ep. 505 - Is Reality Really Real? And Part 1 with Noah Healy

You are listening to the
Primitive Intelligence podcast

episode 505 Is reality really
Real?

And part one of my interview
with Noah Healey.

This is an extended episode.
I hope your phone is charged.

I I hope your earbuds are
charged.

Get comfortable.
It's you're going to be here for

a while.
Last episode I teased are we

living in the simulation?
We're going to talk about the

idea.
We're going to get to it.

I I know the last time I teased
an episode in advance, I left

you hanging, Jason.
Not this time.

We're going to get in the
simulation theory, so we're

going to get into the idea.
Is it just Hollywood mumbo

jumbo?
Some of my own thoughts on it

and a surprising lack of
answers.

Also, later on in the episode,
part one of my interview with

Noah Healey.
He's a market designer and game

theorist background in nuclear
engineering.

He worked for
techstartupstoringthe.com.

Boom.
He's the founder of Core Disk

and he has a podcast of his own
called The 4th Age which deals

mostly with a I.
This was a really long interview

I had with with Noah.
It was almost an hour and a

half.
We talked, so I split this in

half.
This week we're going to talk

about the simulation theory and
some of his ideas about it.

And then next week we're going
to do the his business and what

he does and what he does is
absolutely mindblowing.

Also going to talk about how
coincidence plays a role in this

episode.
Finally, some podcast

housekeeping before we get into
the main episode.

At the beginning of this season,
I talked about how I want to

expand the the topics and I want
to get guests and I I really

want to build a better podcast.
Yes, it's true.

This is my podcast.
This is my passion project.

It's my, it's my little pet.
I love primitive intelligence.

But at the end of the day, these
these episodes are for you.

This is our podcast.
Your feedback is paramount.

I love it.
I love getting feedback from

listeners and this is an
entertainment podcast.

I'm here to entertain you.
I want you to be entertained and

part of that is knowing if you
guys think I'm doing a good job.

Feedback is key.
Whatever platform you use to

listen to or watch the podcast,
please click that follow or

subscribe button if if it asks
for rating or liking it,

Anything like that, Comment,
share If there's topics you want

me to cover or topics that you
want to cover with me.

Technology has got to the point
where you don't need to come

here.
I don't need to come to you.

You don't need a podcast studio.
You can use your phone.

You and I can talk.
You can be on the podcast if you

want.
How do you do that?

Reach out to me.
If you're on YouTube, you can

leave me a comment.
If you're on Spotify, you can

leave me a voice note.
You can just go to

primitiveintelligence.com and
click on the contact link or

podcast at
primitiveintelligence.com.

My e-mail address is back.
The last holdout from my debacle

last season of trying to get
everything off that stupid

server.
The e-mail address has been

locked down.
I've been giving you guys a

Gmail address up until now.
I finally got it straightened

out.
It's it's free.

It's I'm.
I'm able to get in podcast at

primitiveintelligence.com.
You can shoot me an e-mail

because I want to expand topics.
I want to get more guests saying

that I have set up an account
with a service called Matchmaker

FM and it sounds like a singles
website, but it's not.

It's actually like a classifieds
for podcast host and guests and

allows you to research each
other and an easy way to

connect.
And I think it's awesome.

It's a great platform.
I've got some ideas, I've got

some people that I I've
researched, I've looked into.

A couple of them are authors, so
I'm getting your books, so I'm

going to read up.
I don't want to contact them and

be like, hey, I don't know what
you do want to be on my show,

and we're going to see why I
don't want to do that.

We'll talk about that in a few
minutes, but for right now,

that's enough jabbering.
Episode 505 at the Primitive

Intelligence podcast is reality
real and the first half of my

interview with Noah Healy starts
episode.

I've got coffee today, no water,
so tie in from last week.

This is where coincidence plays
its part.

Here I talked about coincidence
and frequency of occurrence

depending on my acknowledgement
of those instances, at least in

my experience.
So I recorded episode 504 on

Tuesday.
I'd like to record late, so

before I start recording, I went
in and set up my account with

Matchmaker FM.
I record 504.

I edit 504.
I don't go to bed until about

3:00 AM.
Well, I kind of pass out at

about 3:00 AM I get up in the
morning because I do this as a

video and audio.
I have to let that video render,

so that takes some time to let
that happen overnight.

So I come downstairs and I check
the computer and make sure that

everything rendered properly and
I see I have a message.

Now, I received a few when I
first signed up and this was a

new message from someone new and
it was Noah Healy.

And if you would only put an
e-mail about his work with

financial systems, I probably
would have been like not not for

me, thank you very much.
And it would have moved on.

But I wake up that morning with
coincidences running through my

head because I just done an
episode on it the night before.

And in this e-mail, first thing
that catches my mind is he says

coincidentally, he's talking
about the the processes he uses

in his programming.
And one of them, he says

coincidentally is called Fair
Games.

And he's like, that's the name
of your season.

I'm like, Fair game is the name
of my season Andy used

coincidentally.
And what am I getting ready to

do?
Simulation theory.

He's into programming and game
theory and mathematics and

algorithms who bear talked to
about the possibility of reality

being a simulation than this
guy.

So I e-mail back and I say,
listen, yeah, your financial

stuff, way out of my ballpark.
But I'm willing to do that if

you're willing to talk about
simulation theory.

And I in the back of my mind, I
kind of thought, this guy's

going to be like, I don't have
time for that.

