The Bottom Turtle Podcast
Join quantum physicist Dr. Shannon Ray as he reimagines reality using only the concept of information. Each episode is a small part of the larger whole as the hosts build their metaphorical structure for conceptualizing reality. So join us if you're interested in seeing things from a new perspective that you won't find anywhere other than The Bottom Turtle Podcast.
The Bottom Turtle Podcast
Creating order beyond meta level zero
In this episode of the podcast, Dr. Ray presents another ramble where he discusses creating order at deeper meta levels. In the Bottom Turtle language, meta level zero is the space of the obvious. This is the space where we draw our axiomatic truths to build a model of reality that everyone can verify. The resulting model is the language of the podcast. At meta level zero, obvious truths like throwing a wine bottle glass on the ground as hard as you can will cause it to shatter cannot be denied. To deny such a truth is to completely reject the concept of truth all together. In contrast meta level one is distinguished from meta level zero by an increase in entropy/uncertainty. That is, consider meta level one as the space of social interactions. This is the first level in the conceptual space beyond the obvious mental constructions provided by our sensory faculties. At meta level one/the social level, it's far more difficult to construct consensus. It's impossible to know your own motivation for an action with certainty let alone the motivations of others. Because of this increase in entropy/uncertainty/ignorance, it is much easier to hide untruths and deceit behind fake intentions. It's also easier to deceive oneself about their own intentions and biases. At meta level one, if you don't want to see the truth, you don't have to. Instead, you can just lie to yourself and cling to your bias.
So join Dr. Ray as he explains how to create order in meta level one and beyond. He argues that this is the job of a theoretical physicist. It is to take obvious truths/observation from meta level zero and construct conceptual objects that are symmetric to the physical system thus creating a literal conceptualization of reality. He also applies this lens of to meta level one to critique wokeness and its use of spiritual violence to control people's free will through repetitional destruction and claims of harm.
Bottom Turtle Podcast YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@bottomturtlepodcast
If you enjoy the podcast, please support us by leaving a review, rating the podcast, and/or telling a friend.
Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast, and leave a review on our FaceBook page at: https://www.facebook.com/thebottomturtle/
If you have any questions or ideas you want discussed on the show, leave us an email at thebottomturtlepodcast@gmail.com
In this episode, dr Ray rambles about extending the objective truth from meta level zero to deeper meta levels. Welcome to the Bottom Turtle Podcast. Hello everybody and welcome back to the Bottom Turtle Podcast. I'm your host, dr Shannon Ray, and today's episode is another ramble.
Speaker 1:I was just editing it and I'm like do I really want to release this episode? I actually recorded it back in June and there's a reason why I haven't uploaded it. It's just another one of those examples of me revealing more of what's going on in my head to the world and feeling very self-conscious about it. So I didn't really want to release it. In fact, during that period of like I don't know six months where I didn't release anything, I probably recorded about four episodes that I was afraid to upload, and that's one of the reasons why I didn't upload for so long, because it's like and that's one of the reasons why I didn't upload for so long because it's like do I really want to put this out there? But you know, one of the things that I have to accept is that if I like listening to it and I find it compelling, then that's all I can really go off of as to whether or not people will enjoy it and find it compelling, and I have to just trust that gut instinct and put it out there and see what happens. So that's why, in the intro to the first episode of this season, which is season four, I mentioned that there would be some uh rambles sprinkled throughout the season, because I think that this topic of ethics and morals and identity and all this stuff places some context to these rambles. That might make it easier for me to upload, might make me feel more comfortable in uploading them. So you know, it is what it is. Whatever happens happens. You know F it, f it. So, with that being said, I think that this particular ramble fits well with the season, because it's all about making order at higher meta levels. So this season is the first season where I introduced the concept of meta level zero and this recording is the first time that I actually recorded the phrase meta level zero. So, so, yeah, so.
Speaker 1:So why does this fit well with the season? Well, because this season is all about ethics and the point is is that the concept of ethics is much more difficult to pin down. Obviously, this is a difficult question, like what is ethical? That's a difficult question to answer, and the reason why that is is because, as we've been presenting our ethical arguments, it's all about relationships, and so this places it in the realm of the inherently social, and the thing that distinguishes meta level zero from meta level one is an increase in entropy.
Speaker 1:You know, meta level zero is the realm of the obvious. It's the realm where it is obviously true that it will hurt if I punch you in the face. You know, it's obviously true that if you throw a wine glass on the ground as hard as you can, it's going to shatter. You know, it's obviously true that if you throw a wine glass on the ground as hard as you can, it's going to shatter. And so, for that reason, it is the realm in which it's easier to build consensus and it's harder to hide bullshit. It's harder for someone to make nonsense claims.
Speaker 1:At meta level zero, it's the space of the obvious. And so, with this podcast, we're using the space of the obvious as the space where it's like the space where we grab our axioms from the things that aren't proven, the things that are just accepted as true, and then the idea is to use logical arguments to build a shared identity or to build an identity of itself, denying the truth at deeper meta levels look just as absurd as denying the idea that if you jump off of a building and fall on your head, that you will be fine, right. So that's that's the idea. And another aspect of this season is that this season is also critiquing wokeness, right, and that's because, for me, whenever, whenever I interact with woke ideas and I try to just take them seriously, like, let me just consider the idea, let me just observe the idea, consider it and think about it it always seems as though they're presenting fallacious arguments, especially moral, because there's a lot of moralizing in it. So a lot of their moral arguments are clearly false.
