Theories of Existence: Exploring Simulation Theory with Bishop Bryan Ouellette

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
And became as acting as.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, whichever the case may be.
For all of you listening out there across the crazy
planet Earth. Welcome to Vestiges after Dark, and I am

(02:09):
your host, Bishop Brian will Lette, coming to you lie
from the deep woods of Western Georgia on this March eleventh,
twenty twenty five. Tonight, we're going to consider this the
official first episode of season eleven, even though it says

(02:30):
episode two, last episode you know, didn't even happen, and
so tonight we're going to cover last week's original topic,
which is simulation theory. We still don't have a guest tonight.
I'm going to be covering the topic myself from a
philosophical vantage point, not so much a physics one, just

(02:54):
so that if we do have any more problems with technology,
at least we don't inconvenience a guess. But so far
the dream looks solid. I think we're okay. We have
a good shuff for you tonight. Don't go anywhere. Well,

(03:54):
hello everyone. Once again, I'm your host, Bishop Brian will
Let with my co host Jamie will and we're here
to you. We're here with you to give you a
show that will hopefully last for three hours. Now we're good.
We're good. I want to tell you what happened last week,
just in case you were here and you tried to

(04:14):
watch and were like, what the hell happened to the show?
It was chaos? But what ended up? I mean, you know,
our bandwidth issues. There's nothing that can be done to
fix that for this location. They just are what they are.
So we're kind of stuck with the fact that we
have bad bandwidth, which means that there's little tricks you
can do with the administrative functions for the gateway and

(04:41):
the actual connection to the Internet ISP. And one of
those things is to prioritize the bandwidth on the device
that you're using, which hasn't worked terribly well, I must
admit over the last several attempts. Another trick is to
turn off the bandwidth on all devices that you're not

(05:01):
using that might still be connected drawing bandwidth. And that's
what I've done tonight, and that creates a nice solid
connection for the live stream. And that's what I did
last week too, which was why I was so confused
as to what was happening with this with this broadcast.

(05:24):
What I didn't know, though, is that there is this
new backup service that our computer guy recommended we get
because of the hardware crash that caused all of these
settings issues that we had on the first episode. If
you recall where Father Chris had this major echo and
there was all sorts of sound issues and weird things

(05:45):
going on, that was because those all those settings had
been changed and it was very difficult to isolate and
find where they were brand and I, Brandon and I
did a little test broadcast and fixed those. So I
was really surprised when we tried to air last week
and it didn't work. But I didn't know that. What
I didn't realize is that I get the studio set

(06:06):
up about a couple hours before the show to make
sure that I've got everything ready to go. There's a
lot that goes into making this live stream happen, and
it's just me engineering it. So I have to kind
of do it twice as carefully so that I don't
make mistakes because there's nobody catching my mistakes. If I
make any, I have to catch my own mistakes, which
I'm really not very good at, to be honest with you.

(06:28):
I always know my own intentions, so I don't ever
see my own mistakes, and that happens a lot with
stuff like this. So what ended up happening and I
didn't realize, is that Microsoft pushed through an update to
this computer, and I didn't know what happened, or I
didn't really recognize what the ramifications of that would be.

(06:48):
And so what it did is it pushed out this
update and then it did a force restart of the computer,
which started up that backup program in the background. Now,
this church because of everything that it does with the
live streaming, with the classes and everything, uploading large video
files to archives, all that stuff. This backup system, which

(07:13):
all the computers in this house are connected to, well
every week there's gigabytes and gigabytes of data that gets
stored on the primary hard drive. This computer, when it
was force restarted, started trying to back up those three

(07:37):
hundred and fifty gigabytes of data while we were trying
to go live. And because it's a background program, not
something that is obviously running, unless you know where to look,
you won't even know it's there. And that's what was
drawing all this bandwidth. It was trying to upload all
those files, which it considers to be the highest priority,

(07:57):
even higher than a live stream. So it was cutting
off the bandwidth on the stream to be able to
upload those files, and that's what kept knocking us off,
and I could not, for the life of me, figure
that out until it occurred to me, wait a second.
That must have kicked itself back on when the computer
reset and I didn't catch it, and that's what happened.
And so that is absolutely officially off right now, and

(08:19):
that's why we have a nice solid stream. In fact,
I'm looking at the stream health right now and we're
looking absolutely solid right now. So everyone, anyway, we're back. Okay,
we're back, and the rest of the season should be good,
and I don't think we have to make any drastic
changes going forward without the inconvenience of having to do
a few extra things. Now, the last thing I want

(08:40):
to report to you about this show is that if
any of you used to listen live on Spreaker last
week and the week before, we've been trying to air
as we always did to Spreaker, which is an audio
only version of the podcast. Okay, it's actually the true podcast,
this video version that you're getting now on Facebook Instagram, TikTok, YouTube,

(09:05):
and Twitch is just an augmented feature that was requested
several seasons ago because you guys like to look at
something and I understand that completely, but we still have
always pushed through the original podcast, which goes to iTunes
and Spotify and iHeartRadio and all those you know supply

(09:26):
services that give you podcasting. Well, turns out Spreaker discontinued
that service between last season and this one, so there
is no way to simulcast an audio only version to
spriaker anymore. And I don't think we had enough interest
in that any way for me to change services and

(09:48):
add another complication. And one benefit to this is that
now I don't have to simulcast the audio only version
while I'm doing this, which is less bandwidth, which means
that this should be stronger. Add to the fact that
my soundboard can record the audio, which it's doing right now.

(10:09):
So right now, my soundboard is creating what will be
the audio only version that goes to the podcast, and
this will be uploaded later tonight and will be available
for everyone sometime in the early morning Eastern time. Okay,
so overall, that's not the worst concession and I think
if it gives you a more solid live stream here

(10:30):
on YouTube, where the bulk of the live audience is anyway,
or TikTok. Actually, TikTok is probably the bulk of the
live audience. Let me see what we're doing right, well, right,
not today, not tonight for some reason, but usually it's
it's a big one. I guess we're just not getting
pushed through Instagram. Looks like it's got quite a few
though so. But YouTube is where the action is, where

(10:52):
the activity is. I highly recommend if you love this
show to come over to the YouTube version and log
in so you can communicate with everybody in the chat.
We have some great moderators out there. A big shout
out to Danielle. Her name is or user name is
Mystic out there. She's a big part of keeping the
stream safe and making it fun. Okay, so we've got

(11:16):
Tracy out there too. We might even have Paul. I'm
not sure. I don't see much tonight, No Paul, I
don't know what's going on. But anyway, we got a
few moderators out there, and of course it's Brandon and
Father Chris in the chat as well. So we invite
you to come over there and you can ask your
questions directly and we'll have a good time tonight. Okay,

(11:38):
we're gonna have a great time, So I just want
to make sure that that's understood. I tried my best
last week to get you this show, but no harm
done because we kept two empty slots later in the season.
Four problems like this, So the guest that was supposed
to be on tonight was moved to one of those

(12:01):
open dates. No problem there, They were fine with it,
and I moved last week's show to this week so
that you didn't miss this show because I know a
lot of you are interested into this topic.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
Tonight.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
It's one of my favorite ones, and I think we're
going to have a really good discussion. Although I will
say before we even do anything else that if you
have very sensitive sensibilities, if you have a difficult time
thinking outside the box, if you're very easily I guess

(12:34):
you could say, well, if you're just a vulnerable person spiritually,
you might not want to listen to tonight's show because
we're going to be doing this from outside of the
usual framework that we do on this show. It's going
to be outside the Christian.

Speaker 4 (12:51):
Worldview.

Speaker 2 (12:52):
All right, we're gonna be looking at it from a
strictly raw philosophical vantage point, okay, which means that anything
is on the table, and it should provoke some good
discussion and maybe he'll have some questions. We'll try to
answer them. I'm not a physicist, but I am a philosopher,
so we're going to be handling a very well, a

(13:14):
very theoretical physics type topic from a very philosophical point
of view. It's absolutely right, that's absolutely right. So so anyway,
let's go ahead and see how Father Chris, who's probably
just excited to be on because you know, last week
was a mess and then the week before that was pretty.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
Much a mess.

Speaker 5 (13:35):
We have a good conversation in the green room.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
Oh that's good. That's good. So father father Chris joining
us from Australia.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
How you do it tonight?

Speaker 6 (13:42):
Father?

Speaker 2 (13:44):
Oh wait, wait, wait, we don't have sound. We don't
have your sound, Father Brendan, do we have your sound?
No sound on Brandon either. Okay, so here we go.
Always something right now, Brandon. That did not work?

Speaker 3 (14:16):
All right.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
I don't know what's going on with to see. There's
always something always. Oh, let's try this again. Let's okay,
do it now? Okay, here we go right? Always something,
always something. Yeah, it was just one of the miners
see one setting and see. If I had an engineer,
they'd catch this stuff before I would, but I can't.
That was my mistake actually, so go ahead, father, how

(14:37):
you doing tonight?

Speaker 7 (14:39):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (14:39):
Good?

Speaker 7 (14:41):
I mean from a physicist to hypothesize that some people
might not have tuned in because your hour has changed.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Oh it's possible.

Speaker 7 (14:49):
So your hour change is at a different time to
I think Britain, at a different time to Australia at
least I know those two.

Speaker 4 (14:56):
So yeah, it could be that.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
It could be. I mean, I think what's really important
for people aple to remember, uh is this is one
of the main reasons to join the Nickelan Network. Our
show pages go out. That's basically a newsletter for everything
we do. Predominantly a newsletter for the church, okay, but
it's a newsletter for everything we do, and all of

(15:20):
our streams are are published there for you know, upcoming
streams and everything else.

Speaker 3 (15:27):
And if you.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
Subscribe to the show page and actually r s VP
to it, it will remind you in your time zone
when it's going to air, you'll never.

Speaker 4 (15:42):
If you subscribe on YouTube, it will as well.

Speaker 2 (15:43):
Oh well okay, well there you go YouTube as well.

Speaker 4 (15:46):
Yeah, okay, so people should subscribe.

Speaker 7 (15:48):
So anyway for people to subscribe, Yeah, I'm good. We're
kind of the season's changing slightly.

Speaker 8 (15:56):
Here, so.

Speaker 7 (15:58):
We're going into all here to fall. So the weather
is kind of it's been a bit more rainy and
a bit more humid. So so my air conditioning has
been getting a workout because I can't stand humidity. I
grew up in it in Manchester, the wettest place on

(16:18):
a so yeah.

Speaker 4 (16:20):
But and then and of course we're also.

Speaker 7 (16:22):
Hosting up for election season here, so it'll be a
nice break from politics to talk pure philosophy in this episode.

Speaker 2 (16:29):
I low, it is definitely pure philosophy. I mean, it's
not going to be a very comfortable episode for people
that have weak sensibilities with religion. It's it's definitely not.
It's it's going to challenge your perspectives on things.

Speaker 4 (16:41):
And I also tell them.

Speaker 7 (16:43):
Why philosophy is the underpinning of theology, you know, So
you know a lot I've noticed that there's a lot
of Twitter wars going on at the moment.

Speaker 4 (16:52):
Maybe not new.

Speaker 7 (16:53):
It's all in America between Protestants and Catholics, and a
lot of the sort of sort of SoundBite things they're
putting on there, just the lie the fact that there's
a lack of philosophy behind how they approach biblical reading
and all the rest of it. So, I mean, this
is a worthwhile thing to do for people just to

(17:15):
sort of think about how they think, think.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
About how they think, like, yeah, that's a great way
to put it. Think about how they think, because you
will be thinking tonight, you will. I mean, I'm not
going to inundate you with complex Yeah, I'm not going
to inundate with with crazy physics. But we are going
to talk a little bit about the foundations here and
it should be an interesting show. Brandon from Tennessee. How

(17:39):
you're doing tonight, Brandon, I'm.

Speaker 9 (17:42):
Doing pretty good. My conditioner almost sounded like a blew
up the other day.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
Now, what's going on?

Speaker 9 (17:50):
Pretty good?

Speaker 2 (17:51):
What is going on with with technology? I mean, I
feel that the gremlins are going out there. Jamie's microwaves
caught fire.

Speaker 5 (17:58):
Yep.

Speaker 4 (17:58):
Literally, you know, simulations breaking down?

Speaker 2 (18:02):
I think so, I think so it's time for an upgrade.
All right, thank you Angel for that. Like, I appreciate that. Angel, Yeah,
thank you. And Tracy and Tracy, thank you, Tracy say
she is out there.

Speaker 6 (18:18):
All right.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
So I know we've got questions from the ether from
last week. We're going to do the same ones we're
going to do last week. So nothing is going to
be lost. Everything is going to be and we still
have an open slot later in the season just in
case we should just leave it that way and just
make it open lines, open topics if we don't need it.
But anyway, Brandon, let's go ahead and get to the

(18:41):
first one. B Dex, thank you for the like.

Speaker 9 (18:46):
So, since we're on the topic of simulation and all that,
there's a question, so if myth is more real than
real one of the battle between the Angels of God
and demons.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
Okay, so we need to kind of qualify this one
because the average audience is not going to know what
this questions about. You know, what does this mean myth
is more real than real? We might have touched on
this a little bit in different places throughout the previous
seasons on this show, but this is really more of
a question for Forbidden Truth students, which is the webinar

(19:19):
that I teach every Saturday at one pm Eastern, so
that this is really more geared towards a type of
ancient esoterrorism, where it goes into the framework of how
reality is sort of built upon these archetype of premises.

(19:43):
And so the way that we connect with that ethereal
ineffable mystical world that I think all spiritual people have
referred to as the spiritual world is generally through myth.
And we again, like we do with so many words
in the modern era, we've changed their meanings to the

(20:05):
point that the original meanings have been lost, and myth
is one of those. I think when people say the
word myth, they think, you know, people immediately assume you're
talking about like a fairy tale, You're talking about some
kind of work of fiction. Yeah, well that's true, that
is true because of their myths, and myths are true.

(20:27):
But people tend to think that it's which a myth
is just something that's absolutely a fictitious story that sort
of tells maybe a moral that's true, but the contents
are not true, which is not inaccurate in many cases.
So let's take something from the Christian worldview. For people
to understand more simplistically. Adam and Eve is a good

(20:48):
example here that is absolutely a myth. There is even
even There's not a Jewish person I know, not a
Jewish rabbi I've ever met, that would even would even
enter the idea that this is some kind of historical account.
All right, this is not a historical event. Adam and
eve 're not historical figures. They are mythical figures. But

(21:11):
being such, they convey a truth that is far deeper
than history or anything that would ever happen in history
in any literal sense. So again, our understanding of reality,
which is kind of a good basis for tonight's show,
Our understanding of reality is skewed by what we deem important.
So we tend to take the world of the five
senses as the only thing that is real, when, as

(21:35):
you will see tonight, they might be the only thing
that is not. It might be everything else that's actually real.
Yours five senses are just perceptions that your brain is
trying to make sense of data that it does not
entirely understand, and so it comes up with something that
it can work with through evolution, and then it allows
you to be able to communicate that with others who
are at the same level of your evolution, and therefore

(21:56):
you end up with some kind of common story. But
in the in the end, the actual ineffable truths all
around us are lost because they're beyond us. Largely, myth
helps us to connect with those ineffable truths out a
way that we can understand because of the limitations of
human intellect and consciousness, and of course the limitations of
what we're able to perceive, which is largely just through

(22:18):
those five senses. So myth helps us to connect with
something much greater, much more authentic than anything we could
have ever dreamed possible, through a story that seems larger
than life and largely fiction. And so when we're talking
about things like the battle between the Angels of God
and demons, we're talking about a mythical story that is

(22:43):
conveying a much larger truth through a type of mythical
story or event. So I've never looked from even a
theological vantage point, I've never been a huge fan of
the war or battle between the Angels of God and
the demons, the fallen Angels. I've never liked it because,
first of all, it's a non canonical story. Yes, that

(23:07):
became very influential, and we just sort of adopted it. Okay.
So it's one of those things, kind of like gnosticism.
You know, we shun gnosticism, but we embrace so much
of it that there's so much gnosissism now in Orthodox
Christianity that you can't ignore it anymore. They just tend
to not acknowledge it and call it narcissism, even though

(23:28):
that's what it is. I hate to say it, but
the Holy Trinity is a gnostic concept. It is, it
really is, and so that helps us to say that, see,
not even things that might have been rejected on the
basis of certain errors are not all wrong. Everything contains
an essence of truth. And the Church did make through

(23:49):
the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Of course, did make
determinations on what to keep and what not to keep,
and a lot of it was thrown out, some of
it was kept. This is one of those examples. But
this whole War in Heaven thing, I think was really
a kind of very simplistic way of trying to explain
evil and the origins of evil, and then it sort

(24:11):
of became something that people started to treat as a
literal historical event, which it is not. It is definitely, though,
a truth that does occur, and it's instead of looking
at it as some battle that happened like before we
were even created, I think it's more important to look
at it as a battle that's happening at all times

(24:32):
in history, and the battleground is within yourself. That's the
better way to look at it. So in this sense
of the question, so if myth is more real than real,
what is the battle between the angels of God and
the demons? It's more real than we are, just like
every other myth. But the reason we have a story
like this is that we're not very good at recognizing truth.