But he emailed me back and he's
like, yeah, I'm in.

I'm paraphrasing because, yeah,
I'm in.

So we set it up.
And I mean, he's been working on

this stuff for over 25 years.
I had less than 24 hours to

prepare.
That's nowhere near enough time

I had to start doing serious
research, like really pulling

information and getting my notes
and everything together for this

episode yet.
And then I had to kind of

research him what he does and
try to make it coherent.

Yes, since he's actually my
first real guest on the show.

I mean, I've had, I did.
I cohost it with Rocco when I

first began.
We did like the interview with

the Devil stuff back in season
one and two.

Spoiler alert, that's just me
with some effects on my voice.

And then a couple of episodes
ago I did the A I interview with

chat GTP Little bit different
having actual real guest in, but

this is the growth of the
podcast I want to do.

Well, that was an
acknowledgement of itself, of

coincidence and how it can play
a part in everything we do

sometimes.
And it just made me think about

Simulation theory even more So
what is simulation theory Is it

is just Hollywood mumbo jumbo?
Is it just the Matrix?

This all come up because of the
Matrix and how people say things

like glitch in the Matrix.
And if there's a Mandela effect,

it's a glitch in Matrix.
You see these videos of people

on YouTube with the birds stuck
in the air and they look like

they're flying.
Oh, it's a glitch in Matrix.

We live in the simulation.
It must be the Matrix.

It did this all just come about
because of a movie?

No, you'd be surprised.
It goes back further than that.

A lot further than you'd think.
Greek philosopher Plato, of all

people.
In his work Republic, he talks

about the allegory of The Cave,
sometimes known as Plato's Cave

now, and basically there's
prisoners and they've been

chained up their entire lives.
All they can see is a blank wall

in front of them with their
shadows casting on it because

there's a fire behind them and
the light caster shadows on the

wall.
That's the only thing they know.

To them that is reality, and the
only way that they can know

anything other than that is to
escape the prison.

Otherwise, reality is a shadows
on a wall.

Simulation theory is similar in
that we don't really know.

All we can see are the shadows
on the wall.

Back in 2003, Swedish
philosopher Nick Bostrom wrote a

paper called Are We Living in a
Computer Simulation?

And in this paper he put forward
the idea that one of three

statements must be true.
The first statement is all

technological civilizations
collapse or go extinct before

reaching A technological
maturity from which they could

create simulations like our
reality statement #2.

Some technological civilizations
reach a level of development at

which they are able to create
such a simulation, but for some

reason choose not to.
The third statement we are

living in a computer simulation
already.

One of those three must be true.
To put that in a nutshell, as

far as simulation simulated
realities go, either A it never

happens, B it happens sometimes,
or C it's happening right now.

That also means that there must
be a base reality somewhere that

is real that's not simulated.
There are some people who

believe that the odds of us
being in that base reality are

extremely low.
One of those people's Elon Musk.

So maybe because it seems like
an exciting thing to say, but he

says that there's like one in
billions chance that we're in

that base reality.
Some people who think we're in a

simulation are trying to figure
out ways of escaping the

simulation.
Is that even possible?

If we are in a simulation, is it
possible to exist outside of it?

Could we escape a simulation?
If you think a simulation is

like a video game, you know, Can
you imagine Mario jumping out of

a video game and running away it
it just wouldn't work.

So I that I don't know.
I don't know how we would do

that.
That kind of assumes that the

computational power or even the
computational processes, what

makes the reality, what makes
the simulation, but it's being

based on what we know, the
physics we know and things like

that.
And I think that's pretty

unlikely that if something was
that if something was capable of

creating a simulation this
complex that it would be based

off of our technology.
They may be wondering, okay,

this is a great theory, but is
there any proof that we do live

in the simulation?
Let me run some ideas past you.

So the first one, it's based off
of another argument I use with

some people kind of to piss them
off.

But when people say there's no
possibility of alien life, and

then they say, well, we're
created by God, we're put here

by God, and we are it.
We're the the ultimate, we're

the favorites.
It goes no further than us.

The argument I always use is,
well, if you don't believe in

extraterrestrial life and God
put us on this planet and God

made the planet, then God can't
be from the planet.

They can't be from Earth.
So by definition, God would be

an extraterrestrial.
And it I mean it more as an

exercise to get them to think
about it.

It usually just makes them mad.
But if we take that same concept

and we say that if God put us on
this planet, and God created the

planet and the seas and the
skies and the stars and the

universe, then the universe is
not a naturally occurring

construct.
It was created.

It is artificial.
We live in the simulation.

Let me know how you feel about
that one then a little more

Modern professor Jane Gates from
MIT claims to have found

computer code in string theory
by examining the equations used

to define string theory itself,
and that they are similar and

sometimes exactly the same as
what are known as Shannon codes.

Now, Shannon codes are used in
error correcting and data

compression.
If you've ever downloaded a

piece of software and you get
that checksum, that's Shannon

code.
Now I I brought this up to Noah

to see what he what he thought
of this, and he hadn't heard of

this.
But he reminded me of something

that I kind of knew, and I kind
of forgot that there's a lot of

problems with string theory, and
string theory is based on

multiple dimensions, and those
dimensions get so complex that

there's so much room for
possibility that you could plug

almost any equation in and it
would work.

