you.
So now, this is why I have anepisode, season three, season
(40:07):
one, episode three, called noMentation Without Representation
, which is mentation has to dowith mental state or state of
being, or spiritual state, andrepresentation has to do with
the physical state, conjuresthat spirit state, conjures that
spirit.
So now I've used the ideas ofprogramming and computers, the
(40:29):
metaphor of the programmingcomputers, to describe humans.
And then I go from there towhat spirit you are conjuring,
based off your configuration,and that it's clear that
different configurations areassociated with different
spirits, because if I believeone thing, then I act one way.
If I believe another way, I acta different way.
So my spirit is different, andso that belief has to be stored
as memory on your system, likeif you heard a piece of
(40:51):
information that made youbelieve that a bomb was going to
go off near you, then that'sgoing to get stored as data in
your physical system, just likethe being told a secret.
And then you're going to getstored as data in your physical
system, just like the being tolda secret, and then you're going
to act differently.
So every single idea and everysingle thought and every single
state of being is a spirit,essentially, and again, so, so,
(41:14):
so it's like so.
So now we've we've mapped it tothe spirit world, where I give a
clear definition of what spiritis, how you program the
universe, how you're programmedby the universe.
Then you know we all know, metalevel zero again that what you
believe affects your behavior.
So if you accept my definitionof spirit, which is
(41:35):
extraordinarily reasonable, thenyou see how this is related to
spirit.
And I just use that definitionin context of all the other
structure that he has given me.
Just use that definition to seethe world, use that definition
to read a religious text, usethat definition to try to put
(41:57):
order on this space.
Is this a good model?
Space, is this a good model?
And so this is how I'm buildingorder in this conceptual space,
and the thing is is that youcan build order forever, but
you're still going to be trappedin the conceptual space.
So once you so, in other words,this order that you're building
(42:19):
will allow you to go downdifferent meta levels, and I
think that eventually it'll helpyou if you want to see the void
clearly, because you keeptrying to go down and go down
and go down and go down.
You can go down the infiniteregression and just look at
spirits.
But I think eventually, thefurther you go down, you'll
(42:40):
start to see the gauge gates,you'll start to see the holes,
you'll start to see the holes,you'll start to see the void,
you'll start to see emptiness.
So yeah, I know I went all overthe place today, but the main
theme of this was the ideas ofmeta level 0 and meta level 1.
Or meta level 0 and then allthe other meta levels beyond it.
(43:06):
You have something like the metalevel zero, which is the
physical, hard reality, the mostobvious aspect of reality that
anyone can verify, and I thinkfor a lot of people they think
that that is reality, like theydon't actually have any
relationship with the degree towhich this thing is not well
defined, any relationship withthe degree to which this thing
is not well defined.
And this is why, in the secondepisode of the first season, are
(43:28):
we in a Simulation?
I said the power of thequestion Are we in a Simulation?
Is telling us the degree towhich we know what reality is.
And because everyone knows whata computer is and everyone has
access to the concept of acomputer, the idea that we might
be trapped in a computer isvery plausible.
How do we verify that we're not?
(43:49):
And so it's telling ussomething like oh, we have gone
down, we have become aware somuch so that we can build these
computer things such thateveryone can use them and that
they've now become a meta level,zero object computers.
And because of that, it hasbrought us to the question how
(44:13):
do we know we're in a simulationor not?
And we literally don't know.
So this is, this is entropy.
Oh, this is OK.
Standing here, that the frontierof human knowledge.
We have no fucking clue whatthe hell this stuff is and what
is actually going on.
What is reality?
What the hell?
That's the power of that idea,that's the power of it.
It's like society itself hasgone down all these meta levels,
(44:40):
just in terms of our sharedknowledge that humans have
created.
We have so much information,it's madness.
And with all that information,if you come into relationship
with it sincerely, it will startto reveal to you, it'll start
(45:00):
pulling you down meta levels,whether you want to or not,
because the whole point is thatour society is saturated in an
infinitely deep meta-level world.
It's just a matter of whetheror not you want to pay attention
to it.
And my point is that conceptslike computers are so
(45:23):
mind-bending that they canliterally make you not even go
like.
If you really think about whatthey are and how they work and
how they function and and whatthey can be used for in this a
you really really stop to thinkabout it, just quit taking shit
for granted.
You'll be like oh, what thehell is going on?
Where are we?
What is this?
What is reality?
What is going on?
(45:47):
And that's the thing I hearpeople talk, and they talk like
this meta level zero iseverything, and it's just like
you seem like you're just shutoff, like you're not looking
deeper into anything, and then,when you do go deeper, you just
search for whatever makes youfeel comfortable, whether it's
(46:08):
real or not, and then just goadvocating for it like you know
this tribal crap.
It's just like Jesus.
Guys, come get our shittogether.
Our technology is too powerful.
We can't behave like thisanymore.
You got to stop.
It's not a luxury anymore.
You can't keep acting like this.
You got to stop.
You got to stop.
You're going to kill us all.
We can't live in a world inwhich we have such powerful
(46:30):
technology and have everyoneliving at metal level zero and
then at metal level one, they'rejust telling themselves all
these comfortable lies anddelusions and bullshit.
We can't do it, we're going tokill ourselves.
You got to stop.
Can't do it, we're going tokill ourselves.
We got to stop.
And so this is why one of thethings about this podcast I feel
so urgent that it's like look,guys, I think that I have
constructed a language whereeverything is tied to meta level
(46:54):
zero.
So that means that if you wantto get on this bandwagon, all
you have to do is care enough tolisten and put in some effort
to understand what I'm saying.
Because, guys, I am a quantuminformation theorist.
Information theory is literallythe mathematical theory of
(47:14):
communication, and quantumcomputing is literally studying
reality at the most foundational, from which all other things
are built upon.
It's like I really do believethat a lot of people here I'm a
theoretical physicist and theyliterally do they have so little
relationship with that spiritthey don't even know what it
(47:36):
means for that to be the case.
And I know this sounds like metooting my own horn, but it's
just like guys, I am telling youI have figured this shit out.
You need to listen.
Like my goodness, and this islike I'm not like a crazy person
(48:02):
, like you see what.
I'm not like a crazy person,like you see what I'm saying.
Like listen to my episode,season 3, the faith component,
where I'm like I'm a coward.
This is why I made like 30episodes of this show in the way
that I did, because I'm afreaking coward.
If I come out to you guys andsay I'm a quantum physicist and
I know everything, I know all ofreality.
(48:23):
You guys and say I'm I'm aquantum physicist and I know
everything, you'd be like I knowall of reality and I blah, blah
, blah.
You guys think this guy's afucking.
Who is this guy?
Is this terrence howard?
All over again.
Like what's going on here?
Like that's what terrencehoward did, that literally went
on joe rogan and like didexactly that.
So me, being a scientist, I'mlike, well, if I do that, people
, people are going to think I'mcrazy.
(48:43):
Clearly, therefore, I have tolike, how do I prevent that from
happening?
Well, how about what I do?
Is I just explain what the fuckI think and why and I seriously
find it hard pressed for anyoneto listen to my podcast and
sincerely try to grasp andunderstand it and think this guy
(49:04):
is just completely full of shitand has no idea what he's
talking about.
This guy is just as bad asTerrence Howard.