(24:54):
So we prefer fiction to anything that would be too true.
And so therefore we take the embellishments and we create
these nice, little, clever stories, and then they get told
to children, the children grow up believing them, and then
they teach it to their kids, and then the next
thing you know, you have a distorted understanding of what
it is. Now. The essence of the truth is still

(25:16):
in there, but it gets lost when you start making
it literal. It's not literal. It is much greater than that,
much more authentic. That literal does not make it more authentic,
believe it or not. It actually limits it. When you
make something literal, then you limit it. And then what
happens is now the atheists come along and they say,

(25:36):
look at you idiots believing in these fairy tales, and well,
of course it looks like that to them, because they
don't understand these higher truths. Because you don't understand these
higher truths. You don't even understand. You really think it's
a history when we all know it's not, and no
theologian whatever say it is certainly not a rabbi. Okay,
So in this particular context, you have to understand what

(25:58):
myth really is and why we classified as something much greater,
because it conveys truths that are otherwise inaccessible to human consciousness.
And the only way to do that is through stories,
because that's how our brain works. Our brains work by
creating stories about our lives, stories about what we're doing.
And that's the byproduct of linear time, which is the

(26:23):
hallmark of the fallen universe. It's a fractured, fractured moments,
countless fractured moments in this fractured, broken universe. Instead of
the one whole moment of perfection in the presence of God,
which is eternity. We now have these broken moments that
come into being and then fall out of being, and
so we're lost in this entropy where everything's just energy,

(26:44):
just fading away from moment to moment to moment.

Speaker 10 (26:47):
And it said, I'm sorry interrupted, didn't you say a
couple weeks ago or week somewhere that time is the
consequence of the fall.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
Time is the fall. Time is the time should not exist.
Time is absolutely the result of the fall. So if
you want to know that, the truest proof is that
we live in a fallen universe. Time there shouldn't be
any That's why God is always outside. He can operate
within time, but he exists outside of it, in what

(27:17):
we call eternity, where there is no such thing as
And this is why you know, when you talk to
children about heaven, you say, oh, you won't need to eat,
You're not going to get hungry, you don't get sick,
you don't die. Well, why is that because your eternity,
there's no moments of that create the consequence of entropy.
You're in a constant state of wholeness and perfection.

Speaker 7 (27:37):
So they're just going to say, I mean, you know,
if you if again people don't pay close attention always
to the most important elements of the Book of Genesis, right,
you know, what are what are the consequences of Adam
and Eve being cast out of Eden? There, That they'll
have to toil labor to look after themselves, that they'll

(27:59):
be pain and suffering in childbirth, and that they'll die.

Speaker 4 (28:02):
All three of those things are temporal. They're all time.
So yeah, time is the direct result of the fall.
So this, this this sense of.

Speaker 7 (28:15):
Of time being the ultimate consequence of sin is absolutely
explicit in the Book of Genesis. The other thing I
just wanted to quickly say on this is that, yeah,
we talked about the five senses, and we'll come to
we'll talk about this in much more dec when we
talk about simulation theory, I'm sure, But actually we we
we actually do have more than five senses. I don't

(28:37):
mean in a in a biological sense, but you know,
we have a sense of justice, a sense of freedom,
a sense of love, and none of the I mean, yes,
those things interact with the senses, yes, but we all
know that they actually are beyond our senses, and the
other species literally have other senses. You know, birds know

(28:57):
which way south is. They've got a magnetic sense. So
there are so In other words, I'm just trying to
support your idea that that things beyond what are those
five senses are just as real as the things that
our senses, in fact more real the things that are
that that our senses perceive. But and then also the

(29:19):
final thing, and I'll only say it and then shut up,
because we could spend an eternity talking about.

Speaker 4 (29:25):
It, is this is why indeed, and we will by
the way we will.

Speaker 7 (29:33):
But but the the the that's why the ultimate when
people say or have syncret syncretistic, synchronistic, but.

Speaker 4 (29:42):
You know, all religions are the same.

Speaker 7 (29:44):
No, there is a uniqueness to Christianity, which is we
believe in the incarnation, and and that that's where not
only have we come from all eternity and have to
existed in time, but God, who is beyond all eternity,
has entered into time and space in a particular. That's

(30:05):
the unique moment, that's the pivot points of history, because
it's the points of history.

Speaker 4 (30:10):
That leads us back to eternity. Well said, I don't
want to say more than that.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
No, it's well said. It actually kind of goes with
what David Jenkins is talking about in this chat. He says,
what about if we want to eat? You know, I
mentioned how we won't need to eat, we won't get hungry.
Hungry as a product of entropy again, which is a
product of time, which is the product of the fall.
So it stands the reason that we don't get honey.
I know, and Jesus did talk a lot about about feasting,

(30:37):
and you know you have all hollow, which also is
an afterlife kind of feast. So clearly, you know we've
been Humanity is concerned about this. Both Pagan and Christian
have thought large, long and hard about this. But the
fact is, okay, is that these things that we hold
on to as the moments in life that are very

(31:00):
precious and very wonderful, Like there's so much pain and
suffering in life, but you know that's that's because you know,
we focus on the negative. We tend to be driven
and motivated more so by the negative. But you know
there's a lot of good in there too, and one
of those pleasures that we have in life. Clearly Jesus
recognized this because he made so many parables about food

(31:23):
and everything else is the is the pleasure that eating
and feasting and the take togetherness that that creates, and
the experience of enjoying a good meal. What we need
to understand about that is what we are experiencing here
is a shadow of a greater reality. And this is

(31:44):
what Jesus is really trying to talk about when he's
talking about the banquet fees. You know, in heaven, it's
it's a it's a what we're doing now, even the
last supper itself is just a shadow of some greater reality,
right And.

Speaker 7 (32:00):
In the garden, yeah, again, it go about to the
great myth you can eat any of the fruits of
these trees.

Speaker 4 (32:05):
Yes, just not that tree.

Speaker 7 (32:08):
But but and this is before they're told that they'll die. So,
in other words, they're eating doesn't depend oh sorry that there,
Their life continuing doesn't depend on them eating. They still
eat that they still so I'm hopeful, David that well
I'll still be able to enjoy Stilton.

Speaker 8 (32:27):
And.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
Well, they'll be. There'll be let's just say that, there'll
be higher expressions of what these are shadows of. Let's
just say that. But yes, I mean, think about what
eating is. Symbolically, it is literally taking in the reality
of something so it becomes part of you. That's what
Heaven's all about, Okay, but doing that in a much

(32:51):
more deliberate way, not through a symbol like eating, but
doing it through actual experiential reality. So there's a lot
and it.

Speaker 4 (32:59):
Will lead to total satisfaction, satisfaction.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
And it won't be for it won't be the satisfied
survival or hunger, because those things are not going to
be relevant in a state of perfection. So lots to
look forward to there. Let's look forward to there, all right, Brandon,
what's our next question?

Speaker 9 (33:16):
Must see, I did have a kind of a statement
on the question, was going back to the battle like
the angels and demons. It took me years to then
ask that if the battle happened, say and entered the garden,
say intended Adam and Eve, then it's no longer our
fault that the world fell. We can now push the

(33:38):
blame onto something else.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
Well, I mean you can't, because that's that's the problem
with looking at the serpent as Satan and not yet Sahara.
This is why the Jewish understanding or the Jewish theology
is far superior to what became the standard concept in Christianity,

(34:04):
because yes, when you do see it as the devil,
then you have to ask yourself some it creates major problems.
The first problem is what the hell's he doing there?
If evil started with the Fall, then why was there
evil there before that? Then that would mean we're not
responsible for evil. That's something else. That's number one, And
Christians have kind of said that. I mean, there are

(34:25):
Christian theologians that have said that we're not really responsible
for evil, we're responsible partaking in it. So okay, fair enough,
but now it creates a much greater issue. You got
two innocent children, right, God's two innocent children, Adam and Eve,
pretty much the equivalent of toddlers as far as the
God is concerned. All right, so we can look at

(34:47):
them as his children in the truest sense, and you're
gonna put You're gonna put them alone with your arch nemesis,
the devil. That's not going to bode well. I mean,
nobody would leave their kids with a child predator, and
that's kind of what they is being done here. And

(35:09):
the worst case scenario happens. You know, he has his
way with them, which leads to, you know, an entire
broken universe, which is pretty a big pretty much a
big deal. So you have to come back and say, well,
why would God have let that happen? Well, you can
get into happy fault and that's all beautiful. I understand,
you know, all of the theological arguments that sort of

(35:31):
kind of explain this away. But we don't even need
all that. I mean, we do to a certain extent,
because it also kind of introduces the importance in need
of Jesus and how God. This is all part of
God's design to come to realize Him in a deliberate way,
freely without being sort of coerced or by our nature
just having done it, you know, it's something that we've
choose to do. It's all very important. However, the Jewish

(35:55):
understanding makes it far more simple, is that it's not
the devil in the garden. It is our fault. It's
our proclivity to choose to do the wrong thing, and
that's it. And freedom gives you that you don't have
to be broken to have that. It's just a perfect
person would know the difference between right and wrong and

(36:15):
always choose to do the right thing, and we chose
to be less than perfect in that moment. Now you
could say it was ignorance that did it, and that's
where the happy fault part comes in for me. However,
as far as the Jewish understanding, I think it makes
far more sense because it's not you can't pin the
blame on some supernatural force that's so much greater and
wiser and more clever than you are. You can just

(36:38):
simply say this is the fallen nature I gave into it,
which is the same battle we deal with every single day.
We're always living the Garden of Eden inside. And that's
kind of how Jewish rabbis would look at it, particularly
today in a more enlightened context, which takes that blame
aspect away in my opinion. Now, I know there's gonna

(36:59):
be Christian Theia legions that hate what I just said.
They need that to be the devil, and hey, all
the power to you. But it didn't start out as
the devil. It became the devil through Christian teaching. It did.
It was never the devil in the Jewish world. Okay,
So I kind of think it's their story. We sort
of appropriated it and changed it. If you're going to
use it, which is fine, because we do see our

(37:21):
scriptures as the as the fulfillment of theirs. Then at
least acknowledge the way they recognize those scriptures to the
extent that there's no conflict. And really the only conflict
between Judaism and Christianity is the recognition of who's the Messiah.

Speaker 3 (37:39):
That's really it.

Speaker 2 (37:40):
I mean, yeah, they've got different cultural things that because
I mean, let's face it, Christianity is largely a Greek culture,
you know, or originating in Greek. I mean, there weren't
many Jews that became Christians. It was much more attractive
to the Pagans to.

Speaker 7 (37:53):
Push to push back slightly on that. I think that's
true of catholic and orthodox on the and things of Christianity.
I think I think there is a radical difference between
the sorts of Protestants that that essentially reject works completely.
You know, because what is common to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and

(38:17):
Judaism is we believe that, but how do we know
of someone's.

Speaker 4 (38:23):
Good or has faith they do good things?

Speaker 2 (38:27):
You know.

Speaker 7 (38:27):
So now that's common to Judaism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. For
many Protestant Christians, although they believe that you should do
good things, that the focus is very much more on
believing a certain thing for Catholicists both. So I think
I think there are differences between you know, many people

(38:49):
listening to this show who think, well, I'm a Christian
and I don't think that, you know, I don't think
I might be choosed. Well, that it's probably because you're
you've been steeked in a in a in a particular
Protestant view of salvation.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yeah, that's true. No, I don't disagree with what you
just said. There, there, and and that is part of it.
But make no mistake about it. We cannot push the
blame of fall on anybody on ourselves.

Speaker 4 (39:14):
No, nor should we want to.

Speaker 2 (39:22):
Necessary is it because you have to look at it
this way, even if you want to see it as
that they they didn't have a choice, that it was
really just there, they were not enlightened enough to make
a better decision, even if you want to give them
every benefit of the doubt, the reality is in order
to come into the understanding that's necessary to have the

(39:44):
relationship with Jesus the way God wants us to, which
is freely choosing and participating at the level that God
himself participates in it to literally raise us up to
that level, well, we have to kind of fall to
do it. It's kind of like in order to build,
you know, a massive structure like a skyscraper or something,

(40:08):
you're gonna have to clear the land and prime it
and get it ready, which means there's gonna be a
lot of dirt and dust and grime and destruction in
order to make it possible for that structure to be built.
In a way, this is what's happening with Adam and Eve,
is that in order for them to freely choose God,

(40:28):
they have to fall so that they understand what it
is that they are seeking. And if it's just all
given automatic, well then you just become basically a spiritual
version of a spoiled brat, right. I mean, think about
a child that you just give everything too. They never
know any suffering. Well, this was the whole story of
the Buddha, believe it or not. That was the whole

(40:50):
point of the story of Sidhartha. It's a beautiful story.
He's given everything and he's sheltered from any knowledge that
they're suffering in the world world. He doesn't know that
there's death. He grows up with this understanding that everything's
perfect until he he's like, what's on the other side
of the palace walls, Oh, you don't need to know
about that, And so he sneaks out there and then

(41:12):
he sees that outside the palace it's just it's just
poverty and disease. And this this triggers of reaction within
him that because of his compassion, that there's got to
be a way to fix that, you know. But you know,
it's it's the same story, only completely different world. But see,

(41:33):
this is this is the beauty of myth is that
you can tell it to completely different ways and it's
the same story because the truth of it is the same.
Even though Sidhartha and Adam and Eve are completely different
cultural stories, they both tell the same exact truth that
one must fall in order to rise.

Speaker 7 (41:54):
I mean, it's why Christ's teachings, I mean often speaks
in parables, as we know, but Christ's teachings are are
often cut. You know, there's a sort of a commonality
to this idea of the reversal of things. So, you know,
so Christians would say, if you're you know, well, so
Jesus has.

Speaker 4 (42:13):
Come to me.

Speaker 7 (42:14):
You are who are heavy burdened, you know. But Christians
would say, the more you're burdened down by your you know,
your own ship for lack of a bedment. You know,
the more you the more like messy, is it convoluted,
twisted your life has become. In fact, confronting that and

(42:41):
laying it down the feet of God is in fact
the only way to be released from that. In other words,
you know, the only way of shedding that load is
to confront it and own it. And once you've said, yeah,
these are the things I've done. Actually, that's where that's

(43:01):
the moment of release. In other words, by embracing it,
the truth of it, you're you're relieved of the burden
of it. And it's and that's why the mutch'll inherit
the earth, you know, the morning shall be comforted all
the you know, all of these amazing reversals of the
way that we that we can sexualize the world. We

(43:24):
know of the truth right and the heart, the heart
is the most The reason I actually respect that people
say I can't come to faith or I don't want
to be a Christian is if they say, because I
realize how to have to change, and I.

