The Death of Space Time Numb3rs Dont Li3
Summary
➡ Local realism, which posits that physical objects persist in space and time and interact with other objects at a speed limited to the speed of light, has been debunked. This is groundbreaking as it aligns with spiritual teachings that reality is an illusion, a concept that dates back to ancient Greece and modernized in philosophical thoughts like Descartes’ “Evil Demon” and the “Brain in the Vat” scenario. Current scientific trends, citing the work of Donald Hoffman, contend that solving the “hard problem” of consciousness will require acknowledging that space-time and physical objects are not fundamental, as influenced by quantum field theory and evolution by natural selection.
➡ The text highlights that our understanding of reality, particularly in neuroscience and spacial studies, need to change as it’s based on outdated assumptions. It emphasizes that we need to study consciousness and the brain in a way that goes beyond the physical framework of space-time as it isn’t fundamental. It also draws parallels between our senses and a computer’s UI, arguing that our senses are interfaces designed by evolution to aid us in navigating our environment and not to perceive objective truth. The author suggests a shift in perspective in attempts to understand true reality.
➡ Despite humans’ perception that objects consistently exist, the text suggests they may only exist in the moment of someone’s observation, given that humans see a fragment of reality, and there’s microscopic evidence that the universe isn’t locally real. It also poses the idea that our movements aren’t driven by brain activity but by quantum theory, suggesting reality is a hologram created by the observer, which raises questions surrounding the concept of spacetime.
➡ The primary theory involves a supercomputer existing beyond space and time that operates our reality based on a base ten (binary) template similar to the tree of life. This reality is possibly a sophisticated illusion maintained through our common usage of number system and language, which corresponds to the tree’s other foundational elements, implying reality’s complexity exceeds human comprehension, driven by other contributing factors like the number four.
Transcript
Do you regard black magic as being purely fictitious or is there some truth in it? Some truth. 100% truth. There is nothing fictitious about black magic in any way. Whatever. It is a fact. It is a fact which has existed for several thousand years. I mean, when we talk about black magic, we are talking about Satanism, necromancy, alchemy, witchcraft, the worship of Satan. Over the past three years, I’ve released a myriad of videos on different topics.
However, there is one topic that always seems to make an appearance more than others when we’re discussing this type of occult information, and that is the question of reality. More specifically, what is it? What is the real nature of reality? If you’ve been following my work, then you’ll know that I’ve touched on the idea of the holographic universe. This is something that mystics and yogis have discussed for literally thousands of years.
However, modern day science is only just catching up to these discussions, thanks to the research done in quantum theory. Now, if you are relatively familiar with the quantum world, then you will already know that the way in which subatomic particles behave quite literally throws what we’ve been told and told to believe about nature out the window. And as many of you already know, I studied philosophy in university.
I have a master’s degree in philosophy. And the nature of reality is a huge topic with a wealth of philosophical research behind it. And it’s a topic I’ve been assessed with for over a decade now. So what I want to do is use this video to flesh out some of the more modern research, specifically in quantum theory. Now, most people, typically, if you were talking to the everyday person that you see on the roads, most people believe that the idea of the world as illusory or holographic or as a mathematical matrix.
That idea is usually seen to be strictly reserved for conspiracy theorists or kooks or nuts or people that are out of touch with reality. Because as soon as you start talking about nonphysical things in a physical world, you just lose people. And that’s the programming that we’ve been given by the dogmatic Western science. However, what people truly fail to understand is that there are quite literally hundreds of well informed, grounded, logical scientists out there who wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that the world is illusory.
In this video, we’re going to discuss these ideas a little bit more and examine why modern science is finally coming around to the idea of a holographic universe. And we will assess the philosophical ramifications for space and time and find out why space and time is fundamentally doomed. This video is called the Death of Spacetime for a reason. Now, the standard physicalist picture, which has been the launch pad for the majority of research into consciousness, assumes that space and time are primarily fundamental and that the contents inside space and time, like the elementary particles in the standard model of physics, the bosons, the leptons, the quarks, for instance, are fundamental parts of reality.