Noah explains this a lot better
later, but so is that what's

happening here?
I'm not sure if Gates is looking

at the equation itself as a
mathematical equation and just

that, or if he's looking at the
output of the equation and he

from what I can tell he's using
he's he's doing something to

view the equations as images and
that's where he's seeing this

computer code now.
Also, this guy is his main field

of study is supersymmetry, which
I couldn't even explain to you

right now.
This guy, he's he's not an

idiot, so it's not like he just
like looked at a bowl of

Cheerios and so I see codes, you
know this guy knows what he's

talking about.
All these links will be in the

in the show notes.
So look at some of the stuff for

yourself and make a decision it
it could be he's seeing what

something that looks like one
thing because it's string theory

and that happens or he's
actually seeing code in these

equations that's just mind
boggling that there's and I'm

not talking about in the numbers
like in the equation, but as you

break down the equations, the
deeper you get, there's zeros

and ones, there's binary code in
there that's crazy.

The next thing that could prove
that we're in a simulation is

kind of a double Decker here.
The Fermi Paradox.

For the Fermi Paradox, you just
have to look at what's known as

the Drake Equation.
The Drake equation estimates

civilizations in the Milky Way
that are capable of

communicating with us, or that
would leave enough of an imprint

that we would see that they were
there.

The Drake Equation has a pretty
big margin of error.

On a real quick look, I saw
anywhere between 1100 million

civilizations, just in the Milky
Way alone.

That's still a lot of
civilizations, just in our

Galaxy.
So the Fermi Paradox is if this

is true and there's all these
civilizations around, over the

course of the lifespan of the
universe as we know it, we

should see some evidence of
these other civilizations.

And we don't.
Of course, if we go back a

couple episodes to the UAP
episode, maybe we do, but we're

not seeing it out in space.
As far as we know.

We're not seeing evidence of
civilizations coming from other

stars.
So is it?

It kind of would make it more
probable that we are in a

simulation because we're not
seeing what we're expecting to

see.
And then the last part I'm going

to bring up about proof that we
live in a simulation is the fact

that simply observing the
universe changes the nature of

the universe.
And you may remember this from

school when you're a kid doing
the the light experiment that

shows that light is also that
you know acts as particles as

well as a wave.
And this kind of boils down to

quantum physics and how crazy
this all is.

But there's scientists who have
done this with electrons.

They single fired single
electrons through a double slit

experiment and even with as
small as electrons are they

should act as particles.
But what they find is they act

as a wave.
So when they first did this,

they thought there's got to be
something interfering with the

experiment.
So they put a sensor in to watch

the electrons go through the
slits.

As soon as they turn the sensor
on, the electrons begin to act

as particles.
Turn the sensor off, they act as

a wave, turn the sensor on, they
act as particles.

Even in the middle of the
stream, they will change.

The electrons are reacting to
the fact that you're being

observed.
This is quantum physics.

Quantum physics will blow your
mind.

I know enough about it to be
confused, but that right there

opens a lot of really crazy
possibilities.

There's a lot of other things
about quantum physics that are

weird.
Again, the links to this stuff

will be I'm not making this up.
The links to this will be down

to the bottom.
How do electrons know that

they're being observed and why
would they change their state?

So I'm going to speculate.
I'm going to have a little fun

with this.
This is for entertainment, after

all.
If we live in the simulation,

how is it run?
Is it a projection?

Shadows on a wall like a
hologram?

Is it like VR?
Is our consciousness viewing

reality like it's playing a
video game, wearing a headset

and this is kind of peering in?
Are our bodies just avatars

having basic functions, Kind of
animalistic functions, but

controlled by a, you know, air
quotes, installed consciousness,

a higher consciousness.
There is a train of thought and

I I follow this train of
thought, I've thought this for

probably 30 years, that the
brain is not the generator of

consciousness, it is a receiver,
meaning that our consciousness

comes from somewhere else.
You know, how do we lose

control?
How do we, like ye have a

temper?
If we're logical beings and our

consciousness knows we should
not be angry, and we know, like

don't get mad at that, but we
still do.

It's like a like an instinct,
like an animalistic act, and we

have to calm ourselves down or
we lose control.

How is that possible if the
consciousness is part of the the

body?
I think it was in season one.

I was kind of joking, yeah.
But I made the statement and it

kind of makes sense a little bit
when you think of it this way.

And what I said was, how does
the brain, the thing that's

thinking the thought, not know
how the thought is Thunk, can

you answer that?
How do we not know how we work?

That is a question I've had
since I was a kid.

If you look at things like past
lives, reincarnation, ESP,

dreams out of body experiences,
these things make a lot more

sense if consciousness is coming
from somewhere else and not

being generated by the brain.
And I say this because it look

at the out of body experiences,
there are enough reports that

are consistent enough to believe
that OB e's there's something to

them.
But if the if our consciousness

needs the brain is generated
from the brain, how does it get

outside the brain?
You know how's it get?

How's it How do we leave our
bodies?

How do people do?
How do kids have, like, infants

barely old enough to talk?
They have memories of past

lives.
If consciousness isn't generated

by the brain, that makes more
sense.

And if it's not generated by the
brain that's coming from

somewhere else, does that mean
that we're just non player

characters that wind up getting
chosen to, you know?

Should be played in the
simulation.

Is that possible?
If matter itself is intelligent,

electrons can change their
state.

Could it create anything we
imagine?

Could matter be its own
processor generating reality on

the fly?
Imagine the pixels on your TV

screen, or your phone being
their own processor, being their

own CPUs and not needing another
processor.