There's just no way, no way inhell, because I have so many
brilliant colleagues that go toprestigious universities Like
how many people listening tothis have been invited to
Harvard and has published paperswith film medalists.
(49:24):
Like, seriously, listen to me,I'm telling you.
If you care at all about whatreality is and you really want
to know at a deep level, justlisten to me, tell your friends
and have them listen too,because I'm pretty sure that the
code that is my spirit, thething that has been stored in
(49:48):
memory in this podcast, I'mpretty sure that if people
listen to it and interact withit sincerely, that they'll
become more awakened and they'llstop acting like buffoons in
the conceptual space, it'llincrease the chances that we
don't kill ourselves.
It's actually like to me one ofthe most important things I
(50:11):
should be doing right now,because I literally think it's
the difference between mychildren having a future and
them not having a future, whichis, again, a delusion of
grandeur.
You think your ideas are soimportant that it's going to
save all of humanity.
It's like well, here's thething.
If it is the case that I haveideas that are so important that
it might save all of humanity,then it would be really shitty
(50:34):
for humanity if I didn'tcommunicate them because I was
too afraid of what people wouldthink.
Wouldn't it?
Wouldn't that suck for you andeverybody else?
So you know, I have to besincere with myself and honest.
Do I literally think that'swhat I have?
Yeah, I do.
Yeah, absolutely 100%.
Not even doubting, not evenjoking, not even whatever.
Not even joking at all.
Absolutely 100%.
(50:54):
Because every single day, thedata I get and the feedback I
get from people who I talk toand these are not just randos,
I'm talking about computerscience professors at Rutgers
and stuff, people with thousandsof citations, theoretical fits,
like all my colleagues are allPhD level category theorists.
You see what I'm saying.
(51:18):
Like it's not, like I'm justtalking to random people and
they're all just like it's like.
I talk to really smart peopleand they're like, oh, it's like
these.
I talk to really smart peopleand they're like oh, yeah, yeah,
yeah, this is brilliant, thismakes a lot of sense.
I talk to people who aren't,who don't have all that you know
, who aren't in that realm, andthey're all like oh, that makes
a lot of sense.
I never get anyone saying thatthis is batshit and saying crazy
and makes no sense.
No one's going to listen towhat I say and think, oh, this
(51:40):
is Terrence Howard all overagain.
Not unless they're beingwillfully deceitful to
themselves and dishonest andhave an agenda.
I just honestly think I'm not aperfect communicator and I know
that the podcast isn't perfect.
There's going to be holes,there's going to be some things
I said incorrectly, some thingsI could have said better for
sure.
But damn, I'm telling you, interms of initial guesses and
(52:03):
optimization algorithm andwhether or not I'm close to the
global minimum.
I'm pretty damn close.
And and if you are amathematician or a scientist and
you understand those words Ijust said, because you're going
to be the only one who canunderstand them.
Initial guess global minimumoptimization yeah, when you're
doing optimization and likeoptimization algorithms, it's
really good to be able to findto start off near the global
(52:26):
minimum.
So you have to really have agood initial guess and I'm
saying that my initial guess forthe optimization problem of
answering the question what isreality?
It's probably closer andclearer than most people you
will ever interact with.
And the thing is is that I'm notunique.
I said I talked to a lot ofbrilliant people and you think
(52:47):
that I'm the only one who'sfigured this stuff out.
The matter is, the question isnot whether or not someone can
understand it or whether or notother people have figured it out
.
I'm not that special.
There are people way smarterthan me.
It's a matter of how well andhow willing can they communicate
it and also how capable arethey of seeing the forest
(53:11):
through the trees, how capableare they of stepping outside the
forest?
And then, when you startactually really thinking about
this, the mind that you need toproduce what I've produced and
the way I've produced it.
Being a coward really helps,because you are afraid that
you're wrong all the time and soyou spend all this extra effort
(53:36):
making sure that you're right.
When I say I'm a coward, I amnot insulting myself.
It's just a matter of fact.
But that cowardly spirit ofmine has done some work.
I am not ashamed of it in anyway, shape or form, but I am a
(53:57):
coward.
And but I'm also.
Typically I step into the fireif I have to.
I am literally the type ofperson who does not want to be
chief.
I will only do chief shit if noone else is doing it and
(54:19):
someone has to step up and do it.
I am perfectly happy followingdirections and doing what I'm
told.
Being in the position of poweris not the thing that I desire
more than anything.
What I desire more thananything is to be youthful, to
(54:40):
contribute.
I mean, when I was younger, alot of my motivation was also
related to vanity.
I want to be like Einstein andI want to be famous.
You know well, okay, you're akid.
So I want to be famous is notreally the most complicated
thought any human has ever hadthat spirit of vanity.
But I've always wanted to befamous for doing something real.
(55:01):
I never wanted to be famous forno fucking reason, just to be
famous just because alwayswanted to be famous for doing
something real.
I never wanted to be famous forno fucking reason, just to be
famous just because I wanted tobe famous, because I did
something fucking valuable,something real, something that
only a genius like Einsteincould do.
That's literally been my mainmotivating factor since I was
(55:24):
like 15 years old.
I literally am a child whothought to himself I want to be
like Einstein and then literallyjust took every single action
to make that a reality.
The best I could, reality thebest I could.
And the thing is my name is DrRay, because I published a
(55:45):
thesis in the field of generalrelativity on the energy of pure
gravitational fields forextreme Kerr spacetimes, which
are spacetimes that are rotatingnear their maximum angular
momentum and the energy that I'mlooking at is near the event
horizon.
How many people even cancomprehend this is the most
(56:12):
Einstein shit you could do,literally working in his theory,
in his field, literally workingas a theoretical physicist.
I want to be like Einstein andthe thing is I can imagine there
are a lot of scientists whohave had that goal and dream
Ones with better credentials andare far more impressive than me
(56:35):
.
I am not the most impressive interms of my publication record
and prestige, my pedigree.
I'm not going to lie, I'm notthe most impressive scientist
that's ever lived, but I knowfor a fact that I know what
level I'm at.
I know what level I'm at, likeI said, not many people get
(56:57):
invited to Harvard.
Not many people publish paperswith Fields Medalists.
Not many people publish papersin journals where I get editors
suggested in a PRA, which is avery reputable journal, to get
featured paper in entropy.
You know I was in grad schoolfor my adiabatic isometric
(57:18):
mapping algorithm.
I won the first prize in thegraduate student competition,
research competition, and I knowwhat I can accomplish and I
know what I have accomplished.
So, given that, I think thelikelihood that I am a Terrence
Howard figure is actuallyextraordinarily low, I think I'm
(57:40):
the real deal, guys.
And I think I'm the real deal,guys, and I think you should
listen to me, alright, peace.
In this episode, dr Ray rambles about extending the
objective truth from meta levelzero to deeper meta levels.
Welcome to the Bottom TurtlePodcast.
Hello everybody and welcomeback to the Bottom Turtle
Podcast.
I'm your host, dr Shannon Ray,and today's episode is another
(00:24):
ramble.
I was just editing it and I'mlike do I really want to release
this episode?
I actually recorded it back inJune and there's a reason why I
haven't uploaded it.
It's just another one of thoseexamples of me revealing more of
what's going on in my head tothe world and feeling very
(00:45):
self-conscious about it.