And any objects that are made out of them, such as protons, neurons, and brains, are also fundamental parts of reality. Now, this standard model of the universe postulates that the world began with a big Bang, and life and consciousness developed some hundreds or millions of years after. Okay, this is the picture that we’re all told. This is what we’re told from primary school. This is the picture we are made to believe.
The big bang happened. Bang consciousness came, and life came. Sometime later on. However, this leaves one big question for the physicalists left to answer. How do physical systems such as brains, give rise to consciousness? In other words, how does an unconscious system give rise to consciousness? This is known as the hard problem of consciousness, a phrase coined by Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers in 1955. And academics all over the world have been trying to answer this for a long time, with no luck.
How can a world of unconscious systems give rise to consciousness? The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of how physical processes in the brain give rise to the subjective experience of the mind and of the world. If you look at the brain from the outside, you see this extraordinary machine, an organ consisting of 84 billion neurons that fire in synchrony with each other. When I see visual inputs come to my eyes, photons hit my eyes.
They send a signal that goes up the optic nerve to the back of my brain. It sends neural firings propagating throughout my brain, and eventually, I might produce an action. From the outside, though, I look like a complicated mechanism, a robot, this is how science might describe me from the objective point of view. But there’s also a subjective point of view. There’s what it feels like for the agent who is seeing the scene.
When I see you, I see colors. I see shapes. I have an experience from a first person point of view. There’s something it’s like to be me. And this is the conscious experience of seeing. It’s part of the inner movie of the mind. This inner movie has many, many dimensions. It has the dimension of vision. It has the dimension of sound, like a normal movie. But it also has touch and taste and smell.
It has emotions. It has thought. It has a sense of one’s body. All of this is subjective experience, and it’s one of the most familiar facts in the world that we have this subjective experience. But it’s also one of the most mysterious. Why is it that these physical processes in the brain should produce subjective experience? Why doesn’t it go on in the dark without any consciousness at all? No one right now knows the answer to this question.
So in the science and philosophy of consciousness, people use the word consciousness for many different things, and some of the things are easier to explain than other things. So sometimes I like to distinguish between the easy problems of consciousness and the hard problem. The easy problems aren’t really so easy. They’re as difficult as most problems in science. But it’s the hard problem that’s really the mystery. So sometimes we use consciousness just for the difference between being awake and being asleep.
And we say, well, how is it that a system could be awake and on its feet and responding? Maybe for this, we can have an explanation in terms of the right neural mechanism in the head that produces this behavior. Eventually, we’ll explain this. One of the easy problems how is it that the perceptual system can discriminate some information and respond to it? How is it the brain can monitor itself? Again, in principle, that’s a question about objective processing.
An explanation in terms of neurons in the brain could explain it. So for all of these, we have accepted paradigms from science, come up with some mechanism in terms of neurons that produce this behavior, then we’ve solved the problem. So those are easy problems. The hard problem, by contrast, is the problem of how it is that all these processes give rise to subjective experience. Of course, these fruitless attempts to solve the hard problem have fell short because of their presupposition regarding the primacy of space and time.
And what I mean by this is that these previous physicalist pictures have all failed to capture what really gives rise to consciousness because they’re starting from this physical system, and they give a fundamentality to space and time, okay? Which is what we need to turn away from. So it’s been hundreds of years of research, and scientists are still unable to give us any explanation as to how neuroactivity gives rise to conscious experience, such as the experience of the color red or the taste of coffee, the smell of a rose.
What makes this even more interesting is that the Nobel Prize winners last year did some absolutely fantastic work improving the predictions of quantum theory to be true. Namely, what they proved is that local realism is false. Now, if you don’t know what local realism is, let me briefly explain. There are two parts to the term the local and the realism. Now, realism is the theory that physical objects, like an electron or a proton, have definite values of their properties, such as position, momentum, spin, even when they are not observed, okay? So realism states that things exist and have their properties in physical space, and these things continue to exist irrespective of whether they’re being perceived or not.