Speaker 1:But they're not obviously false to people because they're at meta level one, they're at the social level, and so the whole point of this ramble is how do you create order at deeper meta levels, where those deeper meta levels are characterized by an increase in entropy, an increase of uncertainty and a decrease of the obvious? How do you create order in that space? So that's what this ramble is all about, and essentially I'm arguing. That's exactly what it is to be a theoretical physicist. This is what our job is. That's exactly what it is to be a theoretical physicist. This is what our job is. Our job is to take the truth, the physical truth at the obvious, and extend it into the conceptual space, and the linchpin on how we do that is you have to create logical structures that are symmetric to the physical phenomena that are being observed.
Speaker 1:So I hope that when you listen to this ramble, that it is convincing that this podcast and the ideas contained within provide tools for creating order at deeper meta levels, such that obvious bullcrap arguments are exposed as such and it's easier for us to build consensus. Because remember, that's the point of this podcast we want to build consensus such that we're not just fighting with each other all the time. So, with that being said, please like and subscribe to the podcast. Please leave a review if you haven't already. We are doing more video content, so we're moving more into YouTube, so I'm going to leave a link to the YouTube channel in the description of this episode. So if you can go over to YouTube and subscribe to a YouTube channel, that'd be great. We'll be releasing more content over there over time, and please share the podcast with a friend. Please give them a link to the YouTube channel as well If you want to help me in my endeavors.
Speaker 1:If you have made a personal connection with me and you think you know what I want to do, that do it a favor. I want to help him however I can. Well, you don't have to give me money, you don't have to do anything like that. All you have to do anything like that. All you have to do is like the podcast, subscribe, leave a review and share it with somebody, and I would be so grateful for your contribution in that way. So, without further ado, please enjoy this week's episode.
Speaker 1:Creating order beyond meta level. Zero peace. It's like. My perception of what's going on is not crazy, which is associated with the idea of how I've been perceiving the way these ideas have grown in power. This is really important to think about that, the way in which these ideas grow in power, because that's the crux of my problem. It's not the idea itself, but when the idea is demanding that you agree with it. Otherwise, you are a bad person and you start enforcing all these new social laws and social norms. I think that's what it is. It's almost like it's not just that these things are accusing you of something, it's that the accusations are actually being used to wield power. That's the problem. It's like the accusation is being used to enforce social norms and to inject ideas in places in which society has not agreed to do this yet.
Speaker 1:It's like it feels like it's trying to subvert the typical process for an idea to gain power, and typical process I'm referring to is the idea of if you have an idea, you're allowed to share it and try to convince people of it, but you're not allowed to, like, force them with a gun to believe it. Not in a free, fair society. They're not allowed to use a force with a gun to believe it. Not in a free, fair society. They're not allowed to use a force with a gun. And so that idea of not using force with a gun is essentially like the problem is to use the force. Like we know that it also has the additional data of well, you're physically trying to control their body to do something like capturing someone or making them a slave. Like you're using physical violence to achieve your goal.
Speaker 1:And so I think that a lot of people view that as physical violence. Like the significance is physical violence. But what if the significance is just violence? And then you have to define what violence is. So now you start thinking to yourself how can I be violent with words? What does that look like? Being violent with words does saying something like you must agree with this, otherwise I'm going to accuse you of being racist, or I'm going to accuse you of harming people and being immoral. And then I'm going to do stuff like kick you off of platforms and say that no, if someone doesn't agree with these language, it's perfectly valid to kick them off a platform for expressing a different opinion. It's. Does that sound like a way to be violent with words? You know what I mean.
Speaker 1:Like reputational violence, like we all know how reputations work. We all know how social norms work Right, and we know how these things are related. Violating social norms or social expectations Like, for instance, raping people Is typically frowned upon. Stealing from people. We know that if you gain a reputation for breaking typical social norms associated with a good citizen, then you gain a bad reputation and it affects your spirit and how you interact in the world and what you're capable of and what you have access to. So it's like, okay, well, it sounds like you're using these words to demote people's spirits and in some cases, you know, actually insist on using physical force, like in general.
Speaker 1:Can you imagine a scenario in which someone comes up to you and says you must agree, you must believe that saving all the homeless veterans is the most important thing we should be doing and I've come up with a plan to help them? Unless you agree, it's not even whether or not, whether or not you agree that they need help, or that you think or you've come up with your own way to help them. It's like you have to agree with a specific way in which I think we should help them, which is to change all language to make them feel better. So if someone comes to you with this homeless veteran thing and started accusing you of that, you'd be like what is wrong with this person? I don't agree. Like, I have other things to worry about. Like, why do they think that the thing they think is important is so important that they're able to start damaging my reputation and spirit and start creating social norms that are designed to remove me from spaces? You know what I mean.