Speaker 4 (43:38):
Don't want to. I actually respect that because at least
there's there's that's honest.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
It's honest. Yeah, it's authentic, and authenticity is going to
get you further than than pretense anytime. Holy pretense is
much worse than honest error.

Speaker 7 (43:54):
Yeah, because honesty eventually will lead you to truth that's true,
and truth is in fact Jesus Christ. Yes, so they
don't need me to spell it out. They can find
it out.

Speaker 2 (44:05):
Yeah, that's true. All right, Brandon, there you go. So
you can't. You don't get a you don't. You don't
get anyone to blame. There's no scapegoat here.

Speaker 3 (44:14):
It's just you.

Speaker 9 (44:19):
So the second question, uh stolen topic of things being real?
What is your take on skin Walker's and Bigfoot? Do
you think they're actually real?

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Okay? So again, very much a lead into tonight's show
about the nature of reality. So the answer to this, okay,
is depends upon what you mean by real.

Speaker 3 (44:38):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (44:38):
So if by real you're talking about some kind of
corporeal species that has the ability to be scientifically classified
into it like a specific philum biologically, no, then I
would say I don't think those things exist. If you're
talking about it incorporeal projection, a type of eggregor or

(45:00):
thought form or tulpa that is the mark of some
kind of higher spiritual reality, then yes, I would say
that does indeed exist. I don't think that cryptids or
these kind of exotic creatures that we've never been able
to actually prove exists exist on any kind of biological level.

(45:24):
I mean, it would be fun, but I don't think
it's true. But that would that would that would definitely
that would still call into question if we're talking about
biology as we as understanding as we understand it, because
you know, aliens kind of fall into that same category,
then correct. You know, because a lot of when you
look at alien or reports of alien encounters or abductions,

(45:49):
one of the common themes that you see in these
stories is that there's like a portal or some kind
of you know, incorporealness to them where they pass your walls,
or like even they themselves are captured and beamed up
through the ceiling into the mothership. It looks like the

(46:10):
the laws of physics as we understand them no longer apply,
which would make it or I would say you could
argue that biology no longer applies in the same way.

Speaker 10 (46:21):
There is a lot of physical evidence that has been
collected over the years, but nothing to definitively say it exists.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
But no, but no more than a ghost or a demon.

Speaker 5 (46:34):
Demons leave footprints.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
There's been reports of stuff like that, scratches, I mean
this physical marks.

Speaker 5 (46:42):
So we've got hair samples that have come back.

Speaker 10 (46:47):
Hominid, but they can't prove it's not any classified species.

Speaker 2 (46:55):
Yeah, there are bites in demonic possessions. So you know,
there's things of that nature that I would say that
I don't. I don't think you're ever going to be
able to, let me put this way, I don't think
you'll ever find a bigfoot or any kind of these
you know, skin walk or anything. And then one day

(47:15):
we're going to have.

Speaker 7 (47:17):
You know, a helicopter with a with a heat heat
detecting camera can find a crook in the middle of
a forest by the heat signature.

Speaker 4 (47:27):
So if you've got a mammal, we don't know what
it is, surely we could find it.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
Right, So it's got to be operated by process.

Speaker 4 (47:34):
Exist me wrong, But these are existential problems.

Speaker 2 (47:38):
There's got to be some kind of like I think
it's operating very much like how angels operate, where they
can take on physical characteristics, but that's not their nature,
which should put it more into the ethereal category, not
a biological creature. I don't. I don't think we could
say that angels are biological creatures. They don't have h

(48:00):
It's not a species in the sense that we could
classify it scientifically and say, well, okay, here's their DNA. Yeah,
it would be. I think that whatever bigfoot in skin
walkers and any of these cryptids are is something that
would be akin to an elemental something that does not
have corporeal features, but has perhaps corporeal capacity, limited corporeal capacity,

(48:23):
which might be why they're so hard to capture or
find or encounter, because you're dealing with something that's not
entirely there in the way that we are there. And
that would explain why they seem to come and go
and there's some marks, but not really and never a body,
never found a body, and then when they when they
when they claim they do, it's always a hoax, you know.

(48:44):
So I think it's in that category, you know. So
that's how I look at it. I mean, that's that's
just my opinion, though, I mean, I'm not giving you
an official statement here. I mean, I'm not a I'm
not a cryptidid researcher.

Speaker 5 (48:57):
So Brandon, we got to find a cryptozoologist.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
Well, we've had one on yeah, and he's he's swear
that it was a physical creature. I asked him that question.
I said, do you think it's like some kind of something?
We wish have him back? One he was doing like
a documentary and that was a few years ago, so
it's probably, uh, you know, he probably has more to
talk about. But I mean I asked him to point
out at you know, absolutely plainly. I said, do you

(49:26):
think that these are like some kind of thought form
or spiritual creature or do you really think it's an
actual biological, physical being? And he said he believed they
were biological. He did so, and he knows more about
than I do.

Speaker 9 (49:42):
I hope it's physical because Oklahoma has a three million
dollar bounty on Bigfoot, and we're pretty armed, so I
want that money.

Speaker 4 (49:51):
Probably would have been found by now. I would have
found it. If there's a million, three million dollars.

Speaker 2 (49:56):
On it, I'll come, You'll find it. Let's go get it.
Let's let's go do that. Well, we'll, we'll, we'll make
an agreement that you know, sixty six percent goes to
the church for finders fee.

Speaker 5 (50:06):
You know, there's a documentary, and the other thirty.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Three percent we can spend on lequor and good food.

Speaker 5 (50:16):
Take care of the food. I'll take care of them.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
Yeah, all right, Well it's our next one, Brandon.

Speaker 9 (50:24):
So the next one is I came across the verse
from one Corinthians fifteen that states that Jesus died and
rose according to the scriptures? Which scriptures is this referring to.
I cross referenced this with the website that had all
of the three hundred and fifty one prophecies that Jesus fulfilled,
and a lot of what it had listened weren't even prophecies.

(50:45):
And to add, within Judaism, I'm finding no such scripture
of a Messiah dying and rising, because there Messiah is
said to be a human ruler.

Speaker 2 (50:54):
Okay, So this is an interesting point where you're starting
to see how Christians were forming their own unique identity
away from the Jewish worldview. Because Christians and Jews do not,
as we said before a few minutes ago, do not
recognize the Maya the Messiah the same way, okay, which

(51:16):
is why we recognize the messiah's Jesus and they're still waiting, okay.
And this is what predominantly divides us. There's other things,
there's cultural things, but there's nothing that's more significantly divisive
in terms of how we see the mutual religion than this, okay,
because we see the messiahs Jesus and they don't. And

(51:39):
Christians have always, as they were forming this unique identity,
even right back to Paul's time, okay, have always interpreted
that certain specific Messionic prophecies in the Old Testament as
being applied to Christ. Okay. So when Paul's referring to this,
he's talking from this Christian mindset that says, these are
the things that we've been anyfore in Jesus is who

(52:01):
were who that is? And so this became part of
the church even to this day that we still look
at these prophecies, the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament,
say this is talking about Jesus. So that's what he's
referring to. But if you're going to go look at
if you're going to go and read the Old Testament
as a Jew would read it. Then now you're not

(52:23):
going to be able to find that kind of thing.
And as far as like being able to justify this
in some kind of historical way, well, I always found
it pretty interesting that Jesus did indeed say that the
temple would be destroyed, both figuratively and literally, because it
was also sort of an analogy to his own body,

(52:45):
as Scripture also points out, but that the temple was
indeed destroyed and it was never rebuilt, And now you've
got a you know, uh, it's a it's a basically
in Musli mosque and monument dumb in the rock and
all this, and you're not going to be able to
do anything about that without setting off World War three.

(53:08):
So you know, it's it's kind of like, in a way,
you could almost say that if for me, if anything
proves the truth of Christianity, that that is the best
historical evidence is that the sacrifices ended it, just as

(53:28):
Jesus as the Last Final Sacrifice, ended all sacrifices, no
need for them anymore, and it truly happened. So I
think Paul's got the better argument here, you know, and
looking at the old Testament the way that the ancient
Christians did and and how modern Christians still do. You know,
that's how I look at it.

Speaker 7 (53:47):
I mean, when it says in accordance with the scriptures,
it's because I mean a St. Paul is definitely doing this,
because of course he's a Jew. It's basically typology. He's
saying in accordance with the typological stories of the Old Testaments.

Speaker 2 (54:03):
So you've got the.

Speaker 4 (54:03):
Typology of.

Speaker 7 (54:06):
You know, Adam and Eva cast out, I've said this before,
cast out in the garden.

Speaker 4 (54:10):
Blood is shed vicariously.

Speaker 7 (54:12):
By an animal, and so they're not killed by God,
but that's how their since dealt with. You've got the
typology of Isaac being taken up by Abraham to be
offered and then the ram is provided, and that's sacrifice.

Speaker 4 (54:30):
So that's what that what, that's what it means by
in accordance with the scriptures.

Speaker 7 (54:34):
And then you have they have temple sacrifice, where again
there's vicarious shedding of blood for for since to be forgiven.
So that's what Saint Paul means when he says, in
accordance with the scriptures, we now have this, this full
and final sacrifice of God in Karnate shedding his blood,
which is eternal, and therefore that sacrifice is eternal. So

(54:55):
that's what it means by in accordance with the scriptures.

Speaker 4 (54:58):
It doesn't mean that.

Speaker 7 (54:59):
Oh, here's this passage in Isaiah where it says that
I will come under the rain of Pontius Pilot and
will dine across and be resurrected.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
Because if he did say that, it probably wouldn't have happened.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, so yeah, you said it. Well, no,
that's exactly right, Sandra in the.

Speaker 7 (55:21):
Chat thesis about it. That's about five thousand words put
into one one paragraph.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Well, I think you did it quite well. I think
you did it quite well. Now, Sandra in the chat
is asking, I guess from the previous question, what's the
difference between Edgregre's and tulpaz Quite quite easily. Rs tend
to be something that gets into the mass consciousness that
multiple people experience, where Tulpa tends to be something that

(55:53):
is more unique to one person. Okay, and not that
a person can't another, you know, more than a person
can't experience a tough but but when you're start talking
about agregor, you're talking about something that is so large
that it becomes a legend like Bigfoot, okay, where people
all over the world are claiming to see this thing

(56:15):
that is agregres status. And that's why I say I
think it is an agrigor. I don't think it's a
physical being. But nobody's really going to talk about, you know,
the thought form that you manifested out of your own trauma,
except for probably you, you know, and your extressist who's
coming to help you get rid of it.

Speaker 10 (56:33):
But you know, that's the kind of thing about all
the paranormal places, the haunting places where they have the
tours and everything. You've got hundreds or thousands of different
people coming there to investigate, but they've got a preconceived
notion on what's there. At some point that can manifest
into something, right, it can actually become real.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 2 (56:52):
Okay, Well that's the top of the hour here, So
we're going to take our first break and when we
come back, we'll get into tonight's subject on simulation theory,
and our three will take your questions and your calls.

Speaker 3 (57:04):
Don't go away.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
It's on the corner.

Speaker 8 (57:07):
But PAS Testing and dream Fasting, Night t Sun Talk.

Speaker 6 (57:15):
Book, your friends outside and we fell into inch.

Speaker 1 (57:21):
Shuler but burned out like a cigarette.

Speaker 11 (57:25):
And wishing that I would have said, oh you're happy, No, no,
oh god, I know you were so good.

Speaker 1 (57:37):
You know your still and I still think one fut
up in the middle. I know yourself burning still too well.
I'll be happy, you know, don't.

Speaker 10 (58:16):
You know?

Speaker 8 (58:18):
I remember as a cabin in Tennessee we got sola,
we cried and you look like cabin in the passenger scene.
But life passed us by because w you want man
to be?

Speaker 6 (58:34):
But just still? Who got a peace of me?

Speaker 5 (58:37):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (58:37):
I know you where you mind coming?

Speaker 6 (58:40):
Butter swear me and.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
I won't be a no't know yourself? You know you
you I still thinking about jes sometimes you want to
find me in last time your shows plod in at her?

(59:03):
Why I still its Jo. I'll be happy, Snabby still
be still personal, stab Scabby.

Speaker 12 (59:57):
I need a scaree cold. I have to watch it
did because all of the birds know that I'm almost
I'm barely breathing.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
You let me in pre saved.

Speaker 6 (01:00:21):
There's no horse it blake.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
Do wake me up, not in this century. Do wake
me up, because.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
You're just the coase since.

Speaker 6 (01:00:40):
My You're just the gold.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
You're just there, my, you're just the gold.

Speaker 5 (01:01:01):
My just.

Speaker 12 (01:01:26):
I need a Namengel after what it did, because you
were the davil.

Speaker 6 (01:01:36):
You mess with my head.

Speaker 13 (01:01:40):
At my mother, you shall have you be there's snapper age.

Speaker 1 (01:01:55):
Make me.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
Not in this century.

Speaker 6 (01:02:00):
Don't wake me you because you're just the go shut my,
you're just to go.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
You just the Mario my.

Speaker 2 (01:02:26):
You shot my host.

Speaker 6 (01:02:40):
You're just.

Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Sick because you're just the case to sad.

Speaker 2 (01:02:51):
My, you're just the go.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
The so just a goals this side my gore, just
a goal and.

Speaker 6 (01:03:11):
Ever you're just a b real.

Speaker 7 (01:03:21):
You just.

Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Shut my, You're just a go say my.

Speaker 8 (01:03:56):
Not.

Speaker 2 (01:04:58):
Welcome back everyone to this hour of Vestiges after Dark.
We are now going to talk about simulation theory from
a philosophical vantage point, from actually largely my own vantage point.
I'll give you some of the background, though, so that
it's not completely foreign to you in case you've not
encountered this in your studies or in your research or

(01:05:19):
in readings or whatever you might be doing out there. Typically, though,
if you're listening to the show, you know something about it.
It's an interesting theory, kind of disturbing. Lots of disturbing implications,
and we're going to talk largely about that tonight. I'm
looking forward to it, and I think you will really
find it quite interestingly disturbing.

Speaker 3 (01:05:41):
So don't go anywhere, all right, So what we're.