So I didn't really want torelease it.
In fact, during that period oflike I don't know six months
where I didn't release anything,I probably recorded about four
episodes that I was afraid toupload, and that's one of the
reasons why I didn't upload forso long, because it's like and
(01:05):
that's one of the reasons why Ididn't upload for so long
because it's like do I reallywant to put this out there?
But you know, one of the thingsthat I have to accept is that
if I like listening to it and Ifind it compelling, then that's
all I can really go off of as towhether or not people will
enjoy it and find it compelling,and I have to just trust that
gut instinct and put it outthere and see what happens.
So that's why, in the intro tothe first episode of this season
(01:31):
, which is season four, Imentioned that there would be
some uh rambles sprinkledthroughout the season, because I
think that this topic of ethicsand morals and identity and all
this stuff places some contextto these rambles.
That might make it easier forme to upload, might make me feel
(01:54):
more comfortable in uploadingthem.
So you know, it is what it is.
Whatever happens happens.
You know F it, f it.
So, with that being said, Ithink that this particular
ramble fits well with the season, because it's all about making
order at higher meta levels.
So this season is the firstseason where I introduced the
(02:17):
concept of meta level zero andthis recording is the first time
that I actually recorded thephrase meta level zero.
So, so, yeah, so.
So why does this fit well withthe season?
Well, because this season isall about ethics and the point
(02:37):
is is that the concept of ethicsis much more difficult to pin
down.
Obviously, this is a difficultquestion, like what is ethical?
That's a difficult question toanswer, and the reason why that
is is because, as we've beenpresenting our ethical arguments
, it's all about relationships,and so this places it in the
(03:05):
realm of the inherently social,and the thing that distinguishes
meta level zero from meta levelone is an increase in entropy.
You know, meta level zero is therealm of the obvious.
It's the realm where it isobviously true that it will hurt
if I punch you in the face.
You know, it's obviously truethat if you throw a wine glass
on the ground as hard as you can, it's going to shatter.
You know, it's obviously truethat if you throw a wine glass
(03:26):
on the ground as hard as you can, it's going to shatter.
And so, for that reason, it isthe realm in which it's easier
to build consensus and it'sharder to hide bullshit.
It's harder for someone to makenonsense claims.
At meta level zero, it's thespace of the obvious.
And so, with this podcast,we're using the space of the
obvious as the space where it'slike the space where we grab our
axioms from the things thataren't proven, the things that
(03:48):
are just accepted as true, andthen the idea is to use logical
(04:14):
arguments to build a sharedidentity or to build an identity
of itself, denying the truth atdeeper meta levels look just as
absurd as denying the idea thatif you jump off of a building
and fall on your head, that youwill be fine, right.
So that's that's the idea.
And another aspect of thisseason is that this season is
(04:39):
also critiquing wokeness, right,and that's because, for me,
whenever, whenever I interactwith woke ideas and I try to
just take them seriously, like,let me just consider the idea,
let me just observe the idea,consider it and think about it
it always seems as thoughthey're presenting fallacious
arguments, especially moral,because there's a lot of
(05:01):
moralizing in it.
So a lot of their moralarguments are clearly false.
But they're not obviously falseto people because they're at
meta level one, they're at thesocial level, and so the whole
point of this ramble is how doyou create order at deeper meta
levels, where those deeper metalevels are characterized by an
(05:24):
increase in entropy, an increaseof uncertainty and a decrease
of the obvious?
How do you create order in thatspace?
So that's what this ramble isall about, and essentially I'm
arguing.
That's exactly what it is to bea theoretical physicist.
This is what our job is.
(05:44):
That's exactly what it is to bea theoretical physicist.
This is what our job is.
Our job is to take the truth,the physical truth at the
obvious, and extend it into theconceptual space, and the
linchpin on how we do that isyou have to create logical
structures that are symmetric tothe physical phenomena that are
(06:05):
being observed.
So I hope that when you listento this ramble, that it is
convincing that this podcast andthe ideas contained within
provide tools for creating orderat deeper meta levels, such
that obvious bullcrap argumentsare exposed as such and it's
(06:28):
easier for us to build consensus.
Because remember, that's thepoint of this podcast we want to
build consensus such that we'renot just fighting with each
other all the time.
So, with that being said,please like and subscribe to the
podcast.
Please leave a review if youhaven't already.
We are doing more video content, so we're moving more into
(06:50):
YouTube, so I'm going to leave alink to the YouTube channel in
the description of this episode.
So if you can go over toYouTube and subscribe to a
YouTube channel, that'd be great.
We'll be releasing more contentover there over time, and
please share the podcast with afriend.
Please give them a link to theYouTube channel as well If you
want to help me in my endeavors.
(07:12):
If you have made a personalconnection with me and you think
you know what I want to do,that do it a favor.
I want to help him however Ican.
Well, you don't have to give memoney, you don't have to do
anything like that.
All you have to do anythinglike that.
All you have to do is like thepodcast, subscribe, leave a
review and share it withsomebody, and I would be so
grateful for your contributionin that way.
So, without further ado, pleaseenjoy this week's episode.
(07:34):
Creating order beyond meta level.
Zero peace.
It's like.
My perception of what's goingon is not crazy, which is
associated with the idea of howI've been perceiving the way
(07:55):
these ideas have grown in power.
This is really important tothink about that, the way in
which these ideas grow in power,because that's the crux of my
problem.
It's not the idea itself, butwhen the idea is demanding that
(08:18):
you agree with it.
Otherwise, you are a bad personand you start enforcing all
these new social laws and socialnorms.
I think that's what it is.
It's almost like it's not justthat these things are accusing
you of something, it's that theaccusations are actually being
(08:43):
used to wield power.
That's the problem.
It's like the accusation isbeing used to enforce social
norms and to inject ideas inplaces in which society has not
agreed to do this yet.
It's like it feels like it'strying to subvert the typical
process for an idea to gainpower, and typical process I'm
(09:09):
referring to is the idea of ifyou have an idea, you're allowed
to share it and try to convincepeople of it, but you're not
allowed to, like, force themwith a gun to believe it.
Not in a free, fair society.
They're not allowed to use aforce with a gun to believe it.
Not in a free, fair society.
They're not allowed to use aforce with a gun.
And so that idea of not usingforce with a gun is essentially
(09:33):
like the problem is to use theforce.
Like we know that it also hasthe additional data of well,
you're physically trying tocontrol their body to do
something like capturing someoneor making them a slave.
Like you're using physicalviolence to achieve your goal.
And so I think that a lot ofpeople view that as physical
(09:55):
violence.
Like the significance isphysical violence.
But what if the significance isjust violence?
And then you have to definewhat violence is.
So now you start thinking toyourself how can I be violent
with words?
What does that look like?
Being violent with words doessaying something like you must
(10:17):
agree with this, otherwise I'mgoing to accuse you of being
racist, or I'm going to accuseyou of harming people and being
immoral.
And then I'm going to do stufflike kick you off of platforms
and say that no, if someonedoesn't agree with these
language, it's perfectly validto kick them off a platform for
(10:38):
expressing a different opinion.
It's.
Does that sound like a way tobe violent with words?
You know what I mean.
Like reputational violence, likewe all know how reputations
work.