This is realism. So the world still exists. Physical objects and their attributes still persist to exist even when somebody isn’t observing them. That’s the typical picture of realism, okay? Now, that should make perfect sense to all of you, because that is what we’re all intuitively told to believe. And that idea touches on the old question of if a tree falls in the woods, but there’s nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course, the realist response to that question would be, yes, of course, the tree makes a sound because irrespective of it being perceived, the sound waves would still be created when the tree falls.
Okay, very simple. This is realism. Now, the local part claims that those properties have influences that propagate through spacetime no faster than the speed of light, basically. So, in a nutshell, local realism makes two claims. The first, the principle of realism, which is physical objects are real and persist through space and time, irrespective of perception. Two, the principle of locality. Physical objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Okay? That is local realism. And as I’ve just stated, as of last year 2022, local realism has been proven false by the winners of the Nobel Prize. And the ramifications of such a discovery are very, very important. It’s honestly quite groundbreaking, because this research confirms what spirituality and Eastern traditions have been teaching for thousands and thousands of years. It just appears now that science is catching up, thanks to quantum theory.
Better late than never, I suppose. Now, the idea that the world is essentially an illusion is nothing new. These ideas can be traced back to ancient Greece with Platoni’s story of the cave. Rene Descartes is also famous for his scrutiny of the senses in his infamous evil demon argument, which I’ll now flesh out a little bit. And at a later stage, I’m going to have my partner come on this channel and explain the relevance of Plato’s cave, as she is a lot deeper into the Platonic studies than I am.
Therefore, I think she could articulate it a lot better. So in this video, I’m just going to discuss some of the research that Descartes did. Now, the anchoring thought behind Descartes skepticism was the fallibility of the senses, which Descartes investigated for a systematic critique of doubt. Ultimately, he concluded that our sense organs can be falsified either through hallucinations or some dream like experience. And to say they can be falsified is to say that our senses can be deceived by hallucinations or dreams to the point where they are incapable of distinguishing between the two.
This is why we believe dreams are real when we’re in them. And this is why our bodies react like they’re real when we’re in them, because our senses take them to be so. And the same can be said about hallucinations. Even simple examples such as refraction, whereby we see a stick appear bent when it’s placed in water, are examples that prove that our senses can be falsified. Building on this epistemological assumption, descartes postulated the evil demon hypothesis, which is an epistemological concept proposing the question, what if an infinitely powerful being deliberately misleads you about your sensory experience, for example, by feeding you experiences which are entirely simulated.
Sounds pretty familiar, right? Reminds me of the whole black cube theory in which Saturn would, of course, take the role of the deceiver. Now, the argument proposed by Descartes was named Cartesian Skepticism, and it provided a launch pad for many academics who wanted to question the nature of reality by way of the fallibility of the senses. Now, there was also more of a modernized version of Descartes’evil demon, and that is known as the brain in the VAT.
Now, in philosophy, the brain in the VAT is a scenario used in a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of human conceptions of knowledge, reality, truth and consciousness. It was originated first by Gilbert Herman in 1932 in his work The Affair of the Brains and then reimagined by Hilary Putnam in 1981 in his work Reason, Truth, and History. Almost 50 years later, Putnam turned the scenario into a modernized version of Descartes evil demon thought experiment, following many science fiction stories at the time.
The scenario that Putnam painted involved a mad scientist and that he might remove a person’s brain from their body, suspend it in a vow of life sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer that would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those a brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating reality, and the disembodied brain would continue to have a perfectly normal, conscious experience, such as those of a person with an embodied brain, without these being related to the objects or events in the real world.
Now, this is quite literally the story of The Matrix, the idea of the disembodied brain being used and harvested and manipulated through electrical impulses in some kind of life sustaining liquid. That’s the Matrix we all saw, the life sustaining liquid that Neo was held in as a battery after he jacked out. And so this is a very, very similar scenario. And many philosophers actually think that Putnam’s brain in a VAT actually served as the building blocks for the Matrix story.