Speaker 2 (01:06:41):
Probably going to do here is I'm going to give
you just a little bit of a background here. Bear
with me. I'm not going to give a full lecture
on this, but I am going to give you a
lot of the background so that you have some kind
of understanding as to what you're going to be. You
need to have a foundation in order to really analyze
this with me philosophically. So again, we've got to talk

(01:07:03):
a little bit about the physics, but not not go
into any heavy details about it, okay, because I don't
want to inundate you with a lot of you lose
most of us, yes, and I don't want to do that.
And I'm not a physicist. I mean, there are physicists
out there that could talk about this topic with much
more intelligence than I can. I'm going to tackle this
from a philosophical vantage point, okay, And that's that's the

(01:07:26):
thing that I think is the most useful here is
the most useful here. So so bear with me. Okay,
bear with me. So simulation theory, what is it? Well,
let me first start out by giving you where my
interest in this came from, because, as I've talked about

(01:07:47):
a lot with you, my entire life has been one
that has been largely spiritual in nature. Right, It's been
one that has had quite a predominance in the realm
of the weird and unusual, which is how I sort
of ended up doing the work that I do now. Right,

(01:08:09):
This is not a normal career by any stretch of
the imagination, and you know, it kind of comes with
the territory. And I've talked a lot about some of
the strange things that have happened in my life, okay,
which can all be of course written off to supernatural
types of encounters, visions, miracles, whatever. I've talked about even

(01:08:30):
the alien abduction experiences, although I don't say that it
was an abduction, but I would say that I had
the sort of visitation in that sense. Yes, I've had,
you know, encounters with death. I don't know if I've
ever talked about my drowning encounter, but I I know
we've talked about it. We've talked about I can't remember

(01:08:52):
if I ever talked about it on the air, but
when I was a child, I almost drowned, and well,
I mean I was let me give you these, Let
me give you three key stories here. There's so many.
I'm going to give you, Keith three key ones that
have sort of shaped my perspective on making me interested
in simulation theory. The first one is when I was gosh,

(01:09:14):
I must have been about eight, about eight years old,
maybe nine, but I think it was probably eight eight
or nine, went to a lake with a family member,
an extended family member. They were going up to their
camping unit in New Hampshire and asked me if I

(01:09:38):
wanted to come along. So I did, and I went
and there was a big lake and into the lake
there was this giant floating platform that you could sort
of swim out to, and of course all the kids
would swim out to it and jump off of it.
And I think there was even like a slide thing
out there or something else. And it in a little

(01:10:00):
bit of a lagoon before you get into the current
of the river, because it really was it was it
was a lake with a river, and the river had
quite some current to it, so if you got out
into that, you'd start being swept down. You know, you
wouldn't be able to swim out of it. Would it
would take you away. But before you got to that,
it was calm water. And then you had this flat,

(01:10:21):
this floating platform. Well, we went out there and I
jumped on this platform and was playing with all the
other kids when my family member, who was kind of like,
do you ever see the movie The good Son with
Macaulay Culkin and the Hobbit there? What's his name? You
know what I'm talking about? I can't remember his name.

(01:10:41):
Somebody Elijah, thank you? Elijah would Yeah, I just can't.
I think of the Hobbit. They did a movie together
when they were kids, where you know, Elijah Woods character
was like this.

Speaker 4 (01:10:54):
Good past the fact that I actually had some pop knowledge.

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
Yeah that's good. Yeah that's good. Sorry, well done. Yeah.
So yeah, so anyway, basically mccullay Culkin's character is like this,
he's got this death wish. He's like this kind of
anti social, you know, oppositional defiant, conduct disordered kid, and

(01:11:18):
you know, it's got a death wish. And I had
a family member like this, and he pulls me underneath
this platform I couldn't find my way back out. It's
very murky water. It was a very large platform. He
pulled me all the way down, so I came up
underneath it and I could not find my way out
of it, so I started drowning. I remember taking in water,

(01:11:38):
and I remember the surprisingly the feeling was not panic
like you would probably expect when drowning. It was actually
kind of peaceful. Honestly, It's like, maybe drowning is not
such a bad way to go, because I just remember
it's like after the initial discomfort of taking the water in,
it's just sort of like it's like very quickly like

(01:12:00):
out from there. And I started to feel like I
was going to basically just fade away, when all of
a sudden, I felt what felt like very large hands,
like larger than normal hands, grabbed me and lift me
up out of the water and put me on sitting

(01:12:22):
on the floating platform, and then a big smack to
my back which made me expel all the water. There
was nobody that did this when I came to. I
remember looking around a little disoriented at first and saying,
the kids all were just playing around, and my family

(01:12:43):
member was all the way out. He was like a
third cousin or something. It was all the way back
on shore. I have no idea what pulled me out
of that. I don't know what it was. No one
saw anything, no one even knew I was in distress,
and I don't I can't explain it to this day.

(01:13:06):
Another story. I was about the same age. I did
a lot of crazy shit as a kid, and I
climbed this very tall tree, about a four story tree,
went all the way to the top.

Speaker 5 (01:13:16):
Yeah, yeah, all the way to the top.

Speaker 2 (01:13:19):
Oh yeah, all the way to the top of this thing.
And well, I was on my way down and I
slipped and went head first, crashing down. Right before I
hit the ground, I stopped in absolute mid air, and

(01:13:41):
I remember being upside down and being like, why didn't
I smack the ground because I would have probably broken
my neck the way the way I was angled in,
the speed, and the height that I fell from. It
was truly about forty feet. It was a very tall tree.
And I looked and I looked up, you know, the
other way, because upside down, and I literally see myself

(01:14:05):
float over to one of the branches, lifted up and
the cuff of my pants rested down on one of
those branches, thank you, bell. And I was just suspended there,
hanging from the branch, but I was moved over to

(01:14:26):
it right before, like literally inches from the ground. Another story,
less dramatic, not a death related story, but I was
and you might remember, I think you were with us
on this one. But we were going to a store
on the way to dinner, and we had a friend

(01:14:48):
with us in my car who was not used to
my I drive a Lincoln and the Lincoln has very big,
heavy doors, bigger and heavier than what most people are
probably used to, a lot bigger, heavy than what this
individual was used to. And so I pulled into the
very tight parking lot. Georgia has this thing with tight

(01:15:08):
parking lots. Everyone has these big ass freaking trucks, but
we have these little tiny parking spaces here in Georgia,
and so it doesn't work out very well. And this
is not a good parking lot to begin with. Yeah,
very steep and steep and narrow. Right, you know where
I'm going with this one, Yeah, you're there. And so
I pull up next to a sports car, some kind

(01:15:30):
of really beautifully polished sports car.

Speaker 5 (01:15:33):
It was an expensive look.

Speaker 11 (01:15:35):
Yeah, it was.

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
I don't remember what it was, but it was pretty expensive.
And our friend opened the door with a lot of
vigor because this individual was used to opening their door
this way because they have you know, very light doors
and short and smashed it right into the sports car

(01:15:56):
so hard that you couldn't get the door back out.
So I'm like, what it was?

Speaker 1 (01:16:03):
Not?

Speaker 8 (01:16:04):
It was?

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
It was not, Jamie. So I'm like, what the hell?
And so I go around and I'm like, I'm looking
and there is this massive like dent with like metal
showing on both cars. Okay, clearly a lot of damage,

(01:16:25):
and so I'm trying to get the door out without
making any more damage. When lo and behold the people
that own this car happened to show up and they're
kind of like, what the hell's going on here? Rightfully,
so I probably feel the same way. And and so
we said, you know, I don't think our friends said anything.

(01:16:48):
We were doing all the talk, and was said, you know,
it's just misjudged and the door went in. So uh,
he said, well, let me get into the car and
try to back up. So he starts backing up, making
it worse. Okay, so we're like, no, no, no, no,
slow down, slow down, go forward, go forward. He goes
forward just enough to release my door. And I don't

(01:17:09):
know what possessed me to do this, Okay, but Jamie
was there, she saw it happen, and I just took
my hands and I went over it in the same
way that you lay hands on a person, you know,
in a religious rite. And as soon as I lifted
up my hands, the dent was completely gone. It was

(01:17:30):
completely back to normal again on both cars. And so
the guy gets out ready to see all the damage
up close, and he's like, oh, it didn't do anything.
It's like, yeah, it looked like So these are three

(01:17:51):
very simple stories that are true stories that happened in
real time, and one of which was, you know, not
too long ago. Jamie was part of this church and
with us on church business that day when that happened,
and it started me thinking about simulation theory when I

(01:18:11):
first heard about it. So where does simulation theory come from? Well,
it's taking up a lot of momentum in theoretical physics.
If you're an Elon Musk fan, I know he's a
very controversial figure today, perhaps even worse than Trump. I'm

(01:18:33):
not a fan of Elon Musk's but he has talked
a lot about the likelihood of being in a simulation,
because that's what simulation theory is, the idea that this
is not a reality, that this is some kind of
virtual reality. It's some very sophisticated virtual reality, like a

(01:18:55):
star trek holidack or something of that nature, and where
certain rules apply here that otherwise would not apply at
all to whatever the true reality is. And that's where
it gets really strange and bizarre and interesting, because then
you have to ask yourself, if this is a simulation,

(01:19:17):
then what's outside the simulation, because it must be an outside, right,
Every simulation has an outside. When I play virtual reality
with my VR headset, I'm going my spaceship, going to
different planets and stuff, playing different games, attacking people with
swords and stuff. And then I take the headset off
and now I'm in a different reality, which is what
I consider to be the real world. So if this

(01:19:39):
is a virtual real, then what's the real world then, right?
And so there's been Of course, pop culture has started
to talk about this. The matrix is perhaps everyone's most
familiar pop culture reference to the nature of simulation theory,
and they do a pretty good job of covering what
it is and that at least supporting to the canon

(01:20:02):
of that particular storyline. But let's talk about the mathematical
and computational evidence to give us the real foundation of
where this starts to take root in science today, because
it does have it's not pseudoscience. You know, there are
major scientists that are starting to say that the likelihood
of us being in a simulation are greater than not.

(01:20:24):
And here's where they're getting this. This position reality is
based on code like structures and they should not be. Okay,
so physicists and you can look this up. I'm just
going to give you a survey here. We're not going
to go into detail. I don't have time tonight. I
want to get through all this and I'm already you know,
twenty minutes into this hour, physicist James Gates Junior found

(01:20:48):
that there was self correcting computer code, the same kind
of computer code that you would find in a computer program.
It's an error correcting code, codes that are written into
computer programs to prevent bugs from happening. He found this
same coat embedded in the equations of string theory. Now,

(01:21:10):
string theory is a theory it's a theory for a reason.
It's not considered to be an absolute fact. But what
strength theory is interesting. What makes string theory interesting from
a physics point of view or theoretical physics point of view,
is that one of the things that physicists are trying
to do, have been trying to do for a long time,

(01:21:32):
is create what is known as the theory of everything,
meaning how do you reconcile the quantum world, the world
of quantum mechanics, the tiniest of particles, with how things
behave at the macrocosmic level, like planets and black holes

(01:21:53):
and gravity and that kind of thing. They don't mix
up all right. When you look at the physics the
science physics of large objects, they do not behave at
all in any way that's compatible with how quantum particles behave.
They've been trying to find a way to make those

(01:22:13):
two realities agree by saying that if it's the same universe,
then why do small particles behave so radically different from
large ones? And we'll talk a little bit more about
that in a moment. String theory is one of the
ways in which they reconcile this by arguing that through
mathematical formulation, we can reduce the universe down to these

(01:22:39):
cosmic strings of vibration, which is actually a metaphysical principle.
We've been saying that for thousands of years that everything's vibration,
but now scientists starting to catch up as it does.
And so this vibration, the strings of vibration that depending
upon what vibrational frequency it's at, determines what that reality

(01:22:59):
is and what it becomes, actually solves the conflict between
the quantum world and the macro cosmic world. So if
are so in these equations that give us the foundation
to string theory being potentially real, the physicist James Gates

(01:23:21):
Junior found self correcting computer code in those equations that
should not be there. Okay, So if our universe is
computationally generated, then that would mean that there would be
underlying mathematical rules that are similar to how we create
actual computer simulations with VR and video games in something

(01:23:42):
of that nature, which there is, and we'll talk about
that too in a moment. The second point is the
finite nature of reality. The universe has what's known as
quantitized energy levels, meaning that there are limits to what
you can do within the space of that reality. So space, time,

(01:24:02):
and matter are not infinitely divisible. In other words, you
have only so much time in which to work within
a particular action. You have only so much space in
which you can do this too, and there's only so

(01:24:23):
much that you can actually move around within those limits.
What I mean by this is, well, let's look at
plank's length, okay, which is the smallest plank length is
the smallest Parsi possible measurement. Okay, so the minimum You
could say that this is sort of the minimum resolution
of the universe. It's this tiny, tiny, tiny amounts. Basically,

(01:24:46):
it's so small that if you count it off one
plank length every second, it would take longer than the
current age of the universe to measure the diameter diameter
of an atom. That's how smart. But it is a limit.
There is a limit that things cannot go infinitely small.
There is a point where this is as smallest something

(01:25:08):
can be measured, okay, which would be very consistent with
a minimum resolution, which is again how certain computer codes work.
Then you have the speed limit of reality, okay, which
is light speed.

Speaker 7 (01:25:26):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:25:26):
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, which
is one hundred and eighty six thousand miles per second.
This isn't TYPEO. Here have my notes. I don't know
why I have that here. I cut my notes here
so I don't miss it. But it's one hundred eighty
six thousand miles per per second, per second, and it's
an absolute limit in our universe where you can't as

(01:25:48):
far as we know, we can't go faster than that.
In video games, this is called rendering, which prevents data
from loading too fast, and we build that into the
simulations that we create in video games. Why would our
universe need one? And then when you're talking about a

(01:26:11):
universe that has literally billions of galaxies with with with
hundreds upon hundreds of hundreds of trillions of stars, with
countless planets orbiting those stars, what if we can't get
to any of them because they're so far away. It

(01:26:32):
kind of makes it seem all so sort of pointless,
even though it's so grand, because it's like you can't
utilize any of it. And this is also in video games,
because what we do with video games is we put
we create like a backscreen that creates the illusion of
infinite space, and you can pick any one location to

(01:26:56):
go to. But it's rendered in when you need the information.
Otherwise it stays in the background and potential until you
need to use it for the purposes of the game.
Quantum mechanics has the observer effect, which is I think
the biggest example of what I'm talking about here, and
that is the double slit experiment. I don't know if

(01:27:17):
any of you have ever seen this or studied this,
but essentially what they did and this makes no sense,
this shocked physicists when they observed it. This is an
absolutely real thing. This is not again pseudoscience or people
being crazy. Nobody has ever been able to explain why
this is. But the biggest example of how this simulation

(01:27:39):
type behavior is happening is found in the double slit experiment,
where what they did is they shot photons, these again
quantum particles of light through a through a screen that
had two slits. And what you would expect, and if

(01:28:02):
you can think about these particles as leaving an imprint
as they go, what you'd expect is if you have
two slits and you have particles going through, and they're
all shooting through those slits and creating a mark on
the other side, you'd expect to see two lines, right, Like,
just pretend they're paintballs instead of photons. If you're shooting
them through two slits, the ones that get through are

(01:28:23):
going to leave a mark that would look somewhat on
the other side, like the slits that they went through,
because they wouldn't be able to go around those slits.
It's kind of like when you paint numbers on the road.
You might put a stencil down and then you put
the paint over it, and then you lift it up. Well,
the paint's only where the stencil allowed the paint to
go through. It's not on the sides that the stencil withheld.

(01:28:44):
And that's what you would expect to see. You had
two slits going vertical, you would expect that these photons
would have created two vertical lines. It didn't created a
dispersal pattern. They were all over the place. That should
not have happened. However, when would watch the photons go
through using a camera that could detect these things, then

(01:29:08):
it created the slits. It created the lines like they
expected to see. When they turn those cameras off when
the particles were not being observed, it went back into
a diffuse scattered pattern, meaning that these particles would act
as particles when they're being looked at, but would turn

(01:29:29):
into waves of potential when they weren't. That should not
happen in a real universe because what that does is
exactly how video games work. In video games, you can't
you don't have enough processing power and any computer today

(01:29:50):
to be able to process the entire universe of some
game like take No Man's Sky for example, one of
my favorite VR games. Okay, there is something like I mean,
there's two hundred and fifty six galaxies in this game,
and they're all bigger, with more star systems than our

(01:30:12):
own Milky Way. That's in this game. If every person
on the planet played this game for a thousand years
and did nothing but play this game, and did nothing
in the game but keep exploring new star systems, after

(01:30:33):
a thousand years, they wouldn't even be close to one
percent of the game being finished. That's how big this
game is. But the game's not rendering all those galaxies
and planets at the same time. It's only rendering it
for people when they're actually in those star systems doing something.
The rest of the time, it exists in only potential.
That's how they're able to make a game that's this

(01:30:54):
big without having to actually create a processing system that
could not possibly exist. It would be beyond Star Trek technology.

