Fusions of Consciousness | Donald Hoffman Technical Interview 

❶ Fusions of Consciousness 0:00 "The first time I've mentioned this publicly" 1:50 Mapping Consciousness to Physics 5:35 Dynamics of Decorated Permutations 9:30 4 Levels: Conscious Agents / Decorated Permutations / Amplituhedron / Spacetime 13:50 What's special about Decorated Permutations? (Technical) 21:50 "So much about consciousness that cannot be modeled." 22:50 Related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem \ Cantor's Hierarchy ❷ Conscious Agents (Level 1) 27:05 Experiences & probabilistic relationships are fundamental 28:45 What makes them "agents"? 30:50 How does 1-agent make decisions? Color example 32:30 What kicks off dynamics, what happens at bootup? 34:00 What is the menu of an agent's possible actions? 35:35 When do dynamics transition from boring to interesting? (Fusions) 40:40 Is this goal-directed? 42:10 Any mechanism for developing preferences? (1st time asked this question) 43:00 Are these conscious agents seeing the truth or modeling fictions? ❸ Mapping the Territory 46:10 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point & Trace Chains 51:53 Conscious agents need a menu of actions, minimum space for probabilities... map-territory relationship? 53:50 Is mathematics itself fundamental? Math is like the bones... 55:10 Is there any territory? One infinite intelligence... 57:40 Don's process for breakthroughs 59:20 Teaser for round 3 topics

It's a Mandelbrot in every direction, it isn't all that complicated to understand, it's all the exact same thing on different planes of existence, they all feed into one another and so on, and you, yourself, are the picture you are playing in, and you decide what it looks like and then move about into it. This is why you change yourself, you change your world, and why it lags behind, because you know what you want, but it's like 20 layers deep, so as you go toward it, you have itterational experiences that are getting better and better, or worse and worse, the system doesn't judge, there is no good and bad, right or wrong, only ignorance. This is why we are explorers and the rudder is your mind, the ideas you hold within you create your reality. It's all momentum based because of this phenomenon, you get more and more of what you think about. When leaving something you are done with, it will go away progressively as well, and the speed at which it goes away is how good you are at not thinking about it anymore, because you will see it, but you have to not think about it, just chalk it up as normal, otherwise you give it more power, maybe add a cycle and so forth. Everything works the same way, no exceptions. And the good news is we consciousness beings are paired in three, one is the physical reality here, one is the part of you that knows everything and the other is you, the part of this trinity that doesn't know anything, who is there to drive around into the system for the sole purpose of enjoying such system, you are here to enjoy the world, you are the world enjoying itself, the good the bad, see nothing but enjoyment, more or less, depending on what you think and how you feel. Enjoy!

Absolute love Donald Hoffman and hearing him talk is fascinating and stretches the boundaries of science. Carlos is outstanding at asking the questions we all want to ask and is a great listener!

Thank you so much for this amazing interview! I look forward to watching it over and over until it can sink in a bit. I so love Donald Hoffman! These breakthroughs in science are exciting.

Consciousness is sometimes called the Luminous Void and there's this phenomenon where the brightest part of the shadow of a reflective, perfect 3D sphere is in the middle of its 2D shadow. Akin to a Luminous Void created by the shadow of a higher dimensional object. The phenomena is called Arago spot, sometimes Poisson spot, or Fresnel spot and is due to Fresnel diffraction if you're curious. It makes me think that just like this phenomenon our consciousness is in a way a shadow of a higher dimensional consciousness. Maybe that God Agent, Infinite intelligence or Omega point Donald Hoffman talked about.

Thanks for this! I read the paper a few weeks before I saw this and the math was just too far over my head. I was able to mostly follow along in his first paper on conscious agents, but things just got too dense in this paper and it was great to see him explaining things at more of a level that I can follow. I've also been watching interviews with him for years like you've said you have as well, and he's said in every video some variation of "Now my job is to boot up space-time from consciousness...if I can't get evolution by natural selection and general relativity from this, then the theory is wrong." I always was wondering "How many times can he keep saying that without progress?" less in a total skeptic sense more in a "he must be working on this" sense...and here it is! I've really been tempted to try to learn the math to understand his research better, because I get a strong sense that he is REALLY onto something that so many people are sleeping on. There's something about saying "I think consciousness makes space-time" that makes 90% of people just dismiss you out of hand, but Hoffman is coming around now with (what appears to be) solid mathematics backing up his idea that conscious agents make space-time. He's actually explaining what makes a particle. It looks like he's starting to show how consciousness could make space-time. It's mind-blowing if he's right. I do wonder how he came up initially with "These are the three things a conscious agent can do" though. There are a lot of ideas about consciousness as fundamental, and I feel like many of them lean toward the idea that consciousness doesn't "drive", in other words it's a passive observer. In Hoffman's model when he has a conscious agent able to "decide" as one of the three things, I've wondered if that means that we as very large networks of conscious agents (that also are conscious agents) have free-will or casual power of some kind due to these dynamics.