So the evil demon argument becomes the brain in a VAT argument after it was updated by Putnam, which essentially postulates that a given person is a disembodied brain living in a VAT of nutrients. The nerve endings of the brain are connected to a supercomputer whose program sends electric impulses that stimulate the brain in the same way that actual brains are stimulated when perceiving external objects. So this is what Cartesian Skepticism, the evil demon argument, eventually evolved into the brain in the VAT argument, which also served as the building blocks for, like I said, the Matrix movie.
Now, if we circle back to modern times, we have the work of Donald Hoffman, who is a cognitive psychologist presenting a very convincing argument for the illusory state of reality. Hoffman’s research is also geared towards solving the hard problem of consciousness, namely, again, how static physical world gives rise to consciousness. What Hoffman and many other academics have discovered is that, as previously mentioned, solving the hard problem is never going to be achieved until we realize the primacy of consciousness.
And I’m going to play a few clips of Hoffman now so you can sort of try to understand what he’s talking about, and it will also flesh out what I’ve been talking about in this video a little bit more. Theory of evolution tells us that space and time are not fundamental. They’re more like a headset, a virtual reality headset that lets us play the game of life. You.
So how does one go about solving the hard problem of consciousness? Well, so most of my good friends and colleagues who are studying the hard problem consciousness are physicalists. They assume that space and time are fundamental and that objects inside space and time, like the elementary particles of the standard model of physics, the Bosons, Leptons, and Quarks, for example, are fundamental parts of reality. And then any objects that are made out of them are part of reality as well.
So protons, neutrons, and neurons and brains. So they start with spacetime and physical objects in spacetime as the fundamental reality and assume that life and consciousness are late comers, that the universe began in the Big Bang. There was no life, there was no consciousness, and it took millions, billions of years for life to emerge. And then who knows how much longer after that for consciousness to emerge. That’s the standard story.
And so for them, the question is, how do physical systems such as brains or maybe artificial intelligences give rise to consciousness? And my attitude is that whole framework is missing the results of our best scientific theories, namely evolution by natural selection on the one hand and also quantum field theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity, both of which tell us that space time is doomed. That space time has been assumed to be fundamental for centuries of space and time.
And then spacetime more recently has been assumed to be fundamental. And it’s been a wonderful framework, but our best theories tell us it’s over, that framework is not fundamental, and we need to find some new, mathematically precise, more fundamental ideas outside of space time. So space time is doomed. That’s what physicists like Nima Arkani Hamed and David Gross are saying about space time. So these are the experts who are studying space time, and they’re the ones that are pronouncing its death and therefore the death of objects inside space time.
And the work that I’ve been doing just agrees. It says that evolution of a natural selection agrees with the physicist that space time, even though it’s tacitly assumed in the way that Darwin even thought about evolution. When you look at the mathematics of evolutionary theory, it agrees that that tacit assumption is false and that the theory of evolution tells us that space and time are not fundamental. They’re more like a headset, a virtual reality headset that lets us play the game of life.
So when evolution of a natural selection and quantum field theory with Einstein’s gravity both tell us that space and time and objects in space and time are not fundamental, then my attitude is we should go with the best science. And that means that a theory of consciousness which tries to boot up consciousness from physical systems is doomed to fail. It’s doomed to fail because our best science tells us that spacetime itself is doomed.
So we cannot hope. It would be, for example, like someone trying to build a space program on the assumption that the Earth is flat. Well, as soon as you find out the Earth is not flat, you need new assumptions to build your space program. That’s just not the way you want to go. My colleagues and friends who are working on this, it was a wonderful assumption. It was reasonable to start with neurons, for example, or artificial intelligence circuits and so forth, before we discovered that space time is not fundamental.
Now that we know space time is not fundamental, we’re wasting our time. Well, it’s not a complete waste of time because you’ll learn a lot, even know, starting off with mistaken foundation. But ultimately, you won’t succeed. You will not be able to start with flat Earth or space and time and boot up a theory of consciousness. So my attitude is we need to rethink from the ground up.