Speaker 5 (01:31:05):
It has to be observed manifest in order to manifest.

Speaker 2 (01:31:09):
Why would our universe work like that? Why would it
need to read to to to work where? In other words,
let me put it in more simple terms, okay, using
the double split that I keep seeing split bugging me,
the double slit experiment. Using that, what it is basically
saying is think of a room in your house that

(01:31:31):
nobody's in right now. That room is actually not there
until you go there and use the room. That's what
it's saying. That's what this is general. This is what
it's proving. So the old adage, if of tree falls
in the wood and nobody and nobody's there to hear it,
does it make a sound the end? I mean, according

(01:31:53):
to quantum mechanics, it does not. It does not. So
that's the first that that's the that's the core of
this theory, okay, is that they found code error correcting
code in the in the equations of strength theory that
should not be there. They found that particle quantum. Quantum
particles only behave like particles when they're being looked at,

(01:32:15):
not when they're not being observed. They just are waves
of potential. They could be anything either or And then
of course, you know you have the speed limit and
then the sort of rendering effects of space and time.
So like, for example, if you didn't want your Mario
in your video game to go into a part of

(01:32:37):
the game that doesn't have any programming, well, what would
you do. You put some limitation in the program so
he can't get there, So there's a barrier there that
stops it. So for us, let's say there isn't anything
beyond the moon.

Speaker 3 (01:32:49):
Maybe there isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
Maybe it's just a screen, a projection of sorts. It
just looks like something, but there's nothing actually there. Well,
how would you stop the actual participants in the simulation
from actually going there and breaking the simulation by figuring
out there's nothing there? Well, you create distances in the
mechanics of the game that are so vast that you

(01:33:10):
don't give the character enough speed to be able to
reach them. And that's how you make it work, so
they can't break the game. Okay, and that's how No
Man Sky does it, because you can't actually you can
keep flying towards. When you're in a star system, you
can fly towards planets and you'll eventually get there and
you can land on any of them, and then there's
all sorts of interesting things to discover when you get there,

(01:33:31):
and you never know what you're going to find when
you do. But if you take that same spaceship and
fly out of the star system without using warp speed,
then you'll actually fly in definitely, and the game will
not let you get beyond that star system. You have
to use the warp system in the game to get

(01:33:52):
there to another star system, because there really isn't any
cohesive distance between the two star system just different rendering
frames of files. So it's just basically when you're when
you're warping, you're just warping from this file to this file,
and then it spawns and renders the new file, but
you're not there's not actually distance there. So in our

(01:34:14):
particular universe, it's behaving just like that. We can't get
to another galaxy or another even another star system because
it's so far away and the speed limit of light
speed prevents it from ever happening in anyone's lifetime. So

(01:34:34):
then so that's the core. Then you have the more
menacing experiential effects like glitches in reality. Now we've seen
the deja vu phenomenon in the matrix. Well, deja vu
could be sort of like a reset or an error
correction in the in the system that when it detects
an error, it resets, and then you sort of have

(01:34:55):
a moment glitch where it's like, oh, wait, this feels
like this happened before, but it didn't. It could also
be experienced as going to places that you haven't been
that seem familiar, having uncanny experiences, and all of this
is familiar. Trust. We've all had these kinds of encounters, right,
And it could be explained as what happens when the

(01:35:19):
system is self correcting. Another one that's been positive is
the Mendela effect. Now I know that some people have
tried to debunk this one and they just explained it
away as being like the errors of human memory and
everything else. And I'm going to talk about all of
the ways in which we can discount simulation theory and

(01:35:40):
how we can actually say, well, that doesn't prove anything.
We'll get to that in a minute. Then the synchronicity, right,
improbable coincidences that seem almost scripted to happen, like destiny,
like fate meeting someone you know that you couldn't possibly
statistically have been able to meet, but yet somehow brings

(01:36:00):
you together. And we call that like God brings people together, right,
or we call it a miracle, you know, but it
seems almost as if our lives are sort of scripted
according to a type of destiny. That's where the Pagans
put so much emphasis and destiny because they really literally
believed that the gods were writing their stories for them

(01:36:20):
to live, and they were just the players. They were
like actors on stage and to entertain the gods. It's
how the Pagans looked at it. Now, there's also the phenomenon,
and I know you've seen this, I know you've experienced this,
but in every good video game, you have to have NPCs, right,
and not everyone could be a player, and it would

(01:36:44):
feel like a very vacant universe in a video game
if you didn't have at least the illusion of other
people in there, even if they're not being played by anyone.
So we call these NPCs non playable characters in video games.
And you immediately know if you play a major multiplayer game,

(01:37:05):
you immediately know who's the real person, even if even
without the little stats and everything that kind of give
it away, but you can just tell who's real and
who's an NBC because NBC's follows sort of like this
pattern of behavior that you've seen a thousand times before.
But yet there's something unique about actual players because they
do more sophisticated things. And yet you know, when you

(01:37:28):
really pay attention to the people in your own life,
I guarantee you're going to find that same phenomenon. There's
gonna be people that seem to be working at your level,
and there's gonna be other people that seem that they
just go through the motions as if they're basically half there,
and they barely can answer questions. They're they're they are
lacking in self awareness, and they do everything almost in

(01:37:50):
overly scripted ways. Now you could just say, well, they're
just you know, simpletons or something, but I'm not so sure.
I'm not so sure according to this theory, maybe they're not.
Maybe they're just part of the simulation, Okay, background characters
to create a more lively environment for whatever scenarios are happening.

Speaker 3 (01:38:10):
Here.

Speaker 2 (01:38:11):
Then there's the limits of human perception. We're talking about
the five senses earlier, but you know, the five sensors
were sort of be like a cap on RX be
able to experience reality. We can't go beyond them. I
mean we can to the degree. Like his father, Chris
talked about love and certain emotional experiences. But though those
always experience largely internally, even when love between two people,

(01:38:34):
you know you still in order to share that love,
you're using the five senses to do it. Right. That's
the cardinal pleasures of sexuality and everything else. Why kiss
people right, because you're trying to use your senses to
be able to experience that other person, make it more
real than just this feeling you have inside, okay, because
somehow those five senses make realities seem more real. But

(01:38:56):
you can't go beyond them. You know, if I were
to completely you know, if you were to be not me,
but if you were to be completely blinded, if you
were deaf, kind of like Hell and Keller, but without
the ability to even smell, taste, or feel anything, what
would be your experience of reality? You just feel like
you're drifting in the abyss, right and that's assuming you

(01:39:19):
already had some experience to take into the abyss. What
if you were born without the ability to see, smell, taste, here,
or feel anything, what would your experience reality be nothing?
They have nothing to experience because there would be no
You wouldn't even know love. Love would have no meaning

(01:39:40):
to you because you haven't had the five senses to
deliver the experience that you can classify and say, now
I understand this experience. I'm having this exchange between people.
So the five senses create a limit on what the
simulation in this theory allows us to be able to experience.

(01:40:01):
Then there's the problem of consciousness. Okay, science cannot explain
how innate inanimate matter like atoms and neurons produce subjective
experiences like thoughts, emotions, and self awareness. We don't know
how they are able to do that. As far as
we know, they can't do that. They act actually more
if you talk to a neuropsychologist, and neuropsychology is one

(01:40:24):
of the fields I actually considered pursuing a doctorate in
back in the day, so I know a little bit
about how they look at this, and I mean that
was a while ago, and they might have come up
with new ideas. But back then the general consensus was
that neurons shouldn't be able to produce this even when
they're all firing together in some kind of pattern, so

(01:40:46):
you know what they behave like when you talk to them.
When you talk to these kinds of neuropsychologists that study
brain activity, they say the brain acts more like a
transmitter of data than it does as an origin point
of data, which, of course, are you know, is good
argument for spirituality because we could say that, you know,
that's the seat of the soul's brain is just basically
transmitting spiritual data to us the experience of it, but

(01:41:10):
it's not coming from the brain. In fact, we can't
understand that, like, okay, brain damage. You may say, well,
what about brain damage, what about TBI? Okay, that doesn't
that prove that that thought and feeling are coming from
the brain. No, it doesn't, because what it proves is
is that if the brain's a transmitter and you damage
that transmitter, it's not going to get a good signal anymore,

(01:41:32):
and so the behavior is going to be affected by
the fact that it's damaged. Does not mean, though, that
the seat of consciousness is actually coming from that brain. Okay,
So if we're in a simulation, then the brain might
just be the bits of data that receives the the
the inputs from something outside the simulation in order for

(01:41:55):
this avatar to be able to move through the simulation
being controlled by something that's not in the simulation.

Speaker 3 (01:42:03):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:42:05):
And if consciousness is not generated by the brain, but
rather streamed into our bodies from an external source, this
could be exactly the same as feeding data through a
video game using a joystick, where the player's not in
the game, he's interacting with the game through the mechanics
of the hardware. Then took about the nature of time

(01:42:26):
and reality itself. Okay, time feels very artificial, doesn't it.
We have a concept of linear flow. However, time slows
down or speeds up depending upon how we perceive it.
We can have dreams that feel like you've been in
the dream for weeks. I've had dreams that felt like
I went through lifetimes in them, and yet it was

(01:42:48):
one night. Or you might have taken a nap for
twenty minutes and had a dream and then suddenly you know,
it feels like you were you were you were asleep
for like like eight hours. How many times have you
gone to bed really tired, gone right into rem and
then something jars you awake at like one in the
morning and you think it's already morning. You know, time

(01:43:11):
is not constant in the state of our perception, Okay,
which would suggest that maybe the reason we perceive it differently,
like time flies when you're having fun, watch pot never boils. Right,
we hear these these old adages that do seem to
be real, But the fact is, maybe the reason that

(01:43:32):
they're that we that these things exist is that they
that time is really not there. It truly is just
a programmed experience that is modified according to whatever the
experience requires you to have. The universe is also too perfect.
Now we could explain that away as God, and I'm
fine with that as a bishop, of course, but we're
gonna be talking outside the realm of religion for a minute.

(01:43:54):
So philosophically, the universe is far too perfect. The cosmic
constrains like gravitational force, the fine structure constant are so
perfectly tuned that if one thing, one little tiny thing,
we're slightly off, life couldn't exist. Now, as Christians, we

(01:44:16):
could say that's definitely proof of God. But if you're
looking at it from a scientific or from aple, yes,
the Goldilocks principle. You know, statistically this shouldn't happen. Now,
now statticians will say, well, this is how you handle it,
This is how you handle it. You basically you basically

(01:44:39):
will Well, the universe is so large that, given the
sheer volume, that if life can't exist, then it has
to exist somewhere, and we just happen to be where
that is. And because we're able to experience it, then

(01:44:59):
we're able to At that point it feels special to us.
But we just happened to be in the one place
in this cosmos that's able to generate life. Because it's
so large, Statistically it has to happen somewhere in this
large space, and here's where it's happening. But I'm not
so sure we can use that argument. I'll tell you
why in a minute. Then there is the simulation hypothesis

(01:45:20):
that's backed up by the scientists, the stuff I already
talked about. Elon Musk, there's Nick Bostrom, there's Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I don't like necessarily these people. No, I don't like Neil.
I don't like Elon. I really don't like these guys,
but you know, you've got to give them credit that
in their respective areas they're pretty brilliant. Bostrom's argument, for example,

(01:45:42):
has said that if advanced civilizations can create virtual realities,
which we're already at the point that we can start
doing that, not to the level of this sophistication of
assuming this is virtual but still a very convincing kind
of experience that's very satisfying to be in, then statistically
we are more likely to be in side one than
outside one. Now I'll leave you to researching his argument

(01:46:04):
for why he draws that conclusion, but based upon his
understanding of math, he's saying that statistically, it's almost impossible
that we're not in one if one can at all exist,
and since we already can create rudimentary VR, it would
argue that a more sophisticated civilization could create something that's
more like this, then there's the possible of the possible

(01:46:27):
evidence and human experience like sleeping and dreaming. Is this
potentially rebooting of the system. Why do we need to sleep? Well,
you could say that you know it's restorative. We know
the actual scientific reasons why we sleep and why we
need to sleep, and what happens when we deprive ourselves
of sleep. But could it be that this is just

(01:46:49):
part of the story, and that what's happening during dreaming
and sleeping is basically reboots to the system to clean
out the cash so that it can reboot and start
start up again with a fresh install. Kind of like
how your computer, if you leave it on for I
don't know if you ever do it, but leave your
computer around for about a week, starts running badly. After
a while, you're gonna have to turn off and turn

(01:47:09):
it back on. It needs a fresh reinstall. Could sleeping
and dreaming be that for us near death experiences people
report seeing a white light, is that the loading screen?
The light flashing before their eyes is that the data
being downloaded? The feeling of being disconnected is that literally
the the waking up part of this experience of of

(01:47:32):
being able to process the data NDEs you know, could
be even moments when people briefly leave the simulation and
get pulled back in by it. It's very possible everyone
Jamie herself felt being pulled back in its Well. See,

(01:47:52):
that's the interesting thing. We got to talk about that.
We're going to talk about that, and that's why we
need two hours for this. I'm not going to talk
the whole time we're going to discuss but there's so
much here, more than we probably have time to even cover.
Then we got to get into psychedelic and mystical experiences
d MT aahuasca. I've been wanting to try this stuff.

(01:48:13):
The psilocybin, right, is psilocybin? How people see fractals in
code like patterns and intelligent entities in these experiences? Why
are they seeing geometric shapes? Why do these substances produce
an experience of reality? Is if all of reality is

(01:48:34):
breaking down into geometry and vibration, is this truly breaking
down the mechanics of the simulation? Is that what they're seeing,
because it does tend to look like a mathematical formula
when they have these vision quests. So now we got

(01:48:54):
to ask ourselves if this is a simulation. Let's pretend
for a moment it is, and we can debate that
in the next hour or you know, talk about the
flaws in this theory, but let's pretend for a moment
that it is. We need to know three primary things okay,
who built it and why? Okay? And since it kind

(01:49:19):
of sucks, I mean, let's face it, I don't think
any one of us would choose to be in this
simulation if if we, I mean, unless there's some other
reason we don't know, but I mean, you know, this
simulation creates pain. I've never felt pain when I was
playing VR. This one feels when you get hurt in
this one. It hurts, all right, and you deal with

(01:49:42):
the deficits of that pain, like you know, chopping off
an arm in this If this is a simulation and
I amputate this arm, I'm gonna have to live out
the rest of the simulation without it, and that's gonna
hurt and be very problematic for my functioning. Okay. And
it's not like I could just like build my self
another arm, you know, in the simulation. It won't give

(01:50:03):
me another arm. So why would I want to be
in a simulation that works with such hard rules like this,
which would make me want to be like, well, how
do I get out of it? So we need to
ask who built it? And why can it be hacked?
And is there an exit? Okay? And so we need

(01:50:24):
to taking those possible components into this projection of thought. Philosophically,
it leads us to now ask us, let's ask why. Okay,
So the first general idea that people give with simulation
theory is that it could be a test or learning experience,

(01:50:46):
which would fall into the whole religion motif. Christianity kind
of sees it that way, working out one salvation, you're
kind of being tested as to whether or not you're
able to, you know, work out the the imperfections within yourself.
Buddhism and Hinduism, I mean they come right out and
say the world's not real. It's just an illusion based

(01:51:09):
upon the appearances, but it's caused by our attachments, and
that once we give up those attachments, then we awake
into the real world. We kind of escape the simulation. So,
I mean they already are working at that level. They've
been doing that for twenty five hundred years, three thousand,
four thousand years. Really, if you go with Hinduism, it
might even go back as far as eight or ten

(01:51:29):
thousand years. Okay, So that's the first one. It's working
to our benefit, but we don't know why we're not
giving that information for some reason. It's a test it's
a learning experience. We're limited with what we know about
it because it would interfere with the test, kind of
like you can't cheat on your homework, right, You're not
being truly tested if you go in with cheats. So
no one's going to be like, well, here's all the answers. Well,

(01:51:51):
you're not really being tested then, So that is one argument.
It's a test and it's for our benefit. That's the
best case scenario. Not so good, we're being controlled or exploited.
That's the matrix scenario that this was created as a
battery or something, right, that's what the matrix kind of posited.
And then there's the third possibility that we have actually

(01:52:14):
the ability to break all of the rules, we just
don't realize how to do it, and occasionally we can't,
which is kind of like how I started this whole
thing off about talking about how I almost drowned but
yet somehow got pulled out of it and I almost
broke my neck but somehow floated away, and then we
had this big damaged car and I went fuf and

(01:52:36):
then it was completely perfect again. So the real question
isn't just is this a simulation, but what happens if
we escape it? What happens if we wake up from it?
Which was what Father Chris was getting at. So let
me leave you with these final thoughts, and then we'll
take our break and then we'll come back and sort
of talk about some of the implications, and then we'll

(01:52:57):
discuss Now the classic simulation theory is, you know, is
there an escape? Can we find a glitch in it?