We all know how social normswork Right, and we know how
these things are related.
Violating social norms orsocial expectations Like, for
(10:59):
instance, raping people Istypically frowned upon.
Stealing from people.
We know that if you gain areputation for breaking typical
social norms associated with agood citizen, then you gain a
bad reputation and it affectsyour spirit and how you interact
(11:23):
in the world and what you'recapable of and what you have
access to.
So it's like, okay, well, itsounds like you're using these
words to demote people's spiritsand in some cases, you know,
actually insist on usingphysical force, like in general.
Can you imagine a scenario inwhich someone comes up to you
(11:45):
and says you must agree, youmust believe that saving all the
homeless veterans is the mostimportant thing we should be
doing and I've come up with aplan to help them?
Unless you agree, it's not evenwhether or not, whether or not
you agree that they need help,or that you think or you've come
(12:07):
up with your own way to helpthem.
It's like you have to agreewith a specific way in which I
think we should help them, whichis to change all language to
make them feel better.
So if someone comes to you withthis homeless veteran thing and
started accusing you of that,you'd be like what is wrong with
this person?
I don't agree.
Like, I have other things toworry about.
(12:28):
Like, why do they think thatthe thing they think is
important is so important thatthey're able to start damaging
my reputation and spirit andstart creating social norms that
are designed to remove me fromspaces?
You know what I mean.
Like this seems really, reallyviolent.
But because this violence isnot obvious physical violence,
(12:51):
people pretend as though, like,like you have the freedom to
choose to not see it.
Like you have the freedom to.
There's always a reasonabledoubt.
If someone caught someone on acamera shooting someone or
threatening them with a gun andputting them in the back of the
trunk of a car, and everyonesees it and like everyone agrees
that there's nothing doctoredhere, and then the person's like
(13:12):
, yeah, that's the person thatdid it, and then it's pretty
much impossible to disagree thatviolence was used to control
somebody, that violence was usedto control somebody.
But if it's more like someone isusing a tactic that is designed
to hurt your reputation, thatlives in the subjective realm of
(13:33):
your model of reality and so,depending on how you typically
interact with the world, ifyou're someone who's used to
deceiving themselves, you don'tknow how to be honest.
You know what I mean.
If you're someone who has aconsistent pattern of not being
honest with themselves, then ifit is the case that there's an
obvious case of social violencebeing used, spiritual
(13:57):
reputational violence being usedon someone, if it's like
obvious that that's what's goingon, you can just turn that off
and pretend as though that's notthe case.
Well, there's a million excusesyou can make.
There's a million ways todefend it.
There's a million ways tobelieve whatever you want to
believe.
You see what I mean.
(14:18):
It's not as obvious as someoneoh, this person was caught on
video kidnapping someone with agun.
And so I call this differentlayers of reality meta level
zero and meta level one.
Meta level zero is where theobvious exists.
You jump off a building that's100 stories, fall headfirst on
(14:43):
concrete and you're dead.
Any idiot knows that.
It does not take a genius tounderstand that.
It's extremely simple, becauseeverything can be verified.
If someone does 30 backflips ina row, you don't have to
question whether or not thisperson has done something
impressive.
Like oh, obviously, he just did30 backflips in a row.
You don't have to questionwhether or not this person has
(15:03):
done something impressive Likeoh, obviously, he just did 30
backflips in a row.
Like that's not a commonoccurrence, that just happens
every day.
Think about all theconditioning, all the practice,
all the skill, all the awareness, all the connection of
relationship with your body.
Think about all the things thathave to come into play and have
to be done for someone to do 30backflips in a row.
You see them do it and you gooh yeah, I couldn't do that.
(15:24):
So you can measure howdifficult you think it would be
for you to do it, and then youlook at them doing it and you go
, oh impressive, that's thecalculus.
It's really simple.
It does not take a genius to dothis.
But in meta level one, that'swhere all the social
interactions are going on.
That's where things are farmore subjective, which is
(15:47):
there's an increase in entropyfrom meta level zero to meta
level one.
There's an increase in entropy.
You're going a layer deeperinto reality.
You're going a layer deeperinto reality and in that deeper
layer you have more freedom todetermine what reality is.
But that freedom, there's twotypes of freedom.
(16:12):
There's freedom in terms ofwhat you value and what your
perception is, in which caseyou're going to develop a
different lens than someone elsewho values and has a different
set of perceptions, a differentlens than someone else who
values and has a different setof perceptions.
But if you guys are bothdedicated and loyal to the
spirit of truth, then thatchoice is literally just purely
(16:34):
a matter of perspective.
Neither one of you are wrong.
Like both of you have purelenses.
You have a pure relationshipwith the spirit.
The second way to choose is tolie to yourself.
It is to willfully Reject thestate of reality, the causal
(17:00):
structure, the logic, the stateof reality, the causal structure
, the logic, and construct amodel of reality entirely based
off your bias of what you wantto believe.
So it's very, very, very easyto avoid wanting to see the
(17:23):
truth if you don't like it.
That's what happened at metalevel one.
It's so obvious and it's soclear.
And so at meta level one I'msaying this as an objective fact
(17:44):
there is an increase in entropy.
There is an increase in entropy, there's an increase in
uncertainty.
It's far more difficult to knowwhat happened really, or to
know whether or not what youthink happened is actually
correct.
What if I am just using my bias?
What if I don't have all theinformation?
And that's exactly what entropyis.
It is to not have information,it's uncertainty, it's unknowing
(18:06):
, it's ignorance.
It's it's literal ignorance.
Entropy is ignorance.
And so if you're going from metalevel zero to meta level one,
you have to put order on it.
Like all that increase inentropy means that you have to
put order on it.
Like all that increase inentropy means that you have to
place order on that structure.
(18:29):
So you have to ask yourself howdo I create order?
At meta level one, logic works,and so now it's like, okay, how
do I make order in meta levelone?
And my answer is listen to mypodcast.
Like, seriously, and what I'mexplaining is objectively true,
(18:50):
meaning you can't disagree withit, meaning that I'm claiming to
you guys, in meta level one, Ihave made an objective object,
an objective structure that canbe used to create order.
Objective object, an objectivestructure that can be used to
create order, and then, once youhave a relationship with that
object, you can go down todeeper meta levels, and the
(19:19):
bottom meta level is God.
But the bottom meta level isn'tanother explanation, because if
you're trying to find anexplanation, something that can
be spoken, then it's turtled allthe way down.
That's the problem Looking foran idea, looking for something
that can be said.
If you try to do that, thenyou'll just be going through an
(19:40):
infinite loop down.
To actually stop going down theinfinite loop, you need
something that's not based offof thought.
You need nirvana, you neednirvana, and so what you need is
a relationship with the void,the pure symmetry.
(20:02):
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
So I'm saying, ok, I'm tryingto give you an object that can
allow you to go down and see thevoid, the pure symmetry, the
gauge gates.
But to do that, you have topurify your land first, which is
to not lie to yourself.
(20:23):
So if you're lying to yourselfand being delusional, you're not
going to make it.
You're not going to make it.
You have to purify yourselffirst of lies and deceit.
You have to purify yourselffrom the spirit of Satan, which
is the spirit of lies and deceitand distortion and delusions.
You got to purify yourself ofthat.