Of course, I’m all for neuroscience. I’m a cognitive neuroscientist myself. So I’m not saying that brains are irrelevant. We need to study neural activity, and we need to study artificial intelligences, but we have to study them in a very, very different way. Evolution tells us that what we’re seeing is just an interface. It’s there to guide adaptive behavior, period, not to tell us the truth. So when we look inside brains and we see neurons and neural circuits, we’re seeing something that’s very important for us to understand.
But it’s just an interface. It’s an interface description. It’s not the truth. So neuroscience is going to be far more difficult than we thought. We’re going to need more money for neuroscience because we look through microscopes and we see neurons and synapses and so forth and networks, and we thought that’s all we had to deal with. No, that’s just the surface of what we have to deal with.
The reality behind that is also something we’re going to have to deal with. We’ll have to reverse engineer neurons and neural networks and so forth. So the short answer is I don’t think we can start with any objects inside space and time and boot up consciousness, although the only clues we have are inside space and time. So we have to study, for example, cognitive neuroscience, but we have to reverse engineer it and find structures beyond space and time that would allow us to boot up a theory of consciousness.
So you can see the game just got a lot harder and far more interesting. So long answer to your question difference between reality and fundamentality. Well, so I think the physicists would say that, for example, spacetime is not fundamental because it has no operational meaning below what’s called the Planck scale Ten to the -33 that means that it’s not for a scientist is not a deep enough framework for us to build our theories on.
That by itself would preclude it being a fundamental reality. Right. So we’re of course in the hunt for reality in some sense in science, but each scientific theory can only make certain assumptions. It has to start with certain assumptions and then try to explain what it can based on those assumptions. So the assumption that space and time and objects in space and time is fundamental turns out not to be a good set of assumptions and therefore not a candidate for the objective reality.
Now it could be reality quote unquote in some lesser sense in the sense that it could be we have a real experiential perception of space and time and a real experiential perception of objects in space and time. So they could be real as our particular experiences as our particular interface but they’re not real in a more fundamental sense as being so I’ll use the word real in two different senses and I think that it’s important to distinguish them.
One sense of real is something is real if it exists and has all of its properties even if it’s never observed. So something is real in that I’ll call that an objective sense if it exists with its properties even when it’s not observed. And so spacetime is not objective in that sense. We thought it was but it’s not. But there’s another sense of real and that is I might say look I’ve got a headache and that headache only exists because I perceive it.
It wouldn’t exist if I didn’t perceive it. But if you want to tell me it’s not real I would be very cross with you because it’s a painful headache. So you can see there’s another sense of real where you’d say something is real if it’s a real experience even if that experience only exists as long as it’s being experienced by someone. So there’s two senses of real real in the objective sense and real in this subjective sense.
And of course scientists have been trying to find a reality in an objective sense and so spacetime is not objective reality and evolution suggests that it’s just a subjective experience and not objective reality. Okay? So I hope those clips helped a little bit. I’ll put the links to the full videos in the description if you’re interested in watching them I highly highly advise you do if you’re interested in this type of material.
So according to Hoffman’s work and according to the research done in evolutionary game theory, it appears that our senses have not, in fact, been shaped by natural have not, in fact, been shaped by natural selection to see truths about objective reality. Our senses have, in fact, been conditioned to hide the truth about objective reality. Essentially, what Hoffman argues, and the sentiment that I agree with, is that evolution gave us our senses as almost a virtual reality headset in order to navigate and control reality to the extent that we need to, however, whilst at the same time it also occults and hides the true nature of reality.
So whilst we’re doing this and operating in this world that we think we’ve got total control over and that we think we’ve got total exposure to, we’re actually unaware and ignorant of its true real nature because of the limited factors of our sensory apparatus. Let me explain this with an example that I’ve heard Hoffman use, and it’s a great example. Our senses operate more or less as a UI or a user interface.
Now imagine you’re looking at your computer. You’re on your desktop. You see an email shortcut in the corner, and you know if you click that square, you can write an email and send it. Just because you clicked on this icon to write your email, does it mean that your actual email is in, that workspace that you saw on your desktop? Is your actual email contained anywhere there within that desktop icon? No.