Speaker 5 (01:53:04):
So?

Speaker 2 (01:53:05):
What about the dejav deja vous moments that feel almost
too real? Is that a clue to lead you in
some direction? If the coincidences that we see synchronicity, is
that fate destiny that sort of stacks up in a
certain way that shouldn't happen, Is that leading you towards

(01:53:26):
the escape? Is this sort of like the game helping
you to complete itself? And have you ever I've experienced
this all the time, but have you ever been been
just looking or staring or even driving where it almost
as if you skip a frame, it's like, all of
a sudden, you're looking at movement and something that's over there.

(01:53:48):
Instead of it seeing moves smoothly across your field of vision,
it's here and then it's there. This happens to me
all the time, and I think if you pay attention
to it, you might start seeing it too. It might
be that you just never noticed it before. These could
all be exploits that could potentially lead out of the simulation.

(01:54:12):
Then there's altered states of consciousness. Are these hints? Could
our dreams be actually showing us ways in which to
get out of the simulation? What about death? Does dying
in the simulation really mean that you wake up? Or
is it just the continuation of the simulation? Are you

(01:54:34):
respawn somewhere else, just like a video game where you
don't ever really die, you die, you just come back
and then you know your last save file or something,
which would, in my opinion, be some special kind of hell.
But it's a possibility in this in this particular perspective.
And then what about what if death is the way out?

(01:54:56):
And that's why we have such strong survival instincts, why
it would be very difficult to kill oneself hard to
because the program is preventing you from ending it prematurely,
doesn't want you to end it prematurely, So your program
to do everything but the very thing that could get

(01:55:17):
you out of it, not that I'm saying we should
commit suicide. But again, like I said as a warning
before we started this show, not for the faint of heart.
This subject matter because we have to philosophize the possibility
that the survival instinct is literally the program keeping you
stuck within the program. And that's why you don't ever

(01:55:39):
want to die, and why people will go out of
their way to extend their lives with all sorts of
crazy operations and medical procedures and everything, or why we
just overall have a very uncomfortable relationship with death. Why
we have an uncomfortable relationship with suicide, Why it's considered
illegal because the program doesn't want you to end it,

(01:56:03):
It wants to keep you in it. Then there's the
NPC test. This is a real tough one. What if
you're the only one that's real in it? What if
every other being is an NPC and you're the only
one that's actually real that you're playing this game a
single player and all of us, all the rest of us,

(01:56:26):
are just NPC's part of the program taking you through
like Agent Smith and in the in the in the matrix,
like only no one else can go into the matrix.
It's it's just literally you very disturbing to think about.
But sometimes when you've beat some people out there, you're like, boy,
that is Tracy and I joke all the time. We're like,
that was an NPC. You know, you walk byself, some

(01:56:48):
idiot says something stupid and you're like, that was an NPC.
Then there's the cosmic joke theory. Maybe you're already escaped,
you're already outside of it, but you don't know it yet,
you don't know it, and this is sort of the
space between waking up from the illusion and being stuck

(01:57:10):
in the illusion. All right, there's a few more theories
here I don't have We'll have to probably get to them.
Eye goats. There's so much material here, so we'll have
to talk about these when we come back. I'll try
to go through them really quick. Let's take our next
break here, and then when we come back, I'll go

(01:57:31):
through these remaining theories and then we'll start discussing some
of the implications here, which you can be kind of unsettling,
but you know, fascinating. Nonetheless, don't go.

Speaker 6 (01:57:41):
Anywhere sat.

Speaker 1 (01:58:23):
The part of parts bass parts is the south of
part Pastor has both bas the part of Paris and parts,

(01:58:45):
the Pope of the of both parts by stop Stetson

(01:59:13):
Street stood state States of Barlas, the spos boat and

(02:00:03):
both boat.

Speaker 6 (02:00:46):
When I'm with you, I am able to keep pushing
my limits and know the trap that I have. I'm
going in the distance. Really, I didn't know what.

Speaker 1 (02:01:01):
I wanted to len.

Speaker 6 (02:01:02):
I was missing.

Speaker 1 (02:01:03):
Everything that I tried.

Speaker 6 (02:01:05):
And well, I build a resistance.

Speaker 8 (02:01:08):
With you.

Speaker 6 (02:01:14):
Catch me when I'm not.

Speaker 1 (02:01:17):
Asking you on your world, You're gonna bessoess day after
locating day Tom's will spend.

Speaker 6 (02:01:33):
That's when.

Speaker 1 (02:01:38):
I need to spend like you with you.

Speaker 6 (02:02:09):
Take your time, not in the fastname.

Speaker 11 (02:02:12):
I understand that you've been broken to get any times,
but I'll.

Speaker 6 (02:02:18):
Be waiting to get Joses. You take care, you listen
to each other mistakes. I can show you the way
because I'm under say I want to say.

Speaker 7 (02:04:39):
Do.

Speaker 2 (02:05:18):
Welcome back everyone to the third and final hour of
Vestiges after dark. I hope I am being cohering tonight.
I see in the chat some questions as to where's
the libations the liturgical libation tonight. Well, I'll be honest
with you. I have been drinking more cocktails recently, and
I have been opening less new bottles of Scotch as

(02:05:40):
the result of it, So it's too hard for me
to make a cocktail and get the show ready. And
there's too much involved in the kind of cocktails I make,
So getting a cocktail ready before the show, I would
probably have it drunk by the time we go live,
and it wouldn't work. And if I waited, it would
be warm and not as good if I waited till
we go a love, So that doesn't really work. It

(02:06:02):
really only works when I'm opening a new bottle of scotch.
So I will do liturgical libations when we have something
new that we've opened. And next week I think I
have a oard big that we'll be able to indulge.
It's not Jamie's favorite Scotch, but there'll be a new
one that she hasn't tried, so we'll still do it.

(02:06:23):
It's just not going to be very regular because I'm
into cocktails right now and we're doing some really excited cocktails. Anyway,
when I come back here, more theories about simulation theory,
more theories of the implications, and then some discussion. I'll
try to get some time for some your calls. I
saw that there were a lot of calls this last
two hours, but we're not on open lines yet, so

(02:06:45):
if you're still with us, hold off until this next
hour here, I'll try to get some calls in. I

(02:07:48):
stand corrected. There is no show next week because of
the solebrity of Saint Joseph. We will be celebrating that
at seven pm Eastern next week, next Tuesday. The liturgical
celebrity always take priority over the show, so it will
be in two weeks we will do our next show
and liturgical libations, and we have a new guess every

(02:08:10):
show coming up this season, with the exception of the
of the two open lines open topics. So we really
got a really good season for you. And I'm glad
that I think I've got finally this Internet figured out.
I think I've said that so many times and it
always sends me some curveballs, but it's really the crash
of the hard drive that did that to me this time.
So anyway, let me get through this real quick, because

(02:08:32):
there's still so much material and I don't want to,
you know, miss our opportunity to discuss. So theory one
on this, okay, is that if this reality is the
primary simulation. Then dreams, visions, and altered states might feel
less real to us because they are operating at a

(02:08:52):
lower bandwidth connection, something I know a lot about. Yes
I do, I do, and I can tell it does
feel like a dream. It feels like a nightmare when
I don't get this going through. But it could be
that it's like trying to watch a four K video
on a bad Internet connection, you know, and that you're

(02:09:12):
not getting a full signal okay, yeah, buffering. So that
could explain why if dreams and visions and these spiritual
experiences seem, you know, somewhat less real or could be
very easily written off as oh, it was just dream
or something, and why we dismiss them and not take
them more seriously. Yet some people do, certain cultures do.

(02:09:36):
It could be because they are lower bendwidth connections and
that we're so tapped into this simulation that the connections
of the real world feel less real to us. So
the simulation keeps us locked into this one. Theory two
is that consciousness is firewalled all right. Like, think about

(02:09:56):
how when you have dreams or visions they slip a
almost as soon as you have them. It's like you
I can't tell you how many times I was in
very deep meditations back in my Buddhist years, and I
would have these profound moments of lucidity that almost as
soon as I came out of it, it was like
I couldn't remember everything anymore. And then it starts to

(02:10:19):
feel like it's not real. As you get back into
the the hustle and bustle of the real world. It's
almost like these dreams and visions feel like, well, they're
not as important anymore. Okay, if the world is a prison,
if this is like some kind of like controlled environment,

(02:10:39):
then these things could be scrambled to prevent you from
escaping them. Another theory, This gets really kind of dark.
I guess the outside world is so alien, so unrecognizable,
so so basically too much for us that to comprehend,

(02:11:04):
sort of like a two D stick figure figures, you know,
trying to get a glimpse of what three D is like. Okay,
that it's not possible to process it outside of the
program that helps us to understand it. Okay, it could
be an explanation that like, how can we then work

(02:11:27):
on getting a cleaner, more lucid signal and maybe that's
what mediumship is. Maybe that's what spiritual experience is. Maybe
that's what church is and what church does. Theory for
the infinite loop, there is no escape, all right. This
is also known as the nightmare theory. But if all

(02:11:47):
consciousness in here and dreams and death just loops back
into itself endlessly, just like dreams do. So you know,
you have these dreams, you have these other worldly experiences,
but then it loops right back into this one. You die,
you loop right back into this one again. That every

(02:12:07):
exits just another entrance to another version of the same thing,
kind of like Mario dies and Mario brothers. He spawns
right back, picks up right where he left off. So
it's possible that escaping this simulation just drops you into
another simulation with different rules or the same rules, so
that there is no stopping existing. You're always existing here

(02:12:30):
in the simulation. The simulation may force you to play
it with the built in failsafes that keep everyone involved.
Kind of like we were talking about before, how we
have this strong survival instinct that prevents us from maybe escaping.
If death is a way out, then it convinces you

(02:12:55):
that it isn't or makes you fearful of it, so
you don't do it. Maybe the system needs players to function,
so we can't just opt out of it, because if
too many people leave the simulation, then perhaps it stops working.
Then there's the non participation option to get out of it.

(02:13:15):
That's what if you just stopped playing it, like, refuse
to play it, will it glitch out on you? Well,
it seems to pull you always back in, doesn't it.
Let's just say you just stop playing. I refuse to
get a job, I refuse to eat, I refuse to
do anything. Well, you know, eventually survival forces you to

(02:13:37):
start having to consider those things. Eventually you get so
hungry that you'll start playing again just to get rid
of the hunger. Okay, And then the ultimate escape might
be that the exit is hidden in plain sight, but
we just can't find it, that the constructed reality is
built so cleverly around it that we can't even possibly

(02:13:58):
see what it is. Maybe religion is that escape, like
every religion seems to have some way to escape the
brokenness of this universe, Christianity included. And then there's the
possibilities of why this exists. It's a battery and where

(02:14:19):
the fuel. We've talked about that. It's a test. Nobody
knows the rules. It's a prison. You're not supposed to know.
It's a loop. You've been here before, and you will
keep being here. There's no purpose, it's just random noise.
You chose to be here, but forgot why. You broke
the law in a different existence, and this is your punishment.

(02:14:41):
You didn't do anything. You were just captured. You know,
you're a prisoner of some kind of war. You didn't know.

Speaker 3 (02:14:46):
You thought.

Speaker 2 (02:14:48):
You're here because you refuse to play by the rules before,
and this forces you to relearn how to play by
the rules. Or you created the prison yourself and now
you don't remember how to get out of it. These
are all possibilities. We can go into any of those
if you're interested in them. But I wanted to save
the majority of this hour to talk about it because

(02:15:10):
one of the things that I think as a man
of faith that is the most unsettling, and this is
true for not just the man of faith, but also
for a person who is an atheist. Okay, so let's
take two scenarios and then we'll talk about them. Scenario
one is the man of faith problem, which is my problem.
We could say that, oh, well, you know, come on,

(02:15:32):
you know, all these things can be explained away by God.
God's perfection is what makes it seem like destiny. It's
why you know, He's orchestrating everything. That's why these miracles happen.
There's no, it's not coding. It's just God's perfection makes
it look like a perfect code. And these are all
good arguments. But the only problem with simulation looking at

(02:15:53):
this from simulation theories perspective, is that how do you
know that God isn't programmed into the program? How you
know you're not programmed to believe that God is the
reason everything exists because the program has programmed you two
think that you don't You can't possibly know that the

(02:16:14):
religion that you practice isn't the program you were given
to practice. You don't know that, and all of the
experiences that you have are the program feeding the criteria
of that particular of modality into you. Then I can
also argue that what the atheists too, because the atheists

(02:16:35):
can say, well, scientific observation and all of this stuff,
the scientific method, we can prove things. No, you can't,
because all of the laws of nature that science hopes
to observe is also in the program. You can't leave
the program. You can't leave the universe and see what

(02:16:56):
the hell it is or what it's doing. That we've
already talked about the speed limits and how we can't
get far enough away from whatever this thing is, that
what we call the universe to be able to see
what it is. Therefore, the what we're left with is
that having to accept that everything we think are the
laws of nature or the laws of science are merely

(02:17:18):
the laws of the program, making you think that this
is what those reality, that this is what this reality is.
So you can't say that any scientific observation is real,
because it could just be the simulation telling you it's real,
and because you're part of the program, you have no
way to know that it's not the program.

Speaker 7 (02:17:40):
I think that's pointing towards what I think is a
I want to point out a flaw in it. But
the reason for pointing out the floor is to is
to also points out the philosophical paradox that this generates.

Speaker 2 (02:17:55):
Sure, yeah, let's do it here.

Speaker 7 (02:17:56):
So here's one of the I'm sure, I'm sure you've
got this in your notes, but one of the flaws
of going back to where you begam about how photons
behave whether they're observed or not, depends upon the understanding
that there is consciousness that can observe something. And so

(02:18:18):
if we're non playable characters in a simulation, then that
undermines the idea that we could have a consciousness that's
able to observe and therefore affect reality.

Speaker 4 (02:18:30):
But I think the.

Speaker 7 (02:18:31):
Fundamental reason that you see what happens is if you
engage in in all of the simulation theory premises. See,
I don't accept the premise, but if we accept the premise,
then all we're going to find is paradox.

Speaker 4 (02:18:45):
And the reason I believe that that's the case is.

Speaker 7 (02:18:49):
Because modernity, the postmodernity, liberalism, has shifted culture away from
faith based or you know, a theocentric approach to how
we how we view ourselves in the universe.

Speaker 4 (02:19:11):
And so in a way, what we've got is we've
got the.