Without that, you can't besincere and honest.
(20:49):
And so, given this, the firstobject you need is a
relationship with sincerity,which is to purge yourself of
Satan, which is to purify yourBuddha, to get to a purified
Buddha land.
That's what you need.
The second thing another thingyou need, not even a second,
(21:10):
just another thing you need isonce you have that, then you can
create logically soundstructures, ie logically sound
models in your head, where theselogical structures are a
language, and that languagecreates perceptions, and that
perception is associated withthe spirit, because your spirit
depends on how you program theuniverse and how you program by
(21:31):
the universe.
It depends on how do youinteract with reality, how do
you make the universe evolve.
So that's what perceptions areassociated with.
You need a sound logicalstructure, something that can
read in data and write out aninterpretation in a way that's
perfectly logically consistent.
Everything follows.
(21:52):
There's no logical fallacies.
So once you have something likethat, you didn't need to feed
it data.
So this is where science comesin.
Now that you have a logicallysound structure, you can state
things like I believe my keysare on the table.
That is a model of reality andthat can be verified.
(22:14):
You can walk into your room andsee are the keys on the table?
Oh, the keys are on the table.
I was able to use that topredict the future.
I believe that this is so.
Therefore, when I take thisaction this should happen the
action I take is I walk into mykitchen, I look at the table.
The keys are there.
So what follows is I'm finishedlooking for my keys.
(22:38):
Then I do the next thing aftergetting the keys.
That's what I predict willhappen if my model of reality is
correct.
That's the scientific process.
It's really that simple.
You have to have a structurethat can create objective
meaning, which is how languageworks, and then, from that,
predict the future.
So then, once you are able topredict the future with your
(23:01):
model, then you say ah, thismodel seems to have truth
because I can use it to reduceentropy.
You see, I can use it to reduceentropy, to reduce uncertainty,
to reduce ignorance.
And if I walk into the kitchenand my keys aren't there, then
(23:22):
I'm like where are my keys?
You're still ignorant.
You don't know where your keysare.
It's literal ignorance.
Entropy oh shoot, I still don'tknow.
So entropy is ignorance.
You have to understand that forone, that's just what it is.
So whenever you hear someonetrying to explain what entropy
is and they're getting allscientific and stuff, it's like
(23:42):
no guys, look, you guys all knowwhat ignorance is right.
That's what entropy is, periodDone.
You don't have to think aboutanything else.
Entropy is ignorance.
This is an objective fact, aliteral fact.
Just believe me, don't thinkabout it, just believe me.
And so entropy is ignorance.
(24:03):
And so the point is is thatwhen you have a model that has
truth, it can predict the future, which is to reduce the
uncertainty of a measurementoutcome.
The measurement is go, look andsee.
(24:24):
See that they're on the table.
Then the experiment is done,your model was correct.
So in other words, it's likehaving information is to reduce
entropy.
That's the relationship, like,if I have information, then I'm
not ignorant.
(24:45):
So recap I've defined meta level0 and meta level 1.
Meta level 0 is the realm ofthe obvious.
It does not take a genius tounderstand that if you jump off
a 100-story building headfirstonto concrete, you're going to
die, you're going to splatter onthe ground.
Anyone can verify that.
It's obvious.
Now meta level 1 is wherethings are less obvious.
(25:07):
And I made this distinctionbecause I was talking about the
world of the subjective, theworld of human interactions, the
world in which it's easier tolie to yourself about what
you're doing and why.
To lie to yourself about whatactually is going on, and so
that's meta level one.
Why to lie to yourself aboutwhat actually is going on?
And so that's meta level one.
And that realm is inherentlymore entropic.
(25:28):
There's more uncertainty there,there's more freedom to make up
bullshit and there's morefreedom to just choose what you
want to pay attention to, whatyou're aware of, which then you
know chooses what spirit's inrelationship with.
But then it's your choice tomake sure that you purify that
relationship by not lying toyourself, so that the perception
(25:49):
you have is merely just amatter of choice.
It's not that you're wrong.
There is a unitarytransformation between all of
those.
There's a unitarytransformation between all
purified Buddha lands, so thatmeans all Buddhas are one.
So there's a unitarytransformation between all
logically sound perceptions.
And so the point is that theselogically sound perceptions are
(26:12):
the things you need to createorder so that you can see
clearly in the realm of higherentropy, higher darkness, more
uncertainty, and so you have tohave a logically sound structure
, and then that thing has to beable to predict the future.
So then you know that thatmodel maps to this aspect of
nature, and this is basicallywhat scientific theories are.
(26:33):
This is basically what anytheory is.
This is what it is to write athesis.
This is my model of reality.
This is what I think isliterally the relationship.
This is what I think isliterally the relationship.
This is what I think isliterally going on.
And the thing is that peopledon't understand that, as a
scientist, what are we doing?
Like I'm a theoreticalphysicist, so what is my job?
What am I doing?
Literally, like someone,someone asks as a mathematician,
(26:56):
here's what I'm doing, and Iwant to explain this using using
an example, because I'm tryingto I'm trying to use this
example to explain what the wordliterally means.
So what we do is we createmodels of reality.
We create mathematical machinesthat are meant to model the
(27:21):
nature of reality, that aremeant to model the nature of
reality, and so what we have todo is find the machine that has
the same characteristic or thesame nature as the physical
system that we're trying tomodel.
So an example that I use allthe time is the idea of a
pendulum Simple harmonic motion.
(27:41):
Don't even make the pendulumswing too large, so it's like
you know.
Make it just a smallperturbation, simple harmonic
motion.
You take a pendulum that'shanging straight down, it's like
you know, some weight at theend of a string, unperturbed.
You perturb it slightly fromits rest position and then you
let it go, assuming that it canonly move in a two-dimensional
(28:05):
plane.
So it's not, you know,processing all over the place.
It starts off at the beginning,where you displaced it.
You let it go, it goes back toits rest position, it goes to
the opposite side of its cycle.
It stops once it gets to theopposite side, changes
directions, goes back in theother direction, hanging
(28:26):
straight down, and then goesback to the starting point.
That is a cycle, and so inmathematics we model that cycle
with a circle.
So you have something that weuse like.
If you want to studytrigonometry, like the basics of
trigonometry, what you need tounderstand is something called
the unit circle.
That's like one of the mostfundamental mathematical objects
(28:47):
on the earth.
Everyone uses the unit circle.
You know where sines andcosines and tangents and all
that stuff comes the unit circle.
And so with the unit circle,you know you have a circle with
an xy-axis in it.
So you have a vertical which isthe y axis, the horizontal is
the x axis.
And so if you go to the rightof the vertical axis along the x
(29:10):
axis until you touch thecircumference of the circle,
then that's usually defined asangle zero.
And then the intersectionbetween the y axis and the
circumference of the circle,that's 90 degrees, and then the
intersection between the y-axisand the circumference of the
circle, that's 90 degrees, andthen the direction on the
opposite side, that's 180degrees.
Then the one going straightdown is 270 degrees, and then
(29:33):
the one coming back to zero is360 degrees, and we all know
that zero equals 360 degrees.
360 means you've come back towhere you started.
So within physics we have thesethings called phase angles,
phase angles.
What's a phase angle?
A phase angle is telling youwhere something is along the
phase of its cycle.