Does your actual email exist anywhere on the desktop of your computer? No, it doesn’t. And anybody who believes that the actual email exists inside the computer has misunderstood the desktop interface because it’s not actually there to resemble the truth in any way. It’s there to hide it. Okay, and what is meant by this? Well, what is a computer? Its most fundamental true reality. It’s thousands of diodes circuits, electromagnetic fields, and voltages.
That is the true reality of a computer. Now imagine you had to interact with this computer by way of its true nature. If you had to do it like this and go through the actual process of using the electrical circuits and the voltages and the toggles to create your email, nobody would ever do it. Trust me. No emails would ever get sent. So the desktop computer allows you to interact with the reality of the computer, but also while staying completely ignorant of its true nature, which is of course, all of the diodes and electrical components extend this metaphor to the senses.
Our senses are a UI, and they allow us to interact and control reality to the extent that we need to, whilst at the same time being totally unaware of its true nature. This is what is happening. We are ignorant of the reality that we are interacting with, and this is what evolution has done to us. This is the way evolution has developed our senses. Evolution has developed our senses into a literal virtual reality headset.
It’s a UI. It’s a user interface. Now, Hoffman gives another great example. Okay, imagine you’re playing a multiplayer VR game, say, for instance, GTA, he says, and you’re playing with somebody halfway across the world. In India, if you both have the same VR headset on, you can look over in one direction and say, look, I see a know. Your friend in India who also has this same headset on, will look over and be like, ah, I also see red Ferrari.
They’re both existing in the same holographic VR world. If they both turn to the same point, they can both see a red Ferrari. But of course, the red Ferrari only exists when I render it or when I look at it. It makes the pixels appear in my headset, which gives me the image of a red Ferrari. But is that red Ferrari actually in the VR headset? Does it exist in the supercomputer that’s governing the VR headset? No, of course it doesn’t.
There is no red Ferrari. The red Ferrari is rendered on the fly as you perceive it in this VR world. Now, you may turn around and know, I can’t see the red Ferrari anymore. You’ve turned away. The red Ferrari is no longer in your field of perception. However, your friend in India who’s still got the VR headset on, she can still see her red Ferrari because they’re looking at know they’re still rendering their image through observation in their consciousness, through their headset, right? So I can turn away.
I won’t see the Ferrari. My friend in India who still has the headset on, if she carries on looking at it, she’s still rendering her own version of the Ferrari. Okay? You follow me? So we have the feeling that the Ferrari is always there, but in actual fact, that Ferrari doesn’t exist anywhere except in the moment of somebody’s perception. It should also be noted that human beings are capable of seeing zero point 35% of the electromagnet spectrum.
That’s comically small. We basically see the most minute fragment of reality. Following this logic, what is the likelihood that any of that zero point 35% of reality that we do see contains any truth about the objective state of the world? It’s infinitely small. It’s basically 0%. I have no faith that the little, little ray that our eyes can see, that little small band of light, I have no faith that that contains any truth about objective reality in it.
Absolutely none. Now, these examples I was just discussing about the UI and the headset and the VR. These examples speak to what we discuss concerning local realism being proved as false. So when we ask if a tree falling in the woods makes a sound, if nobody’s there to hear it, we’re asking a mute question, because if nobody’s there to perceive the tree falling, then the tree doesn’t even exist, right? So let’s just recap for a quick second.
Before I move on to the last little segment of this video. So the idea of the world as an illusion or a hologram has been discussed for centuries by cultures all over the world. Whether it be the Greeks and Plato’s, the Hindus, Maya or the modern day skeptic fueled by Cartesian method of systematic doubt there is a worldwide consensus that we may, in fact be in some kind of virtual reality.
Or at the very least, we’re not seeing the entirety of reality, only a small percentage. Now, thanks to the brilliant minds who work in the field of quantum theory and neuroscience, we’re now at a turning point in time where we have solid proof that the world is essentially an illusion. From Jung’s experiments which showed us how particles behave as either waves or particles depending on whether or not they’re being observed.