Speaker 1:Like this seems really, really violent. But because this violence is not obvious physical violence, people pretend as though, like, like you have the freedom to choose to not see it. Like you have the freedom to. There's always a reasonable doubt. If someone caught someone on a camera shooting someone or threatening them with a gun and putting them in the back of the trunk of a car, and everyone sees it and like everyone agrees that there's nothing doctored here, and then the person's like, yeah, that's the person that did it, and then it's pretty much impossible to disagree that violence was used to control somebody, that violence was used to control somebody.
Speaker 1:But if it's more like someone is using a tactic that is designed to hurt your reputation, that lives in the subjective realm of your model of reality and so, depending on how you typically interact with the world, if you're someone who's used to deceiving themselves, you don't know how to be honest. You know what I mean. If you're someone who has a consistent pattern of not being honest with themselves, then if it is the case that there's an obvious case of social violence being used, spiritual reputational violence being used on someone, if it's like obvious that that's what's going on, you can just turn that off and pretend as though that's not the case. Well, there's a million excuses you can make. There's a million ways to defend it. There's a million ways to believe whatever you want to believe. You see what I mean.
Speaker 1:It's not as obvious as someone oh, this person was caught on video kidnapping someone with a gun. And so I call this different layers of reality meta level zero and meta level one. Meta level zero is where the obvious exists. You jump off a building that's 100 stories, fall headfirst on concrete and you're dead. Any idiot knows that. It does not take a genius to understand that. It's extremely simple, because everything can be verified.
Speaker 1:If someone does 30 backflips in a row, you don't have to question whether or not this person has done something impressive. Like oh, obviously, he just did 30 backflips in a row. You don't have to question whether or not this person has done something impressive Like oh, obviously, he just did 30 backflips in a row. Like that's not a common occurrence, that just happens every day. Think about all the conditioning, all the practice, all the skill, all the awareness, all the connection of relationship with your body. Think about all the things that have to come into play and have to be done for someone to do 30 backflips in a row. You see them do it and you go oh yeah, I couldn't do that. So you can measure how difficult you think it would be for you to do it, and then you look at them doing it and you go, oh impressive, that's the calculus. It's really simple. It does not take a genius to do this.
Speaker 1:But in meta level one, that's where all the social interactions are going on. That's where things are far more subjective, which is there's an increase in entropy from meta level zero to meta level one. There's an increase in entropy. You're going a layer deeper into reality. You're going a layer deeper into reality and in that deeper layer you have more freedom to determine what reality is. But that freedom, there's two types of freedom. There's freedom in terms of what you value and what your perception is, in which case you're going to develop a different lens than someone else who values and has a different set of perceptions, a different lens than someone else who values and has a different set of perceptions.
Speaker 1:But if you guys are both dedicated and loyal to the spirit of truth, then that choice is literally just purely a matter of perspective. Neither one of you are wrong. Like both of you have pure lenses. You have a pure relationship with the spirit. The second way to choose is to lie to yourself. It is to willfully Reject the state of reality, the causal structure, the logic, the state of reality, the causal structure, the logic, and construct a model of reality entirely based off your bias of what you want to believe. So it's very, very, very easy to avoid wanting to see the truth if you don't like it.
Speaker 1:That's what happened at meta level one. It's so obvious and it's so clear. And so at meta level one I'm saying this as an objective fact there is an increase in entropy. There is an increase in entropy, there's an increase in uncertainty. It's far more difficult to know what happened really, or to know whether or not what you think happened is actually correct. What if I am just using my bias? What if I don't have all the information? And that's exactly what entropy is. It is to not have information, it's uncertainty, it's unknowing, it's ignorance. It's it's literal ignorance. Entropy is ignorance.
Speaker 1:And so if you're going from meta level zero to meta level one, you have to put order on it. Like all that increase in entropy means that you have to put order on it. Like all that increase in entropy means that you have to place order on that structure. So you have to ask yourself how do I create order? At meta level one, logic works, and so now it's like, okay, how do I make order in meta level one? And my answer is listen to my podcast.
Speaker 1:Like, seriously, and what I'm explaining is objectively true, meaning you can't disagree with it, meaning that I'm claiming to you guys, in meta level one, I have made an objective object, an objective structure that can be used to create order. Objective object, an objective structure that can be used to create order, and then, once you have a relationship with that object, you can go down to deeper meta levels, and the bottom meta level is God. But the bottom meta level isn't another explanation, because if you're trying to find an explanation, something that can be spoken, then it's turtled all the way down. That's the problem Looking for an idea, looking for something that can be said. If you try to do that, then you'll just be going through an infinite loop down. To actually stop going down the infinite loop, you need something that's not based off of thought. You need nirvana, you need nirvana, and so what you need is a relationship with the void, the pure symmetry. But I'm getting ahead of myself. So I'm saying, ok, I'm trying to give you an object that can allow you to go down and see the void, the pure symmetry, the gauge gates.