And so the phase angle of thependulum when it's being held at
(30:04):
its starting point, its initialdisplacement is zero.
When it's hanging straight down, when it's made a quarter of
its journey, it's 90.
90 degrees.
When it's on the opposite sideof its journey, it's 180.
When it comes back to thecenter, it's 270.
When it comes back to itsinitial start, it's 360 degrees.
So we have a physical objectthat has a cycle, and then we
have this thing.
Then we use this unit circleand its angles to model it, and
(30:29):
then just think about the amountof math that just uses circles
to model cycles, because thewhole point is that this
mathematical language, thisstructure, has a perfect
symmetry with the observedphysical phenomena.
It's literally the same thing,literally.
And that's what we do.
And so it's literally my job toconstruct logically sound
(30:56):
models of reality in the realmsof quantum physics, general
relativity, computationalgeometry, quantum statistical
mechanics, quantum informationtheory.
That's literally what I do fora living.
So then you have to ask yourselfwhat type of person would I
trust to guide me down metalevel one, two, three and four,
(31:20):
someone whose literal job andtraining has been entirely
designed to go into some of themost complicated meta spaces.
I don't even know what metalevel fucking theoretical
physics is that?
What meta level is that?
2000, like?
How far down is that?
I don't know.
It's definitely way past metalevel one.
(31:42):
You, you see what I'm saying.
It's like I have been trainingfor over 15, 16 years I don't
know how long it's been at thispoint Doing one thing, and that
is learning math, learningphysics, doing calculations,
(32:03):
writing computer code,understanding extremely
complicated conceptual spacesand creating order there.
And not only do I create orderby being able to comprehend the
space, the language, the syntaxof general relativity and
differential geometry and fiberbundles, general relativity and
(32:23):
differential geometry and fiberbundles, and not only can I go
there and see, but I'm a creatorthere, I create art there.
It's something that 99% ofpeople who listen to this will
not do, will not ever do andcannot do.
Who listen to this will not do,will not ever do and cannot do.
(32:48):
And so it's like, yeah, I feellike this guy might be a good
person to listen to when tryingto create order in the
conceptual space.
It should be obvious.
So then your only questions areone of are the realms of physics
and mathematics and theoreticalphysics and general relativity,
are those real spaces, or is itall just complete nonsense that
(33:11):
has nothing to do with realityand it's just a bunch of people
sitting around jerking eachother off with ideas that
they're just making up at ourass that have nothing to do with
reality?
Is that, is that what spacesare?
Because if those spaces reallyare the spaces in which we build
satellites, send people to themoon, build airplanes, build
computers, structures and allthese other things, if it really
(33:32):
is actually that space which,given the observation of
technology and all that it works, then you'd have to think, oh
yeah, well, obviously, metalevel zero.
Again.
It's clearly not fake.
Science isn't fake, physicsisn't fake, so clearly there is
a real space there.
So then the only next questionyou have to ask yourself are
well, who is this guy?
(33:52):
If this space is real, is thisguy a legit scientist?
It's like well, just look at mypapers.
My papers are legit, elite,good papers.
Like papers Like I'm not goingto like I'm a good scientist.
So I mean, it's very anothermeta level zero.
You just Google me, google mywork, google my papers I've
published Google who I'vepublished with Google my like
(34:15):
citations I've had, who I'vebeen cited by.
It's very easy and I canguarantee no matter what work
you pick up from mine, you'regoing to look at it and you'll
be like, oh, this person's ascientist, it's just.
And so OK, so OK.
So now we're like all right.
Well, questions one is sciencereal?
I think it's reasonable to sayyeah, probably.
(34:36):
Question number two is this guya scientist?
Oh, yeah, I think, given hisworks of art and just listening
to him, that yeah, he's probablya scientist.
And then the third question isbut is this guy just delusional?
Just because those other twothings are true doesn't mean
that he's some master atcreating conceptual spaces and
(34:58):
all this stuff.
I mean, that doesn'tnecessarily follow, but it's
like yeah, but if you're goingto imagine a person that you
thought would be able to do that, wouldn't you not be surprised
if that person was a theoreticalphysicist and a mathematician?
You know what I mean.
So I'm saying this because thenit's a matter of like.
Hmm, maybe I should payattention to this person who
(35:22):
says that he thinks that he'sfigured out all of reality and
he's explaining it with a thesisin a podcast.
My podcast is a thesis ofreality, which means that
everything is based off ofreality arguments, and the way
these arguments work is that Ido exactly the thing that I said
(35:44):
I was doing in the example ofthe circle and the pendulum.
It's like my podcast works bylooking at things about reality
that are at meta level zero,that you would have to be an
insane person to deny, and thenI simply logically follow.
I create a logically soundstructure and just say this must
(36:04):
follow from this, then thismust follow from this, then this
must follow from that, soeverything can be verified with
the obvious observations at metalevel zero, and then you just
have to spend some effort tothink about whether or not the
logic works, and I know thatit's not the easiest thing to
understand the stuff I'm saying,but it's not the most difficult
(36:26):
either.
If you are a fairly competentperson, you can understand what
I'm saying.
The only problem is whether ornot you think that what I'm
saying is worth paying attentionto.
That's the thing.
That's the thing, and I canguarantee you that if you listen
to me, you will discover thingsabout reality that you were
(36:46):
like oh shit, this is how itworks.
Yes, yes, yes, this makes sense.
Oh, yes, yes, I can guaranteeit.
I can guarantee it.
You will create order in waysthat you didn't even know were
possible.
I can guarantee it.
So the point of my podcast isthat it's doing exactly the
thing that I mentioned in thecircle in the pendulum example,
(37:09):
which is that I'm creating amodel of reality that is literal
, which is to say that it'sobjective, which is to say that
it's real, like as real as that.
I'm listening to this recordingon my phone.
If you're listening to it onyour phone, it's as real as that
(37:31):
.
And so one of the things that Iuse in the podcast a lot is the
idea that when I'm talking toyou, I'm programming you like a
computer.
So when you're listening tothis, I'm programming you a
computer.
So when you're listening tothis, I'm programming you
literally, programming youliterally, and it's like and the
way that you can verify that is, if I tell you a secret, then
you can get up and walk intoanother room and tell someone
(37:54):
that secret, which means that ithad to be stored in your
physical system, like memory ona memory card, because you were
able to carry it into anotherroom and tell someone so.
So that means that when you'relistening to this, I'm
physically, I'm literallyprogramming you like a computer.
So the point is is that I'mcreating a model between you and
(38:15):
computer and programming.
I'm using computer andprogramming in the conceptual
space to map to somethingphysical, at mental level zero.
And then the observation thatanyone can verify is that if I
tell you a secret, you can walkinto another room and tell
someone that secret, so you?
So you therefore know.
Ah, yes, that is objectivelytrue, because essentially what
(38:37):
it is is that both humans andcomputers are physical
subsystems of the universe thathave the capacity to be put in
many different configurations,and the configuration they're in
depends on how they processdata and which data they've been
given.
And so you know that, as ahuman, you can have something
(38:57):
like an estimation of yourdegrees of freedom how many
configurations can you be placedin?
How intricate of a computer,how many bits do I have?
And then just think about allof the states of being you could
be in as a human, happy, sad,scientist, gymnast.