To the modern day work of Klauser, Aspect and Zellinger, who proved that the universe is not locally real. Of course, there are many other experiments that have been conducted throughout the time period that have helped us reach the point we’re at now. These, in my opinion, are the two most important, along with the work of Donald Hoffman and his evolutionary game theory. Thanks to all of this information and thanks to the work done in quantum theory, we can no longer rely on the notion that our brain and the many components that it’s made up of is responsible for what we call consciousness.
Honestly, if we’re going to get really specific about it and down to the nitty gritty, we can’t even claim that the brain is responsible for any of our everyday bodily movements. And what I mean by this is that when I move my arm and pick up the cup on the table, for example, the standard model of physics tells us that there are certain electrical impulses that are fired in my brain in a particular sequence which result in neurons firing in my hand, picking up the cup.
According to quantum theory, that is wrong. If reality is rendered on the fly as we make measurements through observation to collapse the wave function, then following this logic, me picking up the cup from the table has absolutely nothing to do with anything in my brain. In fact, at that very moment when I do pick up the cup, my brain does not exist and will cease to exist until it is observed.
The same can be said for neurons. How can neurons be responsible for my actions when neurons are only observable under a microscope and therefore only exist under a microscope? Remember, reality is rendered on the fly through observation. If there is no brain currently being observed, then there is no brain. Now, I know this idea seems utterly counterintuitive to most, but it’s what the best modern science is telling us.
Reality is a hologram created by the observer. So now I hope you understand the sentiment that spacetime is doomed. I hope you have a bit more of a grounded understanding of that because spacetime really is doomed. There is no space left in science for theories that are trying to solve the hard problem to carry on sort of working under this paradigm because it’s an incorrect paradigm that’s just going to lead us to false results.
And many of the theories that have been presented by physicists require you to grant them a certain set of presuppositions which we’re actually trying to question here. So most physicists will say, if you just ignore X, Y, and B, I can give you the best theory that you could ask for that will explain this, this, and this. But that stuff there, like the consciousness bit, don’t ask us about that.
We’ve got no idea. Just ignore that bit. Put that in a box. That’s what’s been happening. And the result of that is no research which has any real answer to how anything in our brain can be responsible for conscious experiences. Any theory of consciousness that holds space time as fundamental is wrong and will continue to be wrong until the end of time. So where does that leave us? Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom has his own version of simulation theory, and it states that some future society could become so technologically advanced that its inhabitants learn how to generate complex artificial worlds using powerful computers.
If this is possible, then the possibility that we’re living inside a matrix star computer simulation is highly probable. That’s Bostrom’s argument. Now, the issue with this argument is that at its heart, it’s still constrained by the assumptions of space and time and considering them as fundamental. This is because in this version, in Nick Bostrom’s version of simulation theory, it assumes that, again, a physical system, such as a computer which has been programmed, will give rise to consciousness.
And as we’ve already discussed, it will not happen. An unconscious computer cannot give rise to consciousness. There is no scientific research method that has proven that, no theory whatsoever that shows us how that could be. So if we’re talking about a supercomputer that is responsible for the simulation, then it must be a computer that’s located outside of the headset, outside of our senses. It cannot be constrained by space and time because, again, we’re just falling into the same trap that science has done for the last hundred or so years.
So I don’t believe Nick Bostrom’s version of simulation theory is actually correct because, again, it’s assuming the primacy of space and time. Now, bearing in mind that I am at my core and occultist, I obviously have my own opinions that have been formed from the findings of quantum mechanics, and I’ve touched on some of these in different videos. But what I want to spend the last few minutes discussing with you is the possibility that the machine or entity responsible for this illusion, the supercomputer, if you want to call it that, is in fact, located in the Astral realms.