Another wonderful discussion, Don. As always, great questions Carlos. Thank you very much. Look forward to the next.

Thanks a million to you and the rest of real scientific agents who really working towards right direction without any dogma or string attached and unlimited thanks... to The Master Agent of the Universe who made it all possible in the first place... Love and respect from Iran ❤

Just wow. Wow. Thank you for getting the most clean, clear and understandable interview that Donald has ever given. This was incredible. And I can’t wait for round 3.

For those who have followed Hoffman's work through YT videos, this is a treasure and easy to follow. But for others, I guess it's going to be difficult (and boring!) as the prerequisites are significant. I personally like this talk venturing in to the gray areas where Science meets the Spiritualism, but Hoffman & Farias may get a pushback there; don't let the critiques make you shy away from venturing there! Thank you. 😁

Absolutely amazing chat. Thank you Carlos for being the conduit 🙏🏾

My understanding from Dr Hoffman explanation of decorated permutations: Decorated permutations are the most compact way to describe what all the different communicating classes of a Markovian dynamic are; they tell you what are the independent units. They tell you what are the free particles in physics When you look inside some communicating classes you see what are called partide sets or states which are all interacting so you can get from one state to another Those decorated permutations that classify the partide subsets within communicating classes tell you the bound particles in physics ie bound inside a communicating class eg quarks that are bound inside a proton Free particles correspond to some communicating classes and bound particles correspond to some partide sets of communicating classes Most communicating classes of conscious agents have nothing to do with particles (which are an part of space time interface our portal to reality allows) Hope I understood this correctly. I’d appreciate some feedback if I didn’t

16 min Such clarity about a thing complicated for even PHDs. Important to note that Hoffman calls it a discovery and not an invention. How order comes into reality and there is no randomness . Coexistence of the formless and the form is all that is there to discover.

these "permutations" through these different layers or levels really sounds like a scientific descriptions of the emanations of consciousness and creation described in the kabbalistic tree of life and its sephirot

AMAZING interview--definitately looking forward to the next one with Don!

Love the conversation , I wish it came with a basic course in quantum physics / mathematics

Awesome and can't wait for round two! Glad to have found your channel.

This morning I made a light, fluffy two egg omelette, four slices of maple bacon and rye toast with orange marmalade jam. Washed it down with a glass of fresh squeezed orange juice. It was delicious.

Couldn't get more bizarre . My favourite comedy channel

oh hell yes. This was awesome and I can't wait to see the upcoming interview with Friston!

in new in this channel and i´m loving this interviews thank you so much for all of this

so decorated permutations are a subset of conscious agents forming amplitihedron in spacetime and the powerset is a subset of all infinities, got it that clears things up

Great video. It’s all about the books. Book 33

This discussion is heads and tails above. Thanks to you both!

19:00, my understanding is this. The mathematics of decorated permutation with Markovian dynamics, can describe the physical states of particles. The free particles (with dynamic states that resembles a communicating class can be modeled by the same decorated permutation which describes that same communicating class). Communicating class: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with an ordered way of changing, (1->2->3->4->5->1->2..) can be described by mathematics of decorated permutations, can describe free particle states. Bipartite: State A -> B, can also be described by decorated permutations, which can also model bounded particle states. The importance of that is we can now we can use mathematics (along with conscious agents) to model particles (also with decorated permutations). 20:02 Interesting where Don is describing conscious agents with the communicating classes and markovian dynamics, it would be interesting to go into more details of the conscious agents in this process.

Don is a special human being! 🙏

fantastic. subscribed in the first 5 minutes, thanks!!

best channel on yt

I can only express my gratitude for you two. This is amazing! My intuition is also that there is this one infinite intelligence, which is so intelligent that is also capable of “forgetting” that it is infinite intelligence, and imagines that it is finite, and here we are, seeing ourselves as separate entities. It’s remarkable that Hoffman seems to be aware that the ultimate realization of the infinite may be beyond science and concepts, and yet he keeps producing amazing science. As a current PhD student (and also a serious meditation practitioner), I can only say I hope to contribute to this field one day, building on these great ideas. Looking forward to the next chapter!

Just want to add some color to what Don is saying, he's obviously super smart, my explanation is just by listening to many of his youtubes. Decorated permutation: it's really how a subset changes, say with 1, 2 and 3, you have the permutation of: 1,2,3; 1,3,2; 2,1,3; etc... Amplituhedron: the way the particle scatter that resembles a polygon of some sort when smashed by particle accelerator So adding together: say when particles scatter (once smashed by particle accelerator), it can be predicted based on these polygons, and they rotate their order. Say it 1st time you smash it, it scatters into an octagon, then it's a hexagon, then they scatter into a pentagon...then it repeats. obviously very simple terms, but hope that helps.