Imagine how fast that would be.
You'd have all the computing

power you would ever need.
Our knowledge of our out of SIM

selves could be suppressed, as
could be our ability to imagine

and create and explore and
build.

That may all be limited.
If we created a simulation,

would we want our Sims to be
able to create a simulation that

could create a simulation That
could create a simulation that

could create a simulation?
Is that something that we would

want?
Is that something?

Would that take up more power?
Would it even be possible?

Maybe this has all been thought
of already and determined it's

bullshit.
I I don't know.

I'm not that smart of a guy.
Who is that smart of a guy

though, is my next guest.
Noah Healy is a market designer

and game theorist working on
better economic systems.

After training in nuclear
engineering, he worked for

techstartupsinthe.com Boom.
Becoming fascinated by the

mathematics of information and
computation led him to patent

work on a better commodity
market design.

That's what we've got coming up
right now.

Sit back and enjoy the interview
with Noah Healy.

That starts right now.
So it's my pleasure to introduce

this week's guest Noah Healy.
If you would just want to tell

us a little bit about yourself
and we'll just jump right into

it.
Sure.

Thanks Kurt.
So you got my name already.

I was born and raised here in
Charlottesville, VA went to UVA

and been working in computers
for the last quarter ish of a

century.
And also my hobby is

computational mathematics.
And about a decade ago, I

discovered a better way to do
price discovery for commodity

and some other financial
markets.

And so I've been working to get
economics upgraded that's and

that's something that
desperately needs to be upgraded

As as a business owner myself I
I know it's it's not well

prepared right at the moment but
with your background in in

computer sciences and all that
the there is discussion that we

may be living in a simulation.
It's been it was virtually made

popular in 2003 and with the the
theory is that one of three

possibilities has to be correct.
Either all civilizations that

that could possibly be in the
universe will gain the

technology to create
simulations, or some will but

won't.
Or we are already living in a

simulation?
With your background in computer

sciences and and programming in
mathematics, what do you do?

You see any possibility that
that could be true, that we are,

are, or could be living in a
simulation?

Well, the fun thing is that we
have to get into a little bit of

of what we mean by living a
simulation.

So the the model that.
Your individual experience as a

result of the computation being
carried out by a civilization

that's that's simulated you in
order to carry out one of these

strategic brain problems, for
example, that's one version of

living the simulation.
Another version of living the

simulation is that the universe
is operating off of

computational principles and.
There's an intelligence that

that essentially wrote the
program that is operating the

universe, and so in that
scenario, which could be

analogous to the first one, but
this would be another kind of

living and simulation.
Here's where computational

mathematics makes things really
fun.

If we observe our universe and
sort of how many particles that

are in it and so on.
We get this sort of free

entropy.
So there's so many particles,

there's essentially about two to
the 300 particles in our

universe, which means that if
you were to sort of examine the

entire universe on average
there, there would be.

Every single combination of coin
flips that are possible over

that over that frame.
So.

So if if every particle that was
in the universe were to flip a

coin, and they were all to be
subdivided into groups of 301 of

those groups would all flip
heads, and one of those groups

would all flip tails.
And one of those groups, when

you line them up in one
particular order, would have one

particular order of heads and
tails and.

For every order of heads and
tails that you could possibly

want, those computational
systems that Turing talked about

they're quite small.
And Stephen Wolfram, if you're

familiar with Wolfram Alpha,
that's that's his baby.

He also was the company that
created Mathematica.

He is.
He's pursuing and attempting to

promulgate the hypothesis that.
The the physics of our universe

is based off of computation,
that our entire universe is

actually just a computer.
He has, he he he offered a

bounty and a proof was made that
a system that he found that's

definable, and I think 28 bits
is computationally complete.

It's capable of that thing
Turing talked about, so.

The free entropy of our universe
is 10 times the size required to

create a computational system,
which means that, based on what

we know about mathematics, the
entire universe as a program on

a computer.
The entire universe as a purely

random accident, and the entire
universe as a conscious creation

through a word in that
interpreter sense I was talking

about before, are all, to a
great extent logically

equivalent with one another.
So it's not that.

It could be one that you know or
the other.

Or it's that all three of these
things could be simultaneously

true, and depending on which
sort of philosophical point of

view you decided to take on it,
you could you could convince

yourself that that was the only
possible truth, so that that's

the limit of what we can see.
Basically, we're the.

The lower bound for the universe
being able to be a self created

simulation or whatever is
exceeded by the amount of random

chance that we observe being
available.

Does that make sense?
So in a way, yeah, my my thought

to that was always that we are
basing the computational power

that would be created be needed
to create a universe, a reality

such as our own on our own
knowledge of computational power

and structure.
Well, so let me blow your mind

with something.
Oh, OK, I'm ready for this.

There's there's there's an
incomputable sequence called the

Busy Beaver numbers.
And this sequence grows faster

than any sequence that you can
imagine.

And it doesn't start off all
that fast.

So the way the busy Beaver
numbers work is you use Turing

machine.
Use that Turing machine thing

that Turing came up with.
It's a binary machine.

It can only draw a mark or erase
a mark.

And it's not the full Turing
power machine.

It's got a finite number of
states.

That has nothing pre, It has no
preloaded tape, but it does have

access to an infinite tape.
And so the question is, given a

certain number of states, how
many how much of the tape can it

mark up and then stop?
And for one state the answer is

one and for two states the
answer is 3.