Think about all of thedifferent ways in which humans
(39:22):
express themselves, and theneach one of those expressions is
associated with a spirit.
So think about the set of allspirits that humans can embody.
So, in other words, the nextstep is to see how, now that
we've connected programming andcomputers, we now see that
(39:44):
they're the relationship betweenyour configuration and what
spirit you embody, how youprogram the universe and how
you're programmed by theuniverse.
That's what spirit is.
It has to do with how youevolve the universe, how do you
create what happens when thingsinteract with you.
So now, this is why I have anepisode, season three, season
(40:07):
one, episode three, called noMentation Without Representation
, which is mentation has to dowith mental state or state of
being, or spiritual state, andrepresentation has to do with
the physical state, conjuresthat spirit state, conjures that
spirit.
So now I've used the ideas ofprogramming and computers, the
(40:29):
metaphor of the programmingcomputers, to describe humans.
And then I go from there towhat spirit you are conjuring,
based off your configuration,and that it's clear that
different configurations areassociated with different
spirits, because if I believeone thing, then I act one way.
If I believe another way, I acta different way.
So my spirit is different, andso that belief has to be stored
as memory on your system, likeif you heard a piece of
(40:51):
information that made youbelieve that a bomb was going to
go off near you, then that'sgoing to get stored as data in
your physical system, just likethe being told a secret.
And then you're going to getstored as data in your physical
system, just like the being tolda secret, and then you're going
to act differently.
So every single idea and everysingle thought and every single
state of being is a spirit,essentially, and again, so, so,
(41:14):
so it's like so.
So now we've we've mapped it tothe spirit world, where I give a
clear definition of what spiritis, how you program the
universe, how you're programmedby the universe.
Then you know we all know, metalevel zero again that what you
believe affects your behavior.
So if you accept my definitionof spirit, which is
(41:35):
extraordinarily reasonable, thenyou see how this is related to
spirit.
And I just use that definitionin context of all the other
structure that he has given me.
Just use that definition to seethe world, use that definition
to read a religious text, usethat definition to try to put
(41:57):
order on this space.
Is this a good model?
Space, is this a good model?
And so this is how I'm buildingorder in this conceptual space,
and the thing is is that youcan build order forever, but
you're still going to be trappedin the conceptual space.
So once you so, in other words,this order that you're building
(42:19):
will allow you to go downdifferent meta levels, and I
think that eventually it'll helpyou if you want to see the void
clearly, because you keeptrying to go down and go down
and go down and go down.
You can go down the infiniteregression and just look at
spirits.
But I think eventually, thefurther you go down, you'll
(42:40):
start to see the gauge gates,you'll start to see the holes,
you'll start to see the holes,you'll start to see the void,
you'll start to see emptiness.
So yeah, I know I went all overthe place today, but the main
theme of this was the ideas ofmeta level 0 and meta level 1.
Or meta level 0 and then allthe other meta levels beyond it.
(43:06):
You have something like the metalevel zero, which is the
physical, hard reality, the mostobvious aspect of reality that
anyone can verify, and I thinkfor a lot of people they think
that that is reality, like theydon't actually have any
relationship with the degree towhich this thing is not well
defined, any relationship withthe degree to which this thing
is not well defined.
And this is why, in the secondepisode of the first season, are
(43:28):
we in a Simulation?
I said the power of thequestion Are we in a Simulation?
Is telling us the degree towhich we know what reality is.
And because everyone knows whata computer is and everyone has
access to the concept of acomputer, the idea that we might
be trapped in a computer isvery plausible.
How do we verify that we're not?
(43:49):
And so it's telling ussomething like oh, we have gone
down, we have become aware somuch so that we can build these
computer things such thateveryone can use them and that
they've now become a meta level,zero object computers.
And because of that, it hasbrought us to the question how
(44:13):
do we know we're in a simulationor not?
And we literally don't know.
So this is, this is entropy.
Oh, this is OK.
Standing here, that the frontierof human knowledge.
We have no fucking clue whatthe hell this stuff is and what
is actually going on.
What is reality?
What the hell?
That's the power of that idea,that's the power of it.
It's like society itself hasgone down all these meta levels,
(44:40):
just in terms of our sharedknowledge that humans have
created.
We have so much information,it's madness.
And with all that information,if you come into relationship
with it sincerely, it will startto reveal to you, it'll start
(45:00):
pulling you down meta levels,whether you want to or not,
because the whole point is thatour society is saturated in an
infinitely deep meta-level world.
It's just a matter of whetheror not you want to pay attention
to it.
And my point is that conceptslike computers are so
(45:23):
mind-bending that they canliterally make you not even go
like.
If you really think about whatthey are and how they work and
how they function and and whatthey can be used for in this a
you really really stop to thinkabout it, just quit taking shit
for granted.
You'll be like oh, what thehell is going on?
Where are we?
What is this?
What is reality?
What is going on?
(45:47):
And that's the thing I hearpeople talk, and they talk like
this meta level zero iseverything, and it's just like
you seem like you're just shutoff, like you're not looking
deeper into anything, and then,when you do go deeper, you just
search for whatever makes youfeel comfortable, whether it's
(46:08):
real or not, and then just goadvocating for it like you know
this tribal crap.
It's just like Jesus.
Guys, come get our shittogether.
Our technology is too powerful.
We can't behave like thisanymore.
You got to stop.
It's not a luxury anymore.
You can't keep acting like this.
You got to stop.
You got to stop.
You're going to kill us all.
We can't live in a world inwhich we have such powerful
(46:30):
technology and have everyoneliving at metal level zero and
then at metal level one, they'rejust telling themselves all
these comfortable lies anddelusions and bullshit.
We can't do it, we're going tokill ourselves.
You got to stop.
Can't do it, we're going tokill ourselves.
We got to stop.
And so this is why one of thethings about this podcast I feel
so urgent that it's like look,guys, I think that I have
constructed a language whereeverything is tied to meta level
(46:54):
zero.
So that means that if you wantto get on this bandwagon, all
you have to do is care enough tolisten and put in some effort
to understand what I'm saying.
Because, guys, I am a quantuminformation theorist.
Information theory is literallythe mathematical theory of
(47:14):
communication, and quantumcomputing is literally studying
reality at the most foundational, from which all other things
are built upon.
It's like I really do believethat a lot of people here I'm a
theoretical physicist and theyliterally do they have so little
relationship with that spiritthey don't even know what it
(47:36):
means for that to be the case.
And I know this sounds like metooting my own horn, but it's
just like guys, I am telling youI have figured this shit out.
You need to listen.
Like my goodness, and this islike I'm not like a crazy person
(48:02):
, like you see what.
I'm not like a crazy person,like you see what I'm saying.
Like listen to my episode,season 3, the faith component,
where I'm like I'm a coward.
This is why I made like 30episodes of this show in the way
that I did, because I'm afreaking coward.
If I come out to you guys andsay I'm a quantum physicist and
I know everything, I know all ofreality.
(48:23):
You guys and say I'm I'm aquantum physicist and I know
everything, you'd be like I knowall of reality and I blah, blah
, blah.
You guys think this guy's afucking.
Who is this guy?
Is this terrence howard?
All over again.
Like what's going on here?