Yup! The more hardcore - the better.. You and Curt both do amazing job!

first time finding you. great content with value. keep it up!

Absolutely amazing! I just wish I understood some of this...

20 minutes in and most of the particles swim in different fields, but they communicate within their fields effectively to play their role in this silly place we call the universe. I think, could be wrong. 30 minutes in and you're now introducing bioelectricity as a way the agents can communicate to each other, or I'm on the wrong beach, which wouldn't surprise me. Write as I watch, 40 minutes in I can see the possibility growing beyond our ability to perceive it real terms, does that preclude controlling the outcomes as not within our grasp at a more emergent point? 45 minutes, red is only one reality. 56 minutes, hopeful view to wrap up a great conversation, thank you both Donald and Carlos.

The Omega Point conversations have some interesting overlap with Origin of Alexandria's "On First Principles" discussed well by Charles Stang's lecture on Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church (Havvard Divinity School web article and lecture on subject via RU-vid). I also touch on this line of thinking in my book BEING WHOLLY: BEING HOLY HUMAN AND SO MUCH MORE TOGETHER - Steven Obdyke

It's interesting to think that all of Physics has been akin to attempting to understand the operating principles of an Xbox from within the environment of a game like GTA; an impossible task as there is no way to discover the underlying relations between any given aspect of the game, and the operations being performed on the underlying hardware. The only clues you have are some conditions which break the simulation in some way, eg: times when the game slows down due to the dynamics overwhelming the underlying hardware suggests to you that the simulation is computationally bounded, and even some clue of what that upper bound may be.

Extremely interesting, thank you. Any experimental evidence available, or Projects planned to proof?

he has hit the nail on the head on many aspects of this

20:30 Indeed it is beyond my comprehension.

Infinity in both ways. Division and addition

Whoa! Yes. This is exciting!

That was awesome.

47 min @Carlos Mega omega point is the formation of the life atom the soul that can understand experience and know which all physical atoms are capable of.

26 Great saying Carlos. Truth is not dependent on being proved. Truth is just truth. 🙏🙏 Experiencing it is our objective and as a result we become human and stop inhumanity on this planet. It is that clear😊

"We having fun here" 🎉

Great interview! I adore Donald Hoffman's way of thinking and humility. A quick question: Does "agent" mean a person, a human being, any animate being, including animals, insects, fish etc? Does the "agent's preference" refer to "free will"? Thank you.

Ok…Donald Hoffman is officially my favorite public intellectual.

what a time to be alive! AI and now this? things are movin'

23.4 @carlos The minimum an agent comes into order and behaves in a fixed system is the atom. The good part is we have the arithmetic that explains it to the person interested

Yes Carlos, Padre T, an amazing man, ahead of his time, any read the edymon cantos? great incorporation of this intot he novel

this contradicts my computer sims so can't be right lol... Does the amplituhedron/decorated perms have any connection to gravity or the 95% of universe's matter and energy(the dark stuff)? Can one assert much confidently about reality's deeper aspects when they ignore uber significant aspects of the universe?

Where does the vortex come into play? Is there a vortextual movement from one level or plane to the other?

this sounds so uncanny similar to FGI framework, Fundamental Geometry of Information. It must be a superposition of paradigm shift momentum across the relative conscious field. Just beautiful !

I love this stuff. And I can see a design springing forth. But, who decides red. Who decides green. Who is the coder... Again we are left with a mystery, "in the beginning".

Does the color of decorated permutations denote chirality?

There MUST be data behind the energy: massless, scalar, spin-less definitions of fundamental parameters ALL universes or Omniverse requires.

Only part way through, so if this is discussed, disregard this......this seems to be discussing conciousness in terms of partical physics, but conciousness, to me, seems to function according to the laws of quantum physics.....maybe like, it primarily exists in the quantum realm and projects onto the physical realm only secondarily.....and, if so, then a deeper understanding would necessitate the incorporation of quantum theory in the explanation.....🤷‍♀️ *edit: that said, it's unlikely that we have, or even can, realize(d) the totality of dimensions/realms in which conciousness functions.....and,(now a bit futher in), you have somewhat touched on the subject of my inquiry, in different terms, but some parts of my questions were answered so far😊

If the amplituhedron is non-dynamical then how will the projection of space-time be impacted? If the amplituhedron is outside of space-time then it is understandably not moving through linear time. How would change take place in it? Is it entropic?

Does it have to see yellow and green before it can see blue?