Speaker 1:But to do that, you have to purify your land first, which is to not lie to yourself. So if you're lying to yourself and being delusional, you're not going to make it. You're not going to make it. You have to purify yourself first of lies and deceit. You have to purify yourself from the spirit of Satan, which is the spirit of lies and deceit and distortion and delusions. You got to purify yourself of that. Without that, you can't be sincere and honest. And so, given this, the first object you need is a relationship with sincerity, which is to purge yourself of Satan, which is to purify your Buddha, to get to a purified Buddha land. That's what you need.
Speaker 1:The second thing another thing you need, not even a second, just another thing you need is once you have that, then you can create logically sound structures, ie logically sound models in your head, where these logical structures are a language, and that language creates perceptions, and that perception is associated with the spirit, because your spirit depends on how you program the universe and how you program by the universe. It depends on how do you interact with reality, how do you make the universe evolve. So that's what perceptions are associated with. You need a sound logical structure, something that can read in data and write out an interpretation in a way that's perfectly logically consistent. Everything follows. There's no logical fallacies. So once you have something like that, you didn't need to feed it data. So this is where science comes in.
Speaker 1:Now that you have a logically sound structure, you can state things like I believe my keys are on the table. That is a model of reality and that can be verified. You can walk into your room and see are the keys on the table? Oh, the keys are on the table. I was able to use that to predict the future. I believe that this is so. Therefore, when I take this action this should happen the action I take is I walk into my kitchen, I look at the table. The keys are there. So what follows is I'm finished looking for my keys. Then I do the next thing after getting the keys. That's what I predict will happen if my model of reality is correct.
Speaker 1:That's the scientific process. It's really that simple. You have to have a structure that can create objective meaning, which is how language works, and then, from that, predict the future. So then, once you are able to predict the future with your model, then you say ah, this model seems to have truth because I can use it to reduce entropy. You see, I can use it to reduce entropy, to reduce uncertainty, to reduce ignorance.
Speaker 1:And if I walk into the kitchen and my keys aren't there, then I'm like where are my keys? You're still ignorant. You don't know where your keys are. It's literal ignorance. Entropy oh shoot, I still don't know. So entropy is ignorance. You have to understand that for one, that's just what it is. So whenever you hear someone trying to explain what entropy is and they're getting all scientific and stuff, it's like no guys, look, you guys all know what ignorance is right. That's what entropy is, period Done. You don't have to think about anything else. Entropy is ignorance. This is an objective fact, a literal fact. Just believe me, don't think about it, just believe me. And so entropy is ignorance. And so the point is is that when you have a model that has truth, it can predict the future, which is to reduce the uncertainty of a measurement outcome. The measurement is go, look and see. See that they're on the table. Then the experiment is done, your model was correct. So in other words, it's like having information is to reduce entropy. That's the relationship, like, if I have information, then I'm not ignorant.
Speaker 1:So recap I've defined meta level 0 and meta level 1. Meta level 0 is the realm of the obvious. It does not take a genius to understand that if you jump off a 100-story building headfirst onto concrete, you're going to die, you're going to splatter on the ground. Anyone can verify that. It's obvious. Now meta level 1 is where things are less obvious.
Speaker 1:And I made this distinction because I was talking about the world of the subjective, the world of human interactions, the world in which it's easier to lie to yourself about what you're doing and why. To lie to yourself about what actually is going on, and so that's meta level one. Why to lie to yourself about what actually is going on? And so that's meta level one. And that realm is inherently more entropic. There's more uncertainty there, there's more freedom to make up bullshit and there's more freedom to just choose what you want to pay attention to, what you're aware of, which then you know chooses what spirit's in relationship with.
Speaker 1:But then it's your choice to make sure that you purify that relationship by not lying to yourself, so that the perception you have is merely just a matter of choice. It's not that you're wrong. There is a unitary transformation between all of those. There's a unitary transformation between all purified Buddha lands, so that means all Buddhas are one. So there's a unitary transformation between all logically sound perceptions. And so the point is that these logically sound perceptions are the things you need to create order so that you can see clearly in the realm of higher entropy, higher darkness, more uncertainty, and so you have to have a logically sound structure, and then that thing has to be able to predict the future. So then you know that that model maps to this aspect of nature, and this is basically what scientific theories are. This is basically what any theory is. This is what it is to write a thesis. This is my model of reality. This is what I think is literally the relationship. This is what I think is literally the relationship. This is what I think is literally going on.
Speaker 1:And the thing is that people don't understand that, as a scientist, what are we doing? Like I'm a theoretical physicist, so what is my job? What am I doing? Literally, like someone, someone asks as a mathematician, here's what I'm doing, and I want to explain this using using an example, because I'm trying to I'm trying to use this example to explain what the word literally means. So what we do is we create models of reality. We create mathematical machines that are meant to model the nature of reality, that are meant to model the nature of reality, and so what we have to do is find the machine that has the same characteristic or the same nature as the physical system that we're trying to model. So an example that I use all the time is the idea of a pendulum Simple harmonic motion.