And what I mean when I say this is it’s located outside a three dimensional space, okay? Outside of the headset, outside of the senses. That’s what I mean when I talk about the astral plane. That is what the astral plane is. The astral plane is outside of the headset, outside of the senses. Now, in my humble opinion, I personally think that the Astral plane has been hijacked and assimilated into a fully technologically based realm that uses artificial intelligence to read the collective race consciousness and then fuse it with an AI hive mind that generates many artificial dreamscapes that program virtual environments for the phantom matrix or for the illusion.
And that AI hive mind that generates these artificial dreamscapes or what we would call waking life, does it from a foundational template of third density life, which I believe looks like this. The sephirotic tree, I believe, is the audio, spectral and geometric template of universal existence. This artificial core manifestation template is built on base ten maths, which is where they get the ten sephiroths on the tree, okay? The ten energy bodies.
This is base ten maths. This image here of this tree is a two dimensional schematic of a ten dimensional reality. And what is ten one and zero? It’s binary code, okay? Binary code represents text and computer processor instructions or any other data using a two symbol system. The two symbols used are often zero and one or one and zero from the binary number system. Now, this binary code assigns a pattern of binary digits, also known as bits, to each character an instruction, okay? And the most important thing to remember here is that binary code is how you give a computer instructions.
So here is my fault, okay? The entity or the supercomputer, or whatever you want to call it that’s responsible for our phantom matrix, for our illusion, for our Maya, is located somewhere outside of space and time, somewhere outside of the headset, and it’s working off an inverted base ten foundational template which looks like the tree of life. This is the template, I believe, that this AI supercomputer is working from.
And it’s base ten because binary code is one and zero. We know binary gives a computer information. Do you understand where I’m coming from here? If there is a supercomputer maintaining this system somewhere, the information that’s going in and out the input and output is binary. Binary is ten. That’s why there are ten separate on this tree, because this is a somatic of the illusion, I believe. Anyway, I’ve told you before as well that the tree of life, this base ten diagram represents spirits, descent into matter, or Malcolm.
So what if this tree actually is the somatic of some supercomputer controlled by AI. I mean, it does look like a neural net, doesn’t it? And what we’re left with is a false reality being governed by an astral AI working from a base ten schematic through binary coding. And whilst we are constantly out here quantifying things in this place with the numbers one through ten in our everyday life, we’re helping to maintain and reinforce this dual state of illusion and this dual state existence that we’re all in.
Remember, I told you in previous videos that words create worlds. And given that modern science and along with hundreds of other mystics over the years have shown that the world we live in is actually holographic, then it begs the question, what role does language play in all of this? And remember, there’s 22 paths on this tree which just so happen to correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
Wouldn’t it make perfect sense then, that given that the paths on the tree represent the letters, then the very letters that we’re using to create words are also being used to maintain and reinforce this simulation through a constant flow of information and energy that we’re helping to program this schematic with? Because the language that we’re using is actually part of this internal core structure. I hope that makes sense.
And I’m going to leave it there and I’m going to end this video. And I’ve tried to explain this as clearly as I can, but the next part requires me to go in a little bit deeper. So that’s why I’m going to cut it off here because I don’t want to throw too many confusing concepts at you. And I’m usually quite good at breaking down confusing concepts for people, but sometimes the ideas I’m dealing with are just so out of the box, ironically, and so advanced and so complex by their nature, that the discussions on them are also going to be complex.
So if this last little bit confused you, I will try to break it down better in part two. But some stuff just can’t be dumbed down because it is too complex. The reality that we live in is more complex than you can ever imagine. Our senses can’t comprehend the complexities of what’s going on behind the veil or outside of the headset. So the next video I’m going to try and explain how reality actually manifests for a base ten tree of Life and the relevance of the cube and the number four.
Okay? Because the number four is the foundation of the material world, hence the four cardinal points north, south, east, west. Four elements and the four realms on the Tree of Life. It should also be noted that one plus two plus three plus four equals ten. Okay? So four and ten are connected. Ten or ten is also net, backwards net like plan net or planned net. What are nets used for? To catch things.
I’m starting to think we’ve all been caught in one big astral net and it looks a little something like this, but we’ll get further into this in the next video. Take care of yourself. .