Speaker 7 (02:19:15):
Post theistic equivalent, which which is to which is to
try And.

Speaker 4 (02:19:24):
Scientists can't account for the fact that we care about
things that they can't explain consciousness. None of us can.

Speaker 7 (02:19:33):
It's it's kind of you know, it's it's beyond what
we're able to currently I think forever understand. And so
what we've got really is the sort of reverse engineering
of of trying to explain why we have spirituality or
ah a notion of going from one point to another

(02:19:57):
in life, in death, beyond death, whatever it is.

Speaker 4 (02:20:00):
And it's trying to do that without theism.

Speaker 7 (02:20:05):
And that's why it keeps running into paradoxes, because every
now and again it has to. It runs into the
brick walls of a scientismist reductionism of how we think
about everything.

Speaker 4 (02:20:22):
I've not put out very well now, I think.

Speaker 2 (02:20:24):
I understand what you're saying. The thing is, I think
that works very well for the NPC theory, or even
arguing that maybe this is all just NPC, you know,
and that none of this is like none of us
are real, let alone the universe that's in. But most
simulation theory does not subscribe to that view. Most simulation

(02:20:48):
theory says that there's a real consciousness at work here,
it's just it's operating from some place outside of whatever
this reality is, and that we are just average absolutely.

Speaker 7 (02:21:02):
So yeah, that's sorry, that's helpful. So so, yeah, I
guess what I'm saying is is that in order to
provide an alternative for saying, you know, God exists, God
made everything, they've come up with a theory that I
think is even harder to believe. I guess, I guess

(02:21:22):
that's where I'm coming at, because they're trying to come
up with a theory that accounts for an origin without
explaining an origin. Because if something that if we're living
in a simulation of our own making, or or of
somebody or some alien cultures making, it still doesn't answer
the question of what's the origin of that?

Speaker 2 (02:21:42):
Well, no it doesn't, because it's the same problem that
you run into with the Matrix series. Because the Matrix
Series does present that there is a real world. Neo's
not in it when it starts, he finds, he wakes
up to it, and Morpheus helps him to get out
of it, but it doesn't ever explain what the real
world what created that?

Speaker 4 (02:22:06):
Christian Yeah, reality is in fine Heaven, so I think.

Speaker 2 (02:22:10):
Yeah, yeah, you could say that, so I would. I
want to make clear that even though I went through
very quickly, and part of it was the lack of
time to really get into any of these points with
any kind of substance. I went into a wide range
of theories about it, but the more core aspects of
simulation theory do not. Uh, it's not so much. I

(02:22:36):
know you're not. I just want to make sure it's
clear to the audience, because I think it is to you.
I just want to make sure it's clear to the
audience that it's not suggesting that the simulation theory is
not trying to replace God or disprove God, or or
or find a more acceptable answer. It's basically saying that

(02:22:57):
we found code and behavior in the quantum studies of
what we thought reality was quite consistent and different, and
it behaves like computer code, and it behaves like the
way that we render computer programs with limitations. And so

(02:23:19):
where it came from was not so much let's come
up with a godless explanation for how we got here.
It was more about, Wow, this reality is like, this
is like a this is like a computer program. So
what's that all about. That's really more of where it
started from. I want to make sure the audience.

Speaker 7 (02:23:37):
Is absolutely no, I get that, but I guess what
I'm saying is that, you know, post post First World
War in the West, it's it's been impossible for people
to There's there's been a there's been a rejection in

(02:24:02):
a set on a cultural level. I mean, I don't
mean on an individual level. There's been a rejection on
a cultural level of a sort of theocentric universe. And
so the motivation to want to explore this in the
first place, I'm not I'm not saying about the merits
of the actual theory, but the motivation to want to
generate this theory is precisely because.

Speaker 2 (02:24:25):
There's been Oh yeah, I agree with that I shift away.

Speaker 7 (02:24:28):
From a theo centric universe, but a desire still to
have understanding. So that's all I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (02:24:33):
I agree with that. Yeah, and I think you're right
there for sure. Absolutely. I guess my question as a
as obviously a theist, you know, my question would.

Speaker 4 (02:24:42):
Be I'm trying to suspend that as well.

Speaker 2 (02:24:44):
Yeah, you kind of have to, because I mean, some
of this gets you into places that I mean from
a Christian you just wouldn't even think to go. But
I I mean as a theist looking at it from
a theist perspective, my question is, why would God need
to create a reality that behaves like a rendering program?

(02:25:05):
With eric correcting code, and you know, and particles that
only become solid and real when they're observed, because that's
kind of an energy saving mechanism. It's like, if you're
talking about the unlimited power of creation, as it's taught theologically,

(02:25:29):
that limitation shouldn't be there. So it seems as though,
if God did indeed write this reality or create this reality,
is he compensating for entropy in some kind of clever way.
And that's what we're observing is that this is the
way that it behaves through entropy.

Speaker 3 (02:25:51):
And so this is a.

Speaker 2 (02:25:53):
This is a preservation mechanism built into reality that sort
of simulates the code of a computer that we would
naturally come to the conclusion to find because everything we
do is sort of a reflection of what God's doing anyway,
even when we're not trying. So why wouldn't relations look like.

Speaker 7 (02:26:14):
It's an internal paradox? There was an internal paradox way, well,
because who is it that's created computer coding? But how
do we know what computer coding looks like? Human beings
have created it?

Speaker 2 (02:26:29):
Right, and so.

Speaker 4 (02:26:35):
It so the paradox is.

Speaker 7 (02:26:39):
God creates man, Man creates something else, Man finds something
else in creation like yeah, of course.

Speaker 2 (02:26:48):
Well yeah, but they weren't exactly trying to find this.

Speaker 7 (02:26:53):
No, but that's but but that's how human beings have.
You know, human beings understand things through patterns of understanding,
and this is one of those patterns of understanding.

Speaker 4 (02:27:03):
In other words, this is a circular argument.

Speaker 2 (02:27:06):
Well, I mean yeah, because you get into the same
argument that I said. It's like, you know, you can't
argue that we can use the scientific method to disprove this,
because the program could be giving you the scientific method
as part of your programming and saying these are the
limitations that you're going to follow. So exactly that that's that,

(02:27:29):
that's the circular argument, and that that does become a
conflict in this that which means it, just like God,
becomes somewhat unprovable in any kind of scientific way. So
the best that I think we can do, which is
what they did, is well, then let's if we can
if we can reduce the universe down to a mathematical equation,

(02:27:51):
using the math that's already there to work with, what
do we see? And when they did this, when they
when they took the parallels of what we see and
converted them into mathematical equations. What they saw was the
exact same error correcting code that would be built into

(02:28:12):
a computer program by an engineer, which does actually proved
intelligent design. If you take that for face value, you'd say, well,
there's intelligent design here, but it's technological. It's not necessarily
mystical in a sense that like this all powerful deity
kind of being where it actually sort of behaves more
like an advanced civilization kind of being, you know, using technology,

(02:28:36):
or it looks it looks like technology at least, And
maybe in my argument, and how I get around that
paradox is by saying, well, and it's kind of what
you said, I think I'm just going to rephrase it slightly.
Could it be that what we see in reality is
always going to be through the lens of what we
understand in reality? So therefore, when we mimic the real world,

(02:29:00):
what is a what is a VR game other than
a imitation of the real world? Right? And so wouldn't
the imitation of the real world use by default, because
we're already so wired into it, we'd start to actually
create shadows or parallels or reflections of the way God
organized it. But instead of it being.

Speaker 7 (02:29:22):
Yeah, it's Place, right, Yeah, it is it is, because
that's what we're just that's what we're exploring is Plato's cave.

Speaker 4 (02:29:30):
I mean, so for those that don't know Place's cave,
is is a principle that.

Speaker 7 (02:29:37):
You know positive that if a man only exists in
a cave and sees instead of reality, shadows the shadow
projection of reality, then those shadows are reality to that person.
And in fact, if that person then if it's all
the actual thing that that that generated the shadow, that
cast a shadow, they think that that was not real.

(02:29:58):
That's that's that's Plato's even a nutshell, right, But.

Speaker 9 (02:30:02):
It's because real quick, I guess to answer your kind
of concern, Father, is in the webinar Bishop, you teach
in the paradoxical statement, the statement below is true, the
statement above is false. And that's kind of that that's
where my mind goes through right there.

Speaker 2 (02:30:20):
And well that because when you actually break down the
core of reality, it is a paradox. There's no way
to escape it. It's not a perfectly organized operation. Now
that you could say it's the fall that made it
that way, but yes, because I mean, take take a
piece of paper, I'm not going to put it on
the screen and risk disrupting this this perfect broadcast so far,

(02:30:45):
you know, with with with the with sharing my screen.
But put take a piece of paper and just simply
write the the sentence below is true, and then right
underneath it, right, the sentence above is false. Okay, they're
both absolutely true statements. They're both absolutely false statements. There's

(02:31:08):
just no way around that. You can't fix that. It's
an absolute paradox that just holds true, which I use
as an argument to show that you know, you can't
really ever tell anybody that they're wrong, because there's always
some reflection that's right and wrong at the same time.

(02:31:29):
You're right and wrong at the same time. We always
are same. Thing goes with the mathematics, okay, because you
can infinitely create division in a fallen universe. So let's
say I want to get from this wall to that
wall that you can't see on the other side, way
down there, okay, And so I take one step, and
then the next step I take is half of the

(02:31:51):
distance of the previous step, and then the next step
I take is half of the previous of that one,
and so on and so forth. I will keep forever,
infinitely getting closer to that wall. But I will never
assuming I can reduce my mass, assuming mass doesn't matter,
I will never get there. Tools yeah it is. I'll
never get there. So does that mean there's infinite space

(02:32:13):
between this wall and that wall? Well, it depends on
what level of reality you're looking at. So they're both
true and both false. So yes, there's finite distance there
on one perspective, infinite distance in another perspective. Just like
any argument could be absolutely true or absolutely false depending
upon the way it is contextualized. And so that's the

(02:32:35):
paradox of reality itself philosophically, I mean, philosophers have been
dealing with that forever, and that's just too. There's countless
other paradoxes that we could talk about. Those are the
best ones, though, and this is a lot of that,
So it doesn't it's not shocking that now that we
have an advanced mathematics and now we have the equipment

(02:32:56):
and the tools to be able to start to observe
quantum phenomenon, which is something that no point in history.
I mean, I was reading just the other day, like
I don't do much on social media anymore, but I
will occasionally catch something when I'm trying to do stuff
for this show, and I will, I will, I saw
a meme that that said, it showed that picture, that

(02:33:19):
really beautiful picture. It was actually my desktop for many years,
of the sun setting on Mars, and it said, we're
the first generation in the entire history of humanity to
see a sunset on another planet. I mean, that's kind
of remarkable, you know when you think about that, that

(02:33:42):
we now have the technology to be able to produce
that reality, to be able to see something like that
that no one could have conceived of before. You know,
these lights in the sky were gods to our ancient ancestors,
So I mean to think that you know that they
were just worlds like this one, or you know, worlds
that you could actually land on and see the same
kinds of things from a different perspective, would have been

(02:34:03):
outside their paradigm. But yet it is within our range now.
So now we're able to use advanced mathematics, we can
observe the quantum field, and it's revealing things that no
previous generation could have ever even conceived of, let alone
been able to comprehend, assuming it was even shared with them,

(02:34:28):
or could have been shared with them. So I think
there's a lot of that going on with simulation theory
as well, and that explains some of these paradoxes that
seem to lock us into these sort of disturbing realities
because you know, you could always I mean, it's the
same thing with the people that that argue that Jesus
was really an alien, you know, and that you know,

(02:34:49):
he came down in a spaceship, which is why he
was always ascending and descending and all this stuff, and
that these angels and all this, you know, these ships
and his egels, wheel and the wheel and all that.
You know, there's people that argue that it's really he's
just an alien, and you know, he came down to
give us information that maybe was to help us, maybe

(02:35:09):
was to control us. I mean, you know, there's all
arguments out there.

Speaker 8 (02:35:13):
You know.

Speaker 2 (02:35:14):
I don't obviously subscribe to any of those. I wouldn't
be a bishop or it wouldn't be a very good
one if I did. But philosophically, I can listen to
that and find that fascinating, and I can accept that
and say, well, wow, you know, I mean that's kind
of scary. If I didn't have so much faith. That
would be very disturbing to me, the thought that we

(02:35:34):
could be manipulated by a higher intelligence and to believe
that they are God. I mean, how easy would that
have been for us with our technology today, assuming we
could go back in time to our ancestors, with all
of this technology that I'm using to give you this show,
and I mean I'd be a god to them, any
one of us would be, you know, it would be

(02:35:55):
so easy to convince them that were God.

Speaker 5 (02:35:57):
What if AI created us?

Speaker 2 (02:36:00):
Well, I mean now you're talking, you know how we
talk about reflections of reflection.

Speaker 10 (02:36:04):
Maybe AI created us and we're a program, and maybe
there is a glitch and AI and they've invented us,
so we rediscover.

Speaker 5 (02:36:14):
How to improve the master program.

Speaker 10 (02:36:20):
Maybe maybe like like with aliens leaving their planet because
they lack resources and they need to come here. What
if AI's been around and they created us to try
and find answers to their questions.

Speaker 2 (02:36:33):
Yeah, I mean those are the need to drink. But
it does make you think. It makes you wonder what.

Speaker 5 (02:36:42):
If it's all a round robin of programs?

Speaker 2 (02:36:44):
And I mean, we don't know, you know, And that's
what I was trying to say, is that you have
this is where faith would become necessary to get out
of some of this philosophy, because there is no tangible
way otherwise to do it. Even on the basi it's just.

Speaker 7 (02:37:01):
Another form of nihilism, I think it's just into the
form of nihilism. I mean, I guess that's yeah, yeah,
And I think maybe maybe it's an attempt to escape
nihilism but actually just lead you straight back.

Speaker 2 (02:37:15):
I mean maybe it is. Maybe that's that's that's the
paradox working. We got a call here from from Christopher. Hello, Christopher,
you're on the air. Hello Christopher, Yes, hello, Hello, Yes, can.

Speaker 4 (02:37:33):
You yes, all right, it's not Christopher bat x oh.

Speaker 2 (02:37:40):
B dex Okay, yes, what's your question? It's not a question. Actually,
I am so obviously you remember me, right, Christoph Bryant, Yes,
all right, So I came here to deliver my progress.

Speaker 4 (02:37:58):
On the punts of Fort and Home, Massachusetts.

Speaker 2 (02:38:04):
Okay, Well we'll b dicks. We're talking about the the
simulation theory. Do you have a question about that tonight?
I'm so sorry. Then it's okay. We got open lines,
open topics a few episodes down the road, and we
can talk about it all you want that, but yeah,
call back in on But do you have a question

(02:38:24):
about simulation theory tonight?

Speaker 5 (02:38:30):
Pretty crazy stuff, huh.

Speaker 2 (02:38:34):
I'll just say this, It was all a lot to
take in. I'll say that for sure, isn't it?

Speaker 6 (02:38:39):
It really is?

Speaker 2 (02:38:40):
And I mean that's the big question about it, I
think is that when we're talking about the nature of
you know, how philosophy works. I think philosophy itself is
perhaps the greatest mysterious paradox that we have to contend with,
because it allows allows you to get to step far

(02:39:02):
enough outside yourself, outside of every possible paradigm, that what's
left is just observable speculation and you realize.

Speaker 7 (02:39:11):
I think, I think philosophy does give us a pointer
on this, on this kind of theory, Okay. And that's
and that's from William of Ockham Okham's razor. Yes, because
you know, Okham's raser says, you know, the simplest explanation
is usually the right one to summarize it in one sentence.