We we used to think, I think
it's four states.

We used to think that we knew
what four states was and it was

in the hundreds.
But then somebody found a way to

do 4096 and we're not so
confident that that's actually

what four states is anymore.
For five states, the number is

at least a number that.
So 10 to the 1010 billion, 10 to

that power would be a one with
10 billion zeros after it.

Like 15 of those.
Wow.

Wow.
In five states.

In five states.
In five, yeah.

And the fun fact is that no
matter what you're thinking of

in terms of big numbers, if
you've heard of things like

grams number or the tree numbers
or birds.

You know, whatever, whatever big
number stuff you've heard about

where there's some way to make
really, really big numbers

really, really quickly out of
really, really small numbers.

Not even close.
Not even close to close.

Because as soon as there's
enough states in the touring

machine to describe whatever
that process that you can think

about is, that becomes the lower
bound of how many, how much that

can do.
Because it can do that, at

least.
So this is.

Whatever the most capable thing
is at each level, and the growth

rate of that curve is literally
faster than we can imagine.

And that's why with access to
around 300 bits, it may well be

possible for from a BZ Beaver
perspective for a system to

demonstrate a degree of
complexity.

That's beyond our imagination.
There's there's, we don't know,

we don't know what those busy
Beavers from, you know, for and

up are.
We know that there's an upper

limit of busy Beaver numbers
that we could ever know, and we

don't know where that limit is.
And that's one of the things

that's incomputable.
So we know there's a limit, we

just could never figure out what
that limit is.

Yes.
Is that one of those

unimaginable imagination things
you were talking about?

Exactly.
It's something we just could

never imagine.
We Yes, that's crazy.

We can make words that make us
think that we're thinking about

it, but we literally can't think
about it because that's

impossible.
That's Okay.

Yeah.
That's the kind of stuff I like,

right?
You can't.

If you can't even imagine
imagining the imagination, then

it's it's out there pretty far.
Well, and that's that's if you

play around in computational
mathematics, you play in a world

where that is a frequent
companion.

And as you've just experienced,
it's it's a lot of fun.

And so you're you're saying a
number with more zeros then

there are probably stars in the
universe.

Oh, well, that.
Like I said, at at 5, you're

already well past that, that
limit.

Well, past that five.
Wow.

Yes.
So yeah, we're.

Yeah, that's.
That's.

And you can never even imagine
that number of stars in one

Galaxy, much less, you know, in
our night sky, much less a

Galaxy or all the galaxies.
And then that's minuscule

compared to the lower limit that
we know of right now.

Right, exactly.
And and these kinds of things

just pop up all over the place.
The BZ Beaver numbers actually

aren't even the fastest growing
incomputable sequence we're

aware of.
And then there's ideas about

oracles where you introduce, you
introduce the unimaginable.

So I'd said that you know this.
This debugging software is

impossible.
So we could assume an Oracle.

We say, well, what if it was
possible?

What if we had this thing that
just told us what the answer

was?
Well, because of the structure

of the argument about why these
things are impossible, that

thing, that thing that could do
all the things that we can't do,

would have a set of things that
it couldn't do that would be on

the far side of its
impossibility.

So a few months ago I was.
Thinking through how you could

demonstrate an Oracle with busy
Beavers and how you could

sequence out oracles by
introducing marks on the tape

basically for the Oracle so that
it knew what the boundaries were

so that you could just go to
where those boundaries were and

how.
How then?

The relationship between the
functions at different levels.

So not necessarily the numbers
of oracular busy Beavers, but

the kinds of functions that
would be possible at different

levels.
That was fun.

Did you get anywhere with it?
For the first few, like I said,

we don't really know much about
the 4th and higher Busy Beaver

numbers, but.
I did have a few thoughts on a

couple of different approaches
to allow for different kinds of

streams and conceiving of hyper
infinite sequences of those

sorts of things.
And so you could you could

create what I call the Hyper
Busy Beaver numbers which is

sort of a diagonal saying limit
point of Oracular Busy Beavers.

For creating deeply unimaginable
things.

But I can't.
I can't attach any reality to

that.
So it's more just an intriguing

speculation.
You were just talking about

debugging and as I was looking
researching into simulation

theory, one of the things I
found which was kind of mind

blowing.
Professor James Gates from MIT

was investigating the equations
that define string theory.

And the further he got into
looking at these equations and I

I'm not sure how he was doing
it.

He was looking at like like
fractals based off of these

equations or something that I I
I kind of like glossed over

pretty quickly today.
But he was finding code, the

computer code in these equations
that that weren't put there by

the, you know, the people who
wrote the equations.

But however he found it, but
what he found out that they were

was they were checksum codes
that are written kind of hard

coded into the equations of the
definitions of string theory.

And I found this by it was by
accident.

It was a feed that popped up and
it was Neil deGrasse Tyson

talking to him and he's he's
kind of questioned him like, you

mean you're finding computer
code in these equations.

And I kind of thought it was one
of these deep fake things until

I actually looked it up and
found out that yeah, he's,

they're finding debugging codes
in theories, in in the

equations, when you look at them
as as an image or as a fractal.

Have you heard anything about
that?

I mean, is that something?
So I have.