Speaker 1:Don't even make the pendulum swing too large, so it's like you know. Make it just a small perturbation, simple harmonic motion. You take a pendulum that's hanging straight down, it's like you know, some weight at the end of a string, unperturbed. You perturb it slightly from its rest position and then you let it go, assuming that it can only move in a two-dimensional plane. So it's not, you know, processing all over the place. It starts off at the beginning, where you displaced it. You let it go, it goes back to its rest position, it goes to the opposite side of its cycle. It stops once it gets to the opposite side, changes directions, goes back in the other direction, hanging straight down, and then goes back to the starting point. That is a cycle, and so in mathematics we model that cycle with a circle. So you have something that we use like.
Speaker 1:If you want to study trigonometry, like the basics of trigonometry, what you need to understand is something called the unit circle. That's like one of the most fundamental mathematical objects on the earth. Everyone uses the unit circle. You know where sines and cosines and tangents and all that stuff comes the unit circle. And so with the unit circle, you know you have a circle with an xy-axis in it. So you have a vertical which is the y axis, the horizontal is the x axis. And so if you go to the right of the vertical axis along the x axis until you touch the circumference of the circle, then that's usually defined as angle zero. And then the intersection between the y axis and the circumference of the circle, that's 90 degrees, and then the intersection between the y-axis and the circumference of the circle, that's 90 degrees, and then the direction on the opposite side, that's 180 degrees. Then the one going straight down is 270 degrees, and then the one coming back to zero is 360 degrees, and we all know that zero equals 360 degrees. 360 means you've come back to where you started.
Speaker 1:So within physics we have these things called phase angles, phase angles. What's a phase angle? A phase angle is telling you where something is along the phase of its cycle. And so the phase angle of the pendulum when it's being held at its starting point, its initial displacement is zero. When it's hanging straight down, when it's made a quarter of its journey, it's 90. 90 degrees. When it's on the opposite side of its journey, it's 180. When it comes back to the center, it's 270. When it comes back to its initial start, it's 360 degrees.
Speaker 1:So we have a physical object that has a cycle, and then we have this thing. Then we use this unit circle and its angles to model it, and then just think about the amount of math that just uses circles to model cycles, because the whole point is that this mathematical language, this structure, has a perfect symmetry with the observed physical phenomena. It's literally the same thing, literally. And that's what we do. And so it's literally my job to construct logically sound models of reality in the realms of quantum physics, general relativity, computational geometry, quantum statistical mechanics, quantum information theory. That's literally what I do for a living.
Speaker 1:So then you have to ask yourself what type of person would I trust to guide me down meta level one, two, three and four, someone whose literal job and training has been entirely designed to go into some of the most complicated meta spaces. I don't even know what meta level fucking theoretical physics is that? What meta level is that? 2000, like? How far down is that? I don't know. It's definitely way past meta level one. You, you see what I'm saying. It's like I have been training for over 15, 16 years I don't know how long it's been at this point Doing one thing, and that is learning math, learning physics, doing calculations, writing computer code, understanding extremely complicated conceptual spaces and creating order there.
Speaker 1:And not only do I create order by being able to comprehend the space, the language, the syntax of general relativity and differential geometry and fiber bundles, general relativity and differential geometry and fiber bundles, and not only can I go there and see, but I'm a creator there, I create art there. It's something that 99% of people who listen to this will not do, will not ever do and cannot do. Who listen to this will not do, will not ever do and cannot do. And so it's like, yeah, I feel like this guy might be a good person to listen to when trying to create order in the conceptual space. It should be obvious.
Speaker 1:So then your only questions are one of are the realms of physics and mathematics and theoretical physics and general relativity, are those real spaces, or is it all just complete nonsense that has nothing to do with reality and it's just a bunch of people sitting around jerking each other off with ideas that they're just making up at our ass that have nothing to do with reality? Is that, is that what spaces are? Because if those spaces really are the spaces in which we build satellites, send people to the moon, build airplanes, build computers, structures and all these other things, if it really is actually that space which, given the observation of technology and all that it works, then you'd have to think, oh yeah, well, obviously, meta level zero. Again. It's clearly not fake. Science isn't fake, physics isn't fake, so clearly there is a real space there.
Speaker 1:So then the only next question you have to ask yourself are well, who is this guy? If this space is real, is this guy a legit scientist? It's like well, just look at my papers. My papers are legit, elite, good papers. Like papers Like I'm not going to like I'm a good scientist. So I mean, it's very another meta level zero. You just Google me, google my work, google my papers I've published Google who I've published with Google my like citations I've had, who I've been cited by. It's very easy and I can guarantee no matter what work you pick up from mine, you're going to look at it and you'll be like, oh, this person's a scientist, it's just. And so OK, so OK. So now we're like all right.
Speaker 1:Well, questions one is science real? I think it's reasonable to say yeah, probably. Question number two is this guy a scientist? Oh, yeah, I think, given his works of art and just listening to him, that yeah, he's probably a scientist. And then the third question is but is this guy just delusional? Just because those other two things are true doesn't mean that he's some master at creating conceptual spaces and all this stuff. I mean, that doesn't necessarily follow, but it's like yeah, but if you're going to imagine a person that you thought would be able to do that, wouldn't you not be surprised if that person was a theoretical physicist and a mathematician? You know what I mean. So I'm saying this because then it's a matter of like. Hmm, maybe I should pay attention to this person who says that he thinks that he's figured out all of reality and he's explaining it with a thesis in a podcast.