(02:39:35):
And so I think in a way that the fact
that it's so convoluted and full of paradoxes.

Speaker 2 (02:39:46):
Is what well the theory is the theory is. But
what let's apply let's apply Okham's razor to the double
slit experiment. What is the simplest explanation for why particles
would be of like solids and take form only when observed?
What would be the simplest explanation for why they would

(02:40:10):
do that? And I think, honestly, the simulation theory is
at least one of the simplest explanations in the sense
that it's like, well, it rendering it solves the biggest
problem that computer programs have, which is you don't have
a part. You don't possibly have enough memory to store
all of this content, so you store it only in

(02:40:31):
potential and render it when you need it. So why
would reality need to be rendered that way? Unless it's
not really real?

Speaker 7 (02:40:39):
Why reimpose that restriction on reality?

Speaker 4 (02:40:42):
You know that question works both ways?

Speaker 3 (02:40:44):
What do you mean?

Speaker 5 (02:40:45):
Like?

Speaker 2 (02:40:45):
What do you mean?

Speaker 7 (02:40:48):
So you know what's happening is they're looking at the
photon test and so that they're asking the question and
why you know, why is this?

Speaker 4 (02:41:01):
Why is this so? And from that one.

Speaker 7 (02:41:06):
Concept they can't explain or understand. They built They build
this entire It feels to me like it's built on sand.

Speaker 2 (02:41:18):
You know a lot.

Speaker 7 (02:41:20):
You know, to use a bad analogy, it'd be a
bit like going back before Galileo and looking at the
or looking at Galileo and the trying to confront his
realization that we had that the suns of the center
of the of the Solar System and saying, no, it's
definitely the Earth. And so I've got all these convoluted

(02:41:43):
explanations as to why the Earth has to be the
center of the Solar system.

Speaker 4 (02:41:46):
It just it feels very similar to that to me.

Speaker 2 (02:41:49):
I don't know if I see it that way, only
because it wasn't a it wasn't a pretty like. It
wasn't as though somebody said, I wonder if this is
a fake reality. Let's see if we can prove that.
Oh wait, this looks like computer code. Oh wait, this
looks like because it was.

Speaker 4 (02:42:06):
Like the photon experiment when I was doing physics in year.

Speaker 2 (02:42:09):
Eight, right, yeah, yeah, yeah, so this is not a
new definitely not new.

Speaker 7 (02:42:14):
No, But when I was doing physics in year eight,
nobody was saying simulation theories the answer.

Speaker 2 (02:42:21):
But you know why, But because we didn't have we
didn't have computer programs that that that had games that
did rendering.

Speaker 4 (02:42:29):
Yet that's right, that's right. Now, you know we connection
and so now we're looking at it through that lens.
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (02:42:35):
Well, that's true, but okay, so but take that lens out,
we still if we're going to apply the simplest explanation
to why this would be, you know, I mean, if
you would have taken this to Einstein, I mean, he
knew about spooky action at a distance, which is also
pretty bizarre. That's basically sending two photons in opposite directions

(02:42:58):
which are traveling the speed of light. So for all
intents and purposes, they're they're separating from each other at
twice the speed of light, right, because one's going one
direction at the speed of light, one's going the other
direction at the speed of light. So the distance between
them is increasing at twice the speed of light, and
yet affecting one affects the other one simultaneously. There's no

(02:43:18):
way that they could communicate at that speed. Yet it's
almost as if they the time, the distance, the speed
does not matter to them. When you're dealing with the
quantum field and it behaves differently. He knew about that.
I don't think he didn't know about this double split
slit I keep saying split double slit experiment. And so

(02:43:40):
I think Einstein would have been kind of radically shocked
by this because his understanding was largely that that matter
was sort of a constant, you know, that what constituted
our reality as far as matter goes, was that it
was is what it was. It was always what it is.

(02:44:03):
That whether or not somebody's there, or whether or not
someone's observing it, it's still there, like the table. Is
this that this entire room would still be here even
when I go on vacation and there's no one here
to look at the room, right, Yeah, But but what
we're seeing now is that these that these sub atomic
particles that make up all of this reality, because this

(02:44:26):
is all made up of quantum particles. Everything here is
made up of a quantum particle. That what it seems
is that the room isn't here when there's no one
here using it. And so what would be the simplest
explanation for why God would create the universe to behave
like that? So I think the computer game analogy came

(02:44:48):
about and said, wow, that's frighteningly similar it is, you know,
and saying that, well that that what is Yeah, what
does it do in the video game? Well, it saves
on resources. It allows you to to produce a seemingly
larger reality than it actually exists, because you can actually,
you know, move through the universe, or it looks like

(02:45:10):
you're moving through the universe, but you're really just seeing
what you need to see around you. So I guess
what I would like to know is, even outside of
all the conjecture that we talked about tonight, why is
reality behaving this way? And if God is the creator
and author of this reality, which I do believe he is,

(02:45:33):
why did he design it to work this way? Or
is it the fallen universe that's making it work this way?
Maybe he didn't design it to work this way. Maybe
this is a product of the fallen universe. It's creating shadows,
it's creating fractures, further fractures, even at the quantum level,
where reality breaks down because it's all falling into entropy.
And that's just another side of the consequence of the

(02:45:56):
fallen world, which is death. That's another type of death
where things aren't not constant realities now they're partially realized.
I mean that's a theological explanation, sure.

Speaker 7 (02:46:06):
Yeah, I mean and yeah, an eschatological explation will be
to say, well, things will degenerate to the end of time,
you know, but the end of time is not the
end of all things.

Speaker 2 (02:46:17):
Right, yeah? Yeah, So I don't know what, Jamie, what
what do you positve? What do you think is going on?

Speaker 5 (02:46:26):
Wrap my head around it.

Speaker 10 (02:46:27):
It's almost like, you know, everything's made up of vibration, right,
and the more the more intense the vibration, the more
it's focused, you get more solid objects. So you know,
currently my brain's like, well, I wonder if things naturally
drift apart until you're given attention to it or intent

(02:46:50):
to it, and it brings it back together because it's
having you know, it's being addressed somehow.

Speaker 2 (02:46:57):
I don't know, Well, could fall could the fallen universe?

Speaker 10 (02:47:00):
Actually, I think you're onto something with that. I think
it may be a result of the fallen universe and
that that that these.

Speaker 5 (02:47:08):
Because we are.

Speaker 10 (02:47:10):
Uh creating the image of God, that we have the
ability to bring reality back into focus.

Speaker 2 (02:47:20):
And it's the image of God that doesn't.

Speaker 10 (02:47:22):
Yes, and what what naturally happens is it just falls apart.
But because we are made in God's image. When we
focus on it, it comes back to I think you
just hit the nail on the head principle.

Speaker 2 (02:47:30):
I think you just hit the nail. I mean from
a from a theological from a theological argument. If you
really want to reconcile.

Speaker 5 (02:47:37):
The try the whole two hours to get this in
my head.

Speaker 2 (02:47:41):
But that was brilliant. No, you just I think you
brilliantly put it better.

Speaker 5 (02:47:44):
Than definitely because I think I think we have a
little spark, that little spark that allows us to So it's.

Speaker 2 (02:47:53):
Like the Holy Spirit within us is what holds reality
together for us so that we can get through this
existence and final way back to God. But as soon
as we become apathetic, are no longer paying attention.

Speaker 4 (02:48:08):
Yeah, I mean I think that it would point back.

Speaker 7 (02:48:12):
It would point back to Genesis. What what's the what's
the gift that God gives man is to name the animals?

Speaker 2 (02:48:21):
Right?

Speaker 7 (02:48:21):
So yeah, it's that kind of taxonomic ability. Yeah, so
it would kind of point back to that that the idea.

Speaker 2 (02:48:32):
Yeah, Brandon, what do you what do you think?

Speaker 9 (02:48:37):
I'm still wrapping my head a bunch of like slowly
but surely dods are Still they're connecting for me because
a lot of what you've been saying, you said back
in the webinar, in the first axiom, like the first unit,
like the leaving reality, kind of all of that. So

(02:48:58):
I've already had like previous exposure to it. So it's
not an alien like a foreign concept to me. But
it's still a concept that is hard to understand.

Speaker 2 (02:49:07):
I mean it, well, philosophy, good philosophy does that to you.
Boring philosophy will just make you fall asleep, but good
philosophy will make your mind spin in circles. It should,
it really should. This is how Thomas Aquinas came up
with some of his brilliant perspectives on theological matters. And
I think we just did one right now, because obviously,

(02:49:28):
the beauty of philosophy and the beauty of what we've
just done here tonight is that it shows that as
our scientific understanding improves and changes, that to rely on
the writings of something from a thousand years ago, two
thousand years or even five hundred years ago might not

(02:49:50):
always be as applicable as time moves on. Not that
I'm saying the Bible is not useful, but what I'm
trying to say is like, as you know, reading commentary philosophy,
commentary from seven hundred years ago might have been really
good and cutting edge back then, but maybe not as
relevant anymore. It shows us the history, so it's a

(02:50:11):
good history lesson, but it might not be as great
for speculation. What do you do with this? What would
Thomas Aquinas have done with the double slit experiment? I mean,
I think that would have been a very interesting thing
to have seen, but he didn't have access to that knowledge,
so there was no commentary on it. But it would
be fun to bring him into the future and ask him,
you know, And I think that's what we're doing right now.

(02:50:33):
It's like, how would he say, Well, this could be
that maybe God doesn't exist, so how do we how
do we see it from a theist point of view?

Speaker 7 (02:50:41):
Well, you know, I think I think Thomas Aquinas because
I'm quite the timistic philosopher.

Speaker 2 (02:50:50):
Sorr.

Speaker 4 (02:50:50):
I don't mean I'm able to do it. I mean
I like it, just just to clarify that.

Speaker 7 (02:50:57):
But the you know, well, he might talk about accidents
and substance when it comes to this thing, right, and
that the as the observer we may affect the accidents
and all substance of of something that we observe, right,
you know, so when we observe the host, we observe

(02:51:20):
the substance. Well, maybe when we observe the slit experiment
we observe the accidents.

Speaker 2 (02:51:26):
I don't know, it could be, but I mean that's
a really good way to look at it too.

Speaker 4 (02:51:32):
That's just to transport one piece of Thomas.

Speaker 2 (02:51:34):
I mean, we have to.

Speaker 4 (02:51:37):
It's a big book.

Speaker 2 (02:51:38):
We have to accept that from the Christian vantage point,
we are only observing the fallen world. We're not We're
not observing the perfected or the original state of the universe.
We're only looking at the fall the case, right, So
the double slit experiment is just showing us some of
the operations within the fallen world, which is all subject
to entropy. Every aspect of the falling world is subject

(02:52:02):
to entropy. So I liked what you said. I think
the idea that it is God's presence within us that
sort of holds reality together when we're there using it
because it co creators the co creators, so we can
actually use the power of God to make it consciousness aware,
self awareness, which is ultimately I mean what's more divine

(02:52:24):
than being aware of oneself? There's nothing more divine than that, right,
I mean, that is the most it does. It's truly
the only thing that in that intellectual way, you know,
it's not rudimentary instinct. It's not even just like basic
basic awards. It's fundamental awardness. It's it's it's the ability

(02:52:47):
to actually conceptualize and say that it's basically. I think
therefore I am to be able to actually make that
statement and know what it means and to know that
it applies to you is divine. That's the most obvious
aspect of the presence of God within us, I think.
And that very action is what turns these particles into
into particles instead of waves, you know. I mean, it's

(02:53:08):
the very thing that does that. So that's how I
reconcile it. And I think you said it the most brilliantly, Jamie.

Speaker 6 (02:53:17):
I mean, that was the only time.

Speaker 5 (02:53:20):
I think what it is is that it makes sense
a class as well.

Speaker 2 (02:53:27):
It just makes sense, you know, sometimes the students.

Speaker 10 (02:53:29):
Can thing's chaotic until you use a divine creative principle
to bring it back together.

Speaker 2 (02:53:35):
And that's exactly what the double slid experiment shows that
everything is chaos until saying.

Speaker 10 (02:53:39):
Here, you know the universe is expanding. Yeah, it's expanding
because it's falling further and further apart.

Speaker 2 (02:53:44):
Yes. Well, one of the things I teach you in
the class and the Forbidden Truth and everything else, is
that the universe as we understand it, entropy itself is
sort of reversed with So the only thing in this
universe that doesn't follow the law of entropy as evolution,

(02:54:07):
why would the one Why would everything be falling into
increasing states of disorder except for organic species evolving into
better states of themselves to be able to adapt to
whatever the demands of the environment require them.

Speaker 7 (02:54:27):
So, in other words, the double slit experiment positively disproves determinism.

Speaker 2 (02:54:34):
Yes, it does, absolutely, Yeah, and it just it definitely
shows that it is almost again, it's an action of
free will, right, that creates the difference.

Speaker 7 (02:54:45):
I was just about to say, therefore, maybe that's proof
of the existence of free will.

Speaker 2 (02:54:50):
So here we are. We've got this this very sort
of cold non theist theory that's floating out there. We
just like actually made it make sense by using theology.
I think that's brilliant. I didn't expect it to go
for the show. We kind of had to, you know,

(02:55:11):
to get at least to feel the cold reality of it.
But then you have to reel yourself back in and say, okay,
now what do I do with this information? You still
have to like figure that part out right, And and
that's what I was like, Yeah, well, you know that
makes sense now that you say it. You know that
we've conceived of it. And why is consciousness affecting reality

(02:55:35):
this way? Why would our consciousness be able to affect
whether something is real or not? Because essentially, what you're saying,
the difference between what the double slit shows is that
whether it's a it's a particle or a wave, is
whether it's tangibly real or whether it's just potential where
it's not real yet but it's there if it needs
to be real, and consciousness is what determines by observing it,

(02:55:59):
that's when it became real. Okay, that well, that sounds
like I.

Speaker 4 (02:56:06):
Can go back to very fundamental philosophy. I think there
might be a quitness.

Speaker 7 (02:56:12):
On you know, something's a table once we use it
as a table, because then we see it as a table.

Speaker 2 (02:56:17):
Mm hm, you know, yeah, oh, I think it's great.
Now it's great. I mean, look, we could we could
just go on for hours about this one. I knew
it would be a big one. Maybe we just need
to do an AI episode with it and ask it
these questions see what it says. Anyway, that's the end
of the show and I'm glad we finally figured it
out and worked out our internet issues. I wanted to
thank everyone out there, especially you bet X for calling in.

(02:56:38):
I apologize that it wasn't an open line show, but
we will definitely wait for your update on that open lines.
I think Brandon put it out there for you on Facebook,
so make sure you check out that show and call
in on that date and we'll be happy to take
your call and hear anything you have to say about it.
And again, thank you everyone for tuning in tonight. I

(02:56:59):
apologize for last week's mishaps, but we know we're getting
back on track. We're not here next week. Remember it's
the Salonity of Saint Joseph, so we'll be having mass
at that time. It will air on this channel on
YouTube and Facebook, so you'll be able to watch that
seven pm Eastern. But we will return in two weeks
for the next episode, Brandon, do you remember what it is? Numerology? Okay,

(02:57:24):
all right, numerology. Next in two weeks, okay, next episode,
all right, new guests everything, It's gonna be fun, gonna
be interesting. Internet stable, I love it. Anyway, I'll see
you guys all then take Karen, God bless. I'll see
out there in the ether.

Speaker 14 (02:58:48):
Conditions, condition, stables, ablest last is, the most stars is
the Mussa is thest Stands is the West Teleson is

(02:59:09):
the best US inst

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Theories of Existence: Exploring Simulation Theory with Bishop Bryan Ouellette

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Theories of Existence: Exploring Simulation Theory with Bishop Bryan Ouellette

Stuff You Should Know