I've not seen that I've seen.
Some studies examining

high-powered cosmic rays and the
the scattering structure of

extremely high-powered cosmic
rays and they break down

supposedly into structures that
imply and this is one of the

things Stephen Wolfram tries to
bring out to bolster his his

theories that imply a.
A substructure, A computational

substructure to the universe in
terms of the the the equations

of string theory.
One of the issues with string

theory is that the high
dimensional mathematics of use

there.
Is known to be underspecified.

So sort of the the thing that
got string theory sort of

excited in the 1st place was
they had this.

They had this mathematical
formalism that math did a lot of

work on and they knew was true.
And when you plugged the, the.

What was known about quantum
physics into it?

Certain values that weren't
predicted.

Parts of the theory dropped out
of the equations, and so that

was very exciting, the notion
that these mathematical forms in

Group theory might be being
reflected in the physical

universe that we adopt.
However, replicating what's

known isn't really the mark of a
functioning theory.

Creating new predictions is.
And so the string theorists

pooped out a bunch of
predictions, and then they went

off and started measuring them.
And they didn't get them right,

but they took the numbers that
came in and plug those into the

system and we're like, oh, look,
they fit perfectly in with the

system and they make all these
new predictions.

Well, those didn't work either,
but those new numbers also fit

perfectly within the system.
And ultimately it was discovered

that with the number of
dimensions that they had

involved, anything fit perfectly
within the system.

There was just enough
flexibility to cope with

whatever you did.
So topologically, higher

dimensions start becoming very
boring very quickly in many

cases because there's so much
freedom that sort of all the

structures are the same.
So as an example for everyone

who's ever tied their shoelaces,
that is something that you can

essentially only accomplish in
three-dimensional space if you

have, If you have lines in four
dimensional space, there's sort

of two different directions.
So just like if you have stuff

that's sort of stuck on the
floor and it can't pass each

other because you know they're
stuck on the floor and they

can't get over each other.
But if we've got 3 dimensions,

we can lift one over and one
under and tie ourselves knots.

In 4 dimensions, we would have
one more direction other than

under and over.
And so even after tying a knot,

we would be able to move things
out in that 4th dimension so

that they weren't engage with
each other anymore and just undo

them.
And we would always be able to

undo them under the
circumstances and the the base

string theory was a six
dimensional space.

And it turns out that in that
space there was just so much

room that no matter what the
theorists or what the the

measurement guys, the
experimentalists came up with,

you'd be able to plug it in and
get a viable coherent set of

numbers that would make a new
set of predictions.

And since the predictions kept
not coming up, they kept not

coming up.
So he might be operating in good

faith, and that might be there
for that to be for a string

theory thing to be interesting,
those those checksum codes would

have to have some kind of
practical, measurable reality

before before I care much about
it.

But I don't know if he's
actually looking at the the what

the equations actually do, but
just the equations themselves.

I don't know if it's
particularly just because it's

string theory.
That's the equations he was

looking at.
It's it was just to me it seemed

like he had found he even said
in his when he said he goes

there's we don't even understand
what we're looking at with this.

Well, it seemed it was more,
yeah, more than the occasions.

But not less of the less of the
answer the equation and more the

equation itself.
Well, another point would be

that because math is all
connected, computation equals

computation, and so string
theory, like I said, is based

off of a very advanced piece of
work in Group theory.

And I would be unsurprised if it
turned out that some of these

group structures turned out to
be Turing complete and

computational systems in and of
themselves, because addition

plus multiplication is Turing
complete over the integers, for

example.
Right.

So like you're saying, with with
in string theory, just because

he found these checksums, he
could have looked at it as

anything and it probably would
have fit because there's so much

freedom in it.
That might well be what's going

on and I'd have to, I'd have to
investigate before.

That wouldn't be my default
assumption, but like I said,

I've seen, I've seen
astrophysics papers where they

were looking at the the
scattering structure of and

discovering slight errors in
something called antiotrophy.

So antiotrophy is essentially
the theory that the universe

doesn't have a direction.
So no matter what way you're

facing, physics shouldn't be any
different.

You know, the laws of physics
shouldn't change whether I'm

looking West or north, right?
Well, maybe that's an assumption

that's that.
That assumption is antiotropy.

So when you look at incredibly
high-powered particles, we

actually should expect them to
come from specific directions

because for example, there's a
lot of matter in the way inside

the galactic disc.
But on the other hand that's

also where a lot of the stars
that produce these things are.

And so we should be able to sort
of figure out what's going on

with with those directions and
figure out when extremely

high-powered gamma rays and
other comic rays show up from

outer space.
They should, they should be

roughly coming according to the
probability of the kinds of

things that are in the direction
that we're looking at.

And they discovered that that's
not quite true, That there's

there seemed to be a rectilinear
ish bias where certain

directions were good and certain
other directions were bad,

irrespective of the actual
shielding.

Plus sourcing in in a given
direction, suggesting that there

could be some fundamentally
shaped structure of space that

made certain directions easier
to travel than others.

It's kind of like polarizing
solarizing on a pair of glasses.

He looks one way and it's a
little brighter than another.

Something like that.
Or well, like the actual shape

or direction.
Let's say you're playing a video

game, right?
And you've got it's old school,

it's pixels.
So you've got the old like pad

that's only got 4 directions on
it.

You can move side to side, you
can move up and down, You can't

move diagonally very well, and
even if they were sharp enough

to make the diagonal moving
work, you can't move slightly

diagonally very well.
You know you don't have full

360.
The the the sensors on the pad

only give you 8 or 16 or 32
directions.

