Here here
Here here squared 
1 Like
Yeah got ahead of myself there. Thanks for the correction. Or Hell, maybe we donāt know that there are other universes beyond the edges of nothingness. Huh, think about that one? This is me designing a dream.
Sure, but you canāt see them with the JWST. If theyāre just āout thereā but far away, then theyāre still in the same universe. And youād need more than a telescope to see into parallel universes 
1 Like
You see, the problem here is your just making sense.
1 Like
this thread got me remembering the episode of Rick n Morty where Rick creates a mini universe to power his ship. then that universe advances to the point it can create its own mini universe to make power.
the moment they all realise theyre no more than essentially a battery, and their existence has no further meaning š„²
we could easily be in a similar situation
I think the main problem with the world is that we think we have meaning and that I, myself have importance. But we are all just apart of the ebb and flow of birth and death we are all equally unimportant.
My wife works as a nurse in elderly care and she comes home at times and just blurts out that she was late because someone died. And the first time I heard her saying that someone had died while she was doing her shift, I was taken a back at how casually she said it.
But it has made me realize over time that when I die (hopefully of old age) it will just be another day for the nurse who helped me transition. Itās the end of the world for me, but for that person it is just another day at the job. And the rest of the world didnāt even register my existence.
Oddly enough I find solace in that. It feels like Iām being unburdened by the fact that my unimportance lets me live and appreciate life to the fullest and to love without hindrance.
Edit: it has also helped me to achieve Ego Death. Now the ego likes to rise from the dead so itās a constant battle, but still.
I think episode 8 of The Midnight Gospel encapsulates this perfectly, it is probably one of my favorite episodes of any show ever. I cry every time I watch it. Duncan Trussel is just a genuine person and his mom was as well.
10 Likes
In that talk I noted above, there is a spot where Hoffman notes that the most successful species of all time is bacteria and the interviewer notes the theory that human beings true evolutionary purpose is to be a means transport bacteria around. 
4 Likes
oh j3zus 
1 Like
I read an interesting book on such phenomena observed over the years. The premise in this case was that such occurrences can be viewed as something akin to a manifestation of the collective unconscious, so in a sense, inter-dimensional insofar as such phenomena can be seen to be emanating from different ādimensionsā of conscious experience.
In this case consciousness itself is put forward as the irreducible substrate from which all experience arises, the emanations and dimensions being the result of consciousness experiencing itself subjectively whilst never actually becoming anything other than consciousness itself. (Thereās a Bill Hicks quote in there somewhereā¦
)
4 Likes
Goddamn that Lex Friedman guy gives off the worst vibes. Of course heās a crypto guy and heās had both Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro on lmao
1 Like
Really? Iāve always found Lex to be wise and genuine beyond his years, maybe thatās just me. Also thoughtful and humble in most conversations. have you seen the interview with Ye?
I find Lex to be quite naive, but open to new ideas though IMO often not sceptical/cynical enough about certain things. This makes him a suitable host for a variety podcast like he has. Iām generally not that bothered about what he has to say to be brutally honest, itās all about the guestsā ideas. Often his simple and curious questioning works really well in terms of allowing the guest to lay out theories from a laymanās starting point, the Joscha Bach interview is an excellent example of this. Other times I think he doesnāt interrogate ideas nearly hard enough, and I think this can make him a bit susceptible to grifters. He does seem humble enough though and not trying to further a personal agenda, so I would file him under āmostly harmlessā
2 Likes
Canāt stand Fridman.
Not really enjoying the Hoffman episode either - a cognitive scientist trying to talk authoritatively about theoretical physics as though itās his subject and as though the ideas heās talking about are somehow proven or āmore realā than the previous set of still-unproven theories. The amplituhedron model doesnāt ādoomā spacetime, it just suggests that spacetime is an emergent property of a more fundamental law. Thatās like saying green doesnāt exist because itās just blue and yellow mixed together.
There are some interesting ideas, and I have no problem with a lot of what he says, but ā¦
4 Likes
Yeah I donāt rate Hoffman very highly at all tbh, thereās a lot of people that seem to want to build unifying theories based on the primacy of consciousness, which I think is just entirely the wrong way to go about things. It probably stems from taking āthe hard problem of consciousnessā much too seriously.
Hereās a couple of pieces that analyse and criticise his ideas for those that prefer to read -
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/donald-hoffmans-philosophy-of-consciousness-and-reality-conscious-realism-c0ac5284b1ec
https://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/hoffman-conscious-realism.html
2 Likes
It is crazy when they are actually beginning to prove that or conciseness is from another place and being transmitted to us by code, and they know the code. It is error correcting code the whole universe is built on and everything we think is real like life and death is really illusions we see from light fragments. Crazy stuffā¦
Theyāre not
3 Likes
I mostly donāt do podcasts. I like to read articles and books. Carl Sagan is awesome though.
A few sceptical questions:
Both Western and Eastern philosophies have versions of the reality=consciousness / the ārealā world is incomprehensible argument. Those are centuries and in some cases millennia old. How is this different?
Does anyone other than white men do this work/get play in this particular intellectual world? Do they cite other peopleās ideas? Whose ideas do they cite? What do they think about the last 50 years of continental philosophy? Or analytic for that matter?
Do they publish written work?
Edit: I should say Iām sympathetic to the basic premise. Our senses are not mirrors of the world, they are filters.
1 Like
I canāt speak for most of these people but I will say that Joscha Bach is very well read and makes frequent references to the work of scientific and philosophical pioneers, Gƶdel, Wittgenstein, and many others from the past 2000 years. He seems well aware that thereās nothing new under the sun and that we āstand on the shoulders of giantsā. He brings a lot of supposedly historically opposed ideas together in a really refreshing way that often seems obvious in hindsight once heās spelled it all out.
My sense is it is driving at the same āperennial understandingā albeit through the language of science. In a recent discussion with someone with a more āVedicā expression of this understanding, Hoffman acknowledged this.
Iām fudging his actual words, but Hoffman expressed that his goal was to bring such an understanding to light through the language of science because these are the best tools he has to express it and they may serve as useful tools for scientifically minded folk to understand it. Whilst recognising (as the traditions of old do) that no language is going to be able to capture that which canāt ultimately be captured. He also mentioned that heās been a daily meditator for the last 20 years and it is through the moments of silence that the clarity of the science reveals itself (the intellect being a great servant but a poor master!)
I suppose in a sense this is what poets and artists have attempted to do through their own chosen medium too.
As some wise master with big eyebrows once said;
āIf I speak, I tell a lie,
If I remain silent, I am a cowardā.
That hydron collider had been changing some thingsā¦ some things are not following the laws of space timeā¦ proving myltideminsiona, ummmā¦ I guess you can say no, but scientist are saying facts.