Speaker 1:My podcast is a thesis of reality, which means that everything is based off of reality arguments, and the way these arguments work is that I do exactly the thing that I said I was doing in the example of the circle and the pendulum. It's like my podcast works by looking at things about reality that are at meta level zero, that you would have to be an insane person to deny, and then I simply logically follow. I create a logically sound structure and just say this must follow from this, then this must follow from this, then this must follow from that, so everything can be verified with the obvious observations at meta level zero, and then you just have to spend some effort to think about whether or not the logic works, and I know that it's not the easiest thing to understand the stuff I'm saying, but it's not the most difficult either. If you are a fairly competent person, you can understand what I'm saying. The only problem is whether or not you think that what I'm saying is worth paying attention to. That's the thing. That's the thing, and I can guarantee you that if you listen to me, you will discover things about reality that you were like oh shit, this is how it works. Yes, yes, yes, this makes sense. Oh, yes, yes, I can guarantee it. I can guarantee it. You will create order in ways that you didn't even know were possible. I can guarantee it.
Speaker 1:So the point of my podcast is that it's doing exactly the thing that I mentioned in the circle in the pendulum example, which is that I'm creating a model of reality that is literal, which is to say that it's objective, which is to say that it's real, like as real as that. I'm listening to this recording on my phone. If you're listening to it on your phone, it's as real as that. And so one of the things that I use in the podcast a lot is the idea that when I'm talking to you, I'm programming you like a computer. So when you're listening to this, I'm programming you a computer. So when you're listening to this, I'm programming you literally, programming you literally, and it's like and the way that you can verify that is, if I tell you a secret, then you can get up and walk into another room and tell someone that secret, which means that it had to be stored in your physical system, like memory on a memory card, because you were able to carry it into another room and tell someone so. So that means that when you're listening to this, I'm physically, I'm literally programming you like a computer. So the point is is that I'm creating a model between you and computer and programming. I'm using computer and programming in the conceptual space to map to something physical, at mental level zero. And then the observation that anyone can verify is that if I tell you a secret, you can walk into another room and tell someone that secret, so you? So you therefore know.
Speaker 1:Ah, yes, that is objectively true, because essentially what it is is that both humans and computers are physical subsystems of the universe that have the capacity to be put in many different configurations, and the configuration they're in depends on how they process data and which data they've been given. And so you know that, as a human, you can have something like an estimation of your degrees of freedom how many configurations can you be placed in? How intricate of a computer, how many bits do I have? And then just think about all of the states of being you could be in as a human, happy, sad, scientist, gymnast. Think about all of the different ways in which humans express themselves, and then each one of those expressions is associated with a spirit. So think about the set of all spirits that humans can embody.
Speaker 1:So, in other words, the next step is to see how, now that we've connected programming and computers, we now see that they're the relationship between your configuration and what spirit you embody, how you program the universe and how you're programmed by the universe. That's what spirit is. It has to do with how you evolve the universe, how do you create what happens when things interact with you. So now, this is why I have an episode, season three, season one, episode three, called no Mentation Without Representation, which is mentation has to do with mental state or state of being, or spiritual state, and representation has to do with the physical state, conjures that spirit state, conjures that spirit.
Speaker 1:So now I've used the ideas of programming and computers, the metaphor of the programming computers, to describe humans. And then I go from there to what spirit you are conjuring, based off your configuration, and that it's clear that different configurations are associated with different spirits, because if I believe one thing, then I act one way. If I believe another way, I act a different way. So my spirit is different, and so that belief has to be stored as memory on your system, like if you heard a piece of information that made you believe that a bomb was going to go off near you, then that's going to get stored as data in your physical system, just like the being told a secret. And then you're going to get stored as data in your physical system, just like the being told a secret, and then you're going to act differently. So every single idea and every single thought and every single state of being is a spirit, essentially, and again, so, so, so it's like so.
Speaker 1:So now we've we've mapped it to the spirit world, where I give a clear definition of what spirit is, how you program the universe, how you're programmed by the universe. Then you know we all know, meta level zero again that what you believe affects your behavior. So if you accept my definition of spirit, which is extraordinarily reasonable, then you see how this is related to spirit. And I just use that definition in context of all the other structure that he has given me. Just use that definition to see the world, use that definition to read a religious text, use that definition to try to put order on this space. Is this a good model? Space, is this a good model? And so this is how I'm building order in this conceptual space, and the thing is is that you can build order forever, but you're still going to be trapped in the conceptual space. So once you so, in other words, this order that you're building will allow you to go down different meta levels, and I think that eventually it'll help you if you want to see the void clearly, because you keep trying to go down and go down and go down and go down. You can go down the infinite regression and just look at spirits. But I think eventually, the further you go down, you'll start to see the gauge gates, you'll start to see the holes, you'll start to see the holes, you'll start to see the void, you'll start to see emptiness. So yeah, I know I went all over the place today, but the main theme of this was the ideas of meta level 0 and meta level 1. Or meta level 0 and then all the other meta levels beyond it.