They don't give you an infinite
number of directions.

And so if you were to assume
that Link or Mario or or one of

these characters had full 360
degree movement and track their

track their motions, you'd say,
well, this is weird.

You know Mario World should be
antiotropic, right?

That's how physics is supposed
to work.

But somehow Mario only ever
travels in one of 128 different

directions and never travels in
any other directions.

What's up with that?
Well, Mario exists on this grid

that has certain animation
things that make traveling in

those directions easy and make
traveling in the directions

impossible.
Now it's not quite as harsh as

that with what they were
discovering, but that's.

But it's, yeah, Okay.
So it's the.

Yes, it's similar to that kind.
Of way it can only move up and

over.
Right.

Yes.
Yes.

Yeah, cosmic rays traveling in
certain directions look like

that's easy to do, and in other
directions that are close that

but which might have some kind
of grain to them at galactic and

intergalactic scales don't seem
to show up.

So it's the the pixelated
universe that's that's what

they're coming up with, yes?
That's pretty well.

So yeah, that's wow, that's the
first time I've heard that.

That's pretty, that's pretty
incredible.

I did.
I don't have the information

here, but like the double slit
experiment, there was a group

that was doing it with, I think
they were using single

molecules.
I think they're sending through

and they start to realize that
they would act one way when

observed and another way when
not observed.

But in order for that to happen
they would have had to change

their state before they left
where they sent them from.

And they couldn't figure out how
the single molecules were had

the intelligence behind them to
change their state to know that

they're observed.
Well, that's the that's the

basic problem of quantum physics
is that we have these equations

that make predictions that when
we measure things, they the see

predictions, you know, are
correct basically.

But the mechanism there are
there are a pretty large number.

I think I'm aware of about half
a dozen interpretations.

None of those interpretations
are particularly sensible from

our sort of colloquial world.
I remember a cousin's child was

asking me some questions and I
was telling you about electrons

and and he asked me how big they
are and I said well,

theoretically and as we
generally accept they they're

sizeless, they have no dimension
whatsoever.

And he said that doesn't make
any sense and I said that is

correct.
You got it.

That's right.
That's right.

Yeah, it does not make any
sense.

It exists, but it doesn't exist.
It's it's not we.

Well, it exists that that might
be.

It's the best we can do.
This explanation that we know

doesn't make sense, but it does
make predictions, and it makes

predictions pretty accurately.
The simulation thing is probably

not what you're excited about
talking, but I appreciate you

humoring me on that and giving
me some information that I will

probably keep me awake tonight.
Research.

Yeah, sure.
Well, I mean, there's a lot of

different avenues.
The one that I actually find

more interesting, and something
that I've devote some brain

power to every once in a while,
is that multiplication is known

to be more difficult than
addition.

It's not as much more difficult
as it used to be.

In the 20th century, we
developed a handful of much more

efficient multiplication
algorithms, but we're pretty

sure that we know exactly how
hard it is to multiply things,

and we're pretty sure we know
exactly how hard it is to add

things.
But if you're familiar with

Euclid's Elements in the
Euclidian plane geometry, it's

easier to multiply things in
Euclidean geometry than our

current belief about the easiest
way to multiply things, so I'm

not sure why that is.
There seems to be a link between

Euclidean geometry and all other
forms of math through things

like the Cartesian plane.
But there are certain things

about the abstraction of the
Euclidean plane that we

understand to be impossible to
physically realize.

And so are those physical
impossibilities incorporated

into our algebraic and
computational understandings in

ways that we aren't quite clear
on that account for the

difference?
Or is the Euclidean plane itself

an imaginary abstraction that
doesn't really exist because it

implies the ability to do things
that can't really be done?

So perception is everything we
think.

There, that's impossible.
So therefore it is.

Therefore, it is more like we we
believe things are possible that

are actually impossible.
And so we do these things in

spite of the fact that they
don't work.

So think about, you know,
medicine.

Medicines existed among humans
since time immemorial and and

there's been things that people
have been able to do that are

helpful.
Setting bones is something we

can find archaeological evidence
for.

That's, you know, basically
contemporaneous with like fire

and stuff like that.
But we happen to know that the

scientific revolution finally
hitting medicine in the late 18

early 1900s essentially lifted
doctors out of the state of

killing as many patients as they
helped to to modern medicine,

where people actually got better
as a result of the interventions

that were being done because
we'd actually learned something.

But the doctors of, you know,
George the Third didn't know

that they were killing their
patient, and nobody else knew

that either, because they
weren't executed for murdering a

king after they did it.
So.

So people thought that medicine
existed and that people could do

it and they were wrong and and
as a result, lots of people got

killed.
Who would have gotten better if

they'd been left completely
alone and and much worse than

that?
There were helpful things that

they did know how to do.
And if they'd restricted

themselves strictly to the
helpful things that they knew

how to do, then they they would
have been able to do benefits

even even, you know, centuries
or millennia ago, right?

So if people are deluded into
believing that the impossible is

possible, and they build their
lifestyles and societies around

falsehoods, then we do enormous
amounts of damage to ourselves

and so discovering where these
limits are and these intuitions

about reality.
Like nobody, nobody thought

relativity or quantum physics is
obvious.