Like that's what terrencehoward did, that literally went
on joe rogan and like didexactly that.
So me, being a scientist, I'mlike, well, if I do that, people
, people are going to think I'mcrazy.
(48:43):
Clearly, therefore, I have tolike, how do I prevent that from
happening?
Well, how about what I do?
Is I just explain what the fuckI think and why and I seriously
find it hard pressed for anyoneto listen to my podcast and
sincerely try to grasp andunderstand it and think this guy
(49:04):
is just completely full of shitand has no idea what he's
talking about.
This guy is just as bad asTerrence Howard.
There's just no way, no way inhell, because I have so many
brilliant colleagues that go toprestigious universities Like
how many people listening tothis have been invited to
Harvard and has published paperswith film medalists.
(49:24):
Like, seriously, listen to me,I'm telling you.
If you care at all about whatreality is and you really want
to know at a deep level, justlisten to me, tell your friends
and have them listen too,because I'm pretty sure that the
code that is my spirit, thething that has been stored in
(49:48):
memory in this podcast, I'mpretty sure that if people
listen to it and interact withit sincerely, that they'll
become more awakened and they'llstop acting like buffoons in
the conceptual space, it'llincrease the chances that we
don't kill ourselves.
It's actually like to me one ofthe most important things I
(50:11):
should be doing right now,because I literally think it's
the difference between mychildren having a future and
them not having a future, whichis, again, a delusion of
grandeur.
You think your ideas are soimportant that it's going to
save all of humanity.
It's like well, here's thething.
If it is the case that I haveideas that are so important that
it might save all of humanity,then it would be really shitty
(50:34):
for humanity if I didn'tcommunicate them because I was
too afraid of what people wouldthink.
Wouldn't it?
Wouldn't that suck for you andeverybody else?
So you know, I have to besincere with myself and honest.
Do I literally think that'swhat I have?
Yeah, I do.
Yeah, absolutely 100%.
Not even doubting, not evenjoking, not even whatever.
Not even joking at all.
Absolutely 100%.
(50:54):
Because every single day, thedata I get and the feedback I
get from people who I talk toand these are not just randos,
I'm talking about computerscience professors at Rutgers
and stuff, people with thousandsof citations, theoretical fits,
like all my colleagues are allPhD level category theorists.
You see what I'm saying.
(51:18):
Like it's not, like I'm justtalking to random people and
they're all just like it's like.
I talk to really smart peopleand they're like, oh, it's like
these.
I talk to really smart peopleand they're like oh, yeah, yeah,
yeah, this is brilliant, thismakes a lot of sense.
I talk to people who aren't,who don't have all that you know
, who aren't in that realm, andthey're all like oh, that makes
a lot of sense.
I never get anyone saying thatthis is batshit and saying crazy
and makes no sense.
No one's going to listen towhat I say and think, oh, this
(51:40):
is Terrence Howard all overagain.
Not unless they're beingwillfully deceitful to
themselves and dishonest andhave an agenda.
I just honestly think I'm not aperfect communicator and I know
that the podcast isn't perfect.
There's going to be holes,there's going to be some things
I said incorrectly, some thingsI could have said better for
sure.
But damn, I'm telling you, interms of initial guesses and
(52:03):
optimization algorithm andwhether or not I'm close to the
global minimum.
I'm pretty damn close.
And and if you are amathematician or a scientist and
you understand those words Ijust said, because you're going
to be the only one who canunderstand them.
Initial guess global minimumoptimization yeah, when you're
doing optimization and likeoptimization algorithms, it's
really good to be able to findto start off near the global
(52:26):
minimum.
So you have to really have agood initial guess and I'm
saying that my initial guess forthe optimization problem of
answering the question what isreality?
It's probably closer andclearer than most people you
will ever interact with.
And the thing is is that I'm notunique.
I said I talked to a lot ofbrilliant people and you think
(52:47):
that I'm the only one who'sfigured this stuff out.
The matter is, the question isnot whether or not someone can
understand it or whether or notother people have figured it out
.
I'm not that special.
There are people way smarterthan me.
It's a matter of how well andhow willing can they communicate
it and also how capable arethey of seeing the forest
(53:11):
through the trees, how capableare they of stepping outside the
forest?
And then, when you startactually really thinking about
this, the mind that you need toproduce what I've produced and
the way I've produced it.
Being a coward really helps,because you are afraid that
you're wrong all the time and soyou spend all this extra effort
(53:36):
making sure that you're right.
When I say I'm a coward, I amnot insulting myself.
It's just a matter of fact.
But that cowardly spirit ofmine has done some work.
I am not ashamed of it in anyway, shape or form, but I am a
(53:57):
coward.
And but I'm also.
Typically I step into the fireif I have to.
I am literally the type ofperson who does not want to be
chief.
I will only do chief shit if noone else is doing it and
(54:19):
someone has to step up and do it.
I am perfectly happy followingdirections and doing what I'm
told.
Being in the position of poweris not the thing that I desire
more than anything.
What I desire more thananything is to be youthful, to
(54:40):
contribute.
I mean, when I was younger, alot of my motivation was also
related to vanity.
I want to be like Einstein andI want to be famous.
You know well, okay, you're akid.
So I want to be famous is notreally the most complicated
thought any human has ever hadthat spirit of vanity.
But I've always wanted to befamous for doing something real.
(55:01):
I never wanted to be famous forno fucking reason, just to be
famous just because alwayswanted to be famous for doing
something real.
I never wanted to be famous forno fucking reason, just to be
famous just because I wanted tobe famous, because I did
something fucking valuable,something real, something that
only a genius like Einsteincould do.
That's literally been my mainmotivating factor since I was
(55:24):
like 15 years old.
I literally am a child whothought to himself I want to be
like Einstein and then literallyjust took every single action
to make that a reality.
The best I could, reality thebest I could.
And the thing is my name is DrRay, because I published a
(55:45):
thesis in the field of generalrelativity on the energy of pure
gravitational fields forextreme Kerr spacetimes, which
are spacetimes that are rotatingnear their maximum angular
momentum and the energy that I'mlooking at is near the event
horizon.
How many people even cancomprehend this is the most
(56:12):
Einstein shit you could do,literally working in his theory,
in his field, literally workingas a theoretical physicist.
I want to be like Einstein andthe thing is I can imagine there
are a lot of scientists whohave had that goal and dream
Ones with better credentials andare far more impressive than me
(56:35):
.
I am not the most impressive interms of my publication record
and prestige, my pedigree.
I'm not going to lie, I'm notthe most impressive scientist
that's ever lived, but I knowfor a fact that I know what
level I'm at.
I know what level I'm at, likeI said, not many people get
(56:57):
invited to Harvard.
Not many people publish paperswith Fields Medalists.
Not many people publish papersin journals where I get editors
suggested in a PRA, which is avery reputable journal, to get
featured paper in entropy.
You know I was in grad schoolfor my adiabatic isometric
(57:18):
mapping algorithm.
I won the first prize in thegraduate student competition,
research competition, and I knowwhat I can accomplish and I
know what I have accomplished.
So, given that, I think thelikelihood that I am a Terrence
Howard figure is actuallyextraordinarily low, I think I'm
(57:40):
the real deal, guys.
And I think I'm the real deal,guys, and I think you should
listen to me, alright, peace.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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