Speaker 1:You have something like the meta level zero, which is the physical, hard reality, the most obvious aspect of reality that anyone can verify, and I think for a lot of people they think that that is reality, like they don't actually have any relationship with the degree to which this thing is not well defined, any relationship with the degree to which this thing is not well defined. And this is why, in the second episode of the first season, are we in a Simulation? I said the power of the question Are we in a Simulation? Is telling us the degree to which we know what reality is. And because everyone knows what a computer is and everyone has access to the concept of a computer, the idea that we might be trapped in a computer is very plausible. How do we verify that we're not? And so it's telling us something like oh, we have gone down, we have become aware so much so that we can build these computer things such that everyone can use them and that they've now become a meta level, zero object computers. And because of that, it has brought us to the question how do we know we're in a simulation or not? And we literally don't know. So this is, this is entropy. Oh, this is OK.
Speaker 1:Standing here, that the frontier of human knowledge. We have no fucking clue what the hell this stuff is and what is actually going on. What is reality? What the hell? That's the power of that idea, that's the power of it. It's like society itself has gone down all these meta levels, just in terms of our shared knowledge that humans have created. We have so much information, it's madness. And with all that information, if you come into relationship with it sincerely, it will start to reveal to you, it'll start pulling you down meta levels, whether you want to or not, because the whole point is that our society is saturated in an infinitely deep meta-level world. It's just a matter of whether or not you want to pay attention to it.
Speaker 1:And my point is that concepts like computers are so mind-bending that they can literally make you not even go like. If you really think about what they are and how they work and how they function and and what they can be used for in this a you really really stop to think about it, just quit taking shit for granted. You'll be like oh, what the hell is going on? Where are we? What is this? What is reality? What is going on?
Speaker 1:And that's the thing I hear people talk, and they talk like this meta level zero is everything, and it's just like you seem like you're just shut off, like you're not looking deeper into anything, and then, when you do go deeper, you just search for whatever makes you feel comfortable, whether it's real or not, and then just go advocating for it like you know this tribal crap. It's just like Jesus. Guys, come get our shit together. Our technology is too powerful. We can't behave like this anymore. You got to stop. It's not a luxury anymore. You can't keep acting like this. You got to stop. You got to stop. You're going to kill us all. We can't live in a world in which we have such powerful technology and have everyone living at metal level zero and then at metal level one, they're just telling themselves all these comfortable lies and delusions and bullshit. We can't do it, we're going to kill ourselves. You got to stop. Can't do it, we're going to kill ourselves. We got to stop.
Speaker 1:And so this is why one of the things about this podcast I feel so urgent that it's like look, guys, I think that I have constructed a language where everything is tied to meta level zero. So that means that if you want to get on this bandwagon, all you have to do is care enough to listen and put in some effort to understand what I'm saying. Because, guys, I am a quantum information theorist. Information theory is literally the mathematical theory of communication, and quantum computing is literally studying reality at the most foundational, from which all other things are built upon. It's like I really do believe that a lot of people here I'm a theoretical physicist and they literally do they have so little relationship with that spirit they don't even know what it means for that to be the case. And I know this sounds like me tooting my own horn, but it's just like guys, I am telling you I have figured this shit out. You need to listen. Like my goodness, and this is like I'm not like a crazy person, like you see what. I'm not like a crazy person, like you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:Like listen to my episode, season 3, the faith component, where I'm like I'm a coward. This is why I made like 30 episodes of this show in the way that I did, because I'm a freaking coward. If I come out to you guys and say I'm a quantum physicist and I know everything, I know all of reality. You guys and say I'm I'm a quantum physicist and I know everything, you'd be like I know all of reality and I blah, blah, blah. You guys think this guy's a fucking.
Speaker 1:Who is this guy? Is this terrence howard? All over again. Like what's going on here? Like that's what terrence howard did, that literally went on joe rogan and like did exactly that.
Speaker 1:So me, being a scientist, I'm like, well, if I do that, people, people are going to think I'm crazy. Clearly, therefore, I have to like, how do I prevent that from happening? Well, how about what I do? Is I just explain what the fuck I think and why and I seriously find it hard pressed for anyone to listen to my podcast and sincerely try to grasp and understand it and think this guy is just completely full of shit and has no idea what he's talking about. This guy is just as bad as Terrence Howard. There's just no way, no way in hell, because I have so many brilliant colleagues that go to prestigious universities Like how many people listening to this have been invited to Harvard and has published papers with film medalists. Like, seriously, listen to me, I'm telling you.
Speaker 1:If you care at all about what reality is and you really want to know at a deep level, just listen to me, tell your friends and have them listen too, because I'm pretty sure that the code that is my spirit, the thing that has been stored in memory in this podcast, I'm pretty sure that if people listen to it and interact with it sincerely, that they'll become more awakened and they'll stop acting like buffoons in the conceptual space, it'll increase the chances that we don't kill ourselves. It's actually like to me one of the most important things I should be doing right now, because I literally think it's the difference between my children having a future and them not having a future, which is, again, a delusion of grandeur. You think your ideas are so important that it's going to save all of humanity. It's like well, here's the thing. If it is the case that I have ideas that are so important that it might save all of humanity, then it would be really shitty for humanity if I didn't communicate them because I was too afraid of what people would think. Wouldn't it? Wouldn't that suck for you and everybody else? So you know, I have to be sincere with myself and honest. Do I literally think that's what I have? Yeah, I do. Yeah, absolutely 100%. Not even doubting, not even joking, not even whatever. Not even joking at all. Absolutely 100%.