But without access to that
information, we wouldn't be able

to make GPS work.
Because quantum physics is

actually necessary to designing
the chips and systems that go

into the satellites.
And relativity is necessary to

time the clocks that are in the
satellites because they actually

don't move at the same speed as
clocks on the ground because of

how fast they're going in orbit.
And so breaking down our

intuitions and and discovering
actual reality is I think

something that that has a lot of
value and also a lot of room to

run.
There's a lot of things that we

we thought were true that got
disproven by Alan Turing in in

the 30s.
Like I said, the the progress of

multiplication.
One of the the top computational

mathematicians of the 20th
century decided to look into

multiplication and he decided
that the way that we teach kids

how to do it.
If you remember the, you know,

wedding cake edition thing for
multidigit multiplication, he

played around and decided that
was as good as you could do.

And the story I've read
suggested he worked on it for a

few months.
So he went to a a conference, he

was a, he was a Soviet, a
Russian.

So he goes to a conference, well
regarded and gives a lecture and

says, you know, I looked at this
and you know that's this is just

it, it's it's a quadratic
problem.

It's it's basically as difficult
as the square of the number

digits in the in the numbers.
And he was contacted, I think

about a week later by a guy
named Karatsuba who was a

teenager at the time, and
Karatsuba had discovered an

algebraic technique that'll that
reduced it from a quadratic

problem to a 1.5 exponent.
So you cube the numbers and then

take the square root, is how
hard the Karatsuba approach was.

And, you know, he's one of the,
one of the top minds of the 20th

century was convinced enough by
his own experience.

He didn't know for sure, but he
was like, yeah, that's that's

the line.
That's just how bad it is.

And you know, some some kid in a
week, it didn't redefine, yeah.

Played around was like, oh, how
about this?

Yeah.
And and now we actually have a

proof about, you know, how hard
we presently think it is.

And that algorithm has been
implemented.

Your computer doesn't use it
because the perfect algorithm is

faster than the thing your
computer uses after the size of

the numbers is larger than your
computer can reasonably have in

it.
So.

So, so we don't get a lot of
value out of the perfect

multiplication algorithm.
But but still, that proof exists

and it's contradicted by
Euclidean multiplication, which

was, you know, explained to
school boys for a few thousand

years.
What's up with that?

That I couldn't tell you.
You'd know more about that than

I would.
That I'm not.

I'm not as recreational.
I'm not recreational

mathematician.
I I hike that that doesn't solve

a lot of equations.
Yeah, yeah.

Well, that's good too.
Yeah, it's a different kind of

problem solving for me to get
out there and hike.

Sure.
I saw that you do have a

podcast.
Are you are you still doing

that?
The the yes.

Yes, I am.
It's called the 4th Age, the AI

Revolution.
A guy named Marty Weiner, who's

the retired CTO of Reddit, and I
are talking about AI and how

computational technology is is
wiping out our existing

societies and what we might be
able to do or really ought to be

doing to build societies in
their stead.

If you come up, write any books
or anything that definitely let

me know.
I'd love to read it.

I'm not going to pretend to
understand it, but read it and

maybe even have you back on.
OK, good deal. minute to thank

no again for joining me for that
conversation.

I'm sure might befuddled look
through a lot of that was the

entertainment value was probably
enough to make his week.

The next part of the interview
where he goes into his economic

systems and all that, it's I
thought I had enough of a tech

background to keep up with what
he was talking about.

I there's parts in this
interview where I look like a

rabbit trying to figure out how
to reassemble a helicopter.

It's it's fascinating stuff.
I know what he's saying.

But my old noggin's taking too
many knocks.

I think I was having a hard time
keeping up.

It really is fascinating stuff
and it's the kind of thing I

want to expand into.
Maybe not that all the time, but

different points of view,
different things.

What I'm going for with
primitive intelligence, I hope

you guys really enjoyed that.
Next week is going to blow your

mind with some of the stuff that
he talked about.

I really feel bad because I only
had like 24 hours, less than 24

hours to to research anything
that I thought he might talk

about.
That happened really quick, and

I was way unprepared.
So I'm going to try not to do

that again in my next
interviews.

Again, Noah, thank you very much
for your time.

I appreciated it.
It was a lot of fun talking to

you.
And next week will be the rest

of that interview.
And until then, think about

things that you've seen that may
not be real.

Think about what you've
experienced in life that may

indicate that we live in a
simulation.

I've got a question for you.
Have you ever had this happen?

I This happens to me pretty
calmly and it drives me nuts,

either driving down the road or
being a passenger in the car and

you just kind of looking like
looking out the window and you

see someone walking and you just
kind of look at him.

And now I kind of do it on
purpose to see if I can actually

see the person.
But you see them walking, and as

you're about to see their face,
like a signpost just kind of

blocks your view.
And then as a signpost, they

cleared A signpost.
There's a tree.

And then as the tree goes by,
there's like a kid with a

balloon that blocks her face.
And then you turn a corner and

don't see them.
It happens a lot.

It's like, it's like the
universe was like, oh, you

weren't.
That one wasn't rendered.

You weren't supposed to see that
one yet.

And sometimes it's like like
stopping the car and hopping out

and running around the corner
and looking at them.

Are you real?
Are you a real person?

I I don't do it though, because
I don't want to get locked up.

But yeah.
Have you ever had that happen?

Let me know that's going to do
it for this episode, The

Primitive Intelligence Podcast.
Thank you for staying tuned for

this extended version.
I know there's a lot of

information in there, and I hope
you enjoyed it.

I'll see you in the episode 506.
See

No.