Speaker 1:Because every single day, the data I get and the feedback I get from people who I talk to and these are not just randos, I'm talking about computer science professors at Rutgers and stuff, people with thousands of citations, theoretical fits, like all my colleagues are all PhD level category theorists. You see what I'm saying. Like it's not, like I'm just talking to random people and they're all just like it's like. I talk to really smart people and they're like, oh, it's like these. I talk to really smart people and they're like oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, this is brilliant, this makes a lot of sense. I talk to people who aren't, who don't have all that you know, who aren't in that realm, and they're all like oh, that makes a lot of sense. I never get anyone saying that this is batshit and saying crazy and makes no sense. No one's going to listen to what I say and think, oh, this is Terrence Howard all over again. Not unless they're being willfully deceitful to themselves and dishonest and have an agenda.
Speaker 1:I just honestly think I'm not a perfect communicator and I know that the podcast isn't perfect. There's going to be holes, there's going to be some things I said incorrectly, some things I could have said better for sure. But damn, I'm telling you, in terms of initial guesses and optimization algorithm and whether or not I'm close to the global minimum. I'm pretty damn close. And and if you are a mathematician or a scientist and you understand those words I just said, because you're going to be the only one who can understand them. Initial guess global minimum optimization yeah, when you're doing optimization and like optimization algorithms, it's really good to be able to find to start off near the global minimum. So you have to really have a good initial guess and I'm saying that my initial guess for the optimization problem of answering the question what is reality? It's probably closer and clearer than most people you will ever interact with.
Speaker 1:And the thing is is that I'm not unique. I said I talked to a lot of brilliant people and you think that I'm the only one who's figured this stuff out. The matter is, the question is not whether or not someone can understand it or whether or not other people have figured it out. I'm not that special. There are people way smarter than me. It's a matter of how well and how willing can they communicate it and also how capable are they of seeing the forest through the trees, how capable are they of stepping outside the forest? And then, when you start actually really thinking about this, the mind that you need to produce what I've produced and the way I've produced it.
Speaker 1:Being a coward really helps, because you are afraid that you're wrong all the time and so you spend all this extra effort making sure that you're right. When I say I'm a coward, I am not insulting myself. It's just a matter of fact. But that cowardly spirit of mine has done some work. I am not ashamed of it in any way, shape or form, but I am a coward. And but I'm also. Typically I step into the fire if I have to. I am literally the type of person who does not want to be chief. I will only do chief shit if no one else is doing it and someone has to step up and do it. I am perfectly happy following directions and doing what I'm told.
Speaker 1:Being in the position of power is not the thing that I desire more than anything. What I desire more than anything is to be youthful, to contribute. I mean, when I was younger, a lot of my motivation was also related to vanity. I want to be like Einstein and I want to be famous. You know well, okay, you're a kid. So I want to be famous is not really the most complicated thought any human has ever had that spirit of vanity.
Speaker 1:But I've always wanted to be famous for doing something real. I never wanted to be famous for no fucking reason, just to be famous just because always wanted to be famous for doing something real. I never wanted to be famous for no fucking reason, just to be famous just because I wanted to be famous, because I did something fucking valuable, something real, something that only a genius like Einstein could do. That's literally been my main motivating factor since I was like 15 years old. I literally am a child who thought to himself I want to be like Einstein and then literally just took every single action to make that a reality. The best I could, reality the best I could. And the thing is my name is Dr Ray, because I published a thesis in the field of general relativity on the energy of pure gravitational fields for extreme Kerr spacetimes, which are spacetimes that are rotating near their maximum angular momentum and the energy that I'm looking at is near the event horizon. How many people even can comprehend this is the most Einstein shit you could do, literally working in his theory, in his field, literally working as a theoretical physicist.
Speaker 1:I want to be like Einstein and the thing is I can imagine there are a lot of scientists who have had that goal and dream Ones with better credentials and are far more impressive than me.
Speaker 1:I am not the most impressive in terms of my publication record and prestige, my pedigree. I'm not going to lie, I'm not the most impressive scientist that's ever lived, but I know for a fact that I know what level I'm at. I know what level I'm at, like I said, not many people get invited to Harvard. Not many people publish papers with Fields Medalists. Not many people publish papers in journals where I get editors suggested in a PRA, which is a very reputable journal, to get featured paper in entropy. You know I was in grad school for my adiabatic isometric mapping algorithm. I won the first prize in the graduate student competition, research competition, and I know what I can accomplish and I know what I have accomplished. So, given that, I think the likelihood that I am a Terrence Howard figure is actually extraordinarily low, I think I'm the real deal, guys. And I think I'm the real deal, guys, and I think you should listen to me, alright, peace.