I think few scientists are good and sincere about combining science with philosophy

This seems like it very well could be one of the hyperdimensional foundations in which, Manifestion and Synchronicities work. Couple this with Harmonic Resonance Dynamics and the concepts of the Law of Attraction and it could be the beginning of A Mathematical model explaining how Consciousness Creates Matter Rather than Matter Giving Rise to Consciousness. We are co creators, And there is a time delay between When thoughts become things. Otherwise we'd likely destroy ourselves pretty quickly as we haven't learn Enough discernment to recognize The power of consciousness itself.

22:50 Don describes the conscious agent. I remember in a previous episode where he mentioned that a conscious agent is almost like a "fractal" subset of the infinite large conscious agent. Same property, looks the same, walks the same, etc. In fractals, where you can infinitely zoom in, it still looks like the "non-zoomed-in" image. So this is very interesting, in spirituality where The Creator (GOD), he created us, spiritual beings, to resemble him (not in a four-limbs fashion) rather a fractal infinitely small piece of GOD. And with Gödel's incompleteness theorem, you can almost say The Creator can never experience everything there is, so he created infinitesimally small piece to experience a world he created. And Don's conscious agent seems to describe this as well...Mind-blown.

I would hate to be the one that has to interview Donald. I would feel mentally handicapped. Love what i can understand about his theory though! Its my new obsession

If it is possible to represent a "mind", per Hoffman's specifications, in an abstract algebra X? Is there a Boolean representation of that algebra X? If not, then we have a lot of work to do to resolve that question.

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

The Omega Point: essentially Georg Cantor's "Absolute Infinite", the Tao, the Ein Sof of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tao, the Substance of Spinoza, "Being-In_Itself" of Aristotle, The One of Plotinus, and Sat-Chit-Ananda of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. This is experiential. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra" - Sacred Sounds Choir", and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Enjoy the Bliss of the Omega point.

Matter is only able to maintain form in a time based prophesy

I wonder if such an approach (v. high dimensional geometry projections) applies to the math / physics predictions at the everyday length scales eg. how objects in our solar system will move over millions of years, or the flux within an ecosystem, or how people will behave in different situations eg. pandemic, political shifts

So decorated permutations are full metal alchemist circles? 😮

Looking at the progression of particles to larger structures through a linear lens of time still doesn’t quite make sense. In my mind, the largest structures and smallest particles exist simultaneously. Trying to fully describe our infinite universe within the universe seems impossibly endless. But thank __ the exploration of ourselves is infinite. I love how Hoffman says he gets his inspiration from sinking into the silence beyond thoughts 🙏🏼

I watched Donald in an interview on a lex Fridman podcast I hadn't planned to watch it and at the time I was on LSD and all's I can say is he is more or less bang on the money with this theory

Awesome video. Please correct me if I'm off on the following which I believe are key takeaways from Hoffman's interesting proposition: 1) There must be one all-encompassing universal substrate which amounts to objective reality into which all individual conscience beings are grounded. This is why all individual timelines tie in. 2) For the sake of expediency and survival we access, and only access a compressed field copy. We see the logic and success of this reasoning when seen through the natural selection scope because we viscerally sense urgency. The saber toothed tiger is crouching! What do we make then when he says that spacetime is a creation as well, if the reason for the compressed field version is expediency? Why would evolution hamstring itself??

Electomagntic fields is vibrating in the level of complexety and higher states next geometry form next on its evelution defie by its color and tone frequency. It emits

@22:20 If these "baby steps" are this jaw dropping, consider what the "adult" properties will reveal

When will we consider the computational complexity of the Universe? Physics has to solve problems that are well known to be in NP....

When you speak of particles in the Decorated Permutations - isn't that a particle like is found in Space-Time?

Could this be describing a black hole that when precisely fuse explode in a white hole?

Hoffman knows.

Does it describe gravity? And possibly antigravity?

Around the 51:00 minute mark, is this discussion pertaining to cycles of the big bang and the Kali Yuga?

Wow

A vast 'network' of conscious agents. A K A, INDRA'S NET

Donald Hoffman says that if we do deeper in the levels of his theory we could create machines that would allow us to play with time and space as if it was a video game, make things appear and disappear like magic, his world those machines look like i wonder

The conscious agent theory is one of the most fascinating theories to come out of physics in recent years and the fact that it’s not purely theoretical and is backed up with math and science is awesome

Where can i find groups of people to talk about this stuff with?

🧘🏻🏋🏿‍♂️ 2:31

i exist in multi dimensions at same time.. its complex im searching for an understanding please

Its resonans freequency hz according to angående in form

The magnetic field is only relative to magnitudes presented to occupy . As in vave field

Hi would like to get in touch with Carlos re coherent understanding of everything and nothing that needs to be shared and can be understood by anyone , anyone have a contact much appreciated..

A conscious agent could produce a simpler conscious agent. Imagine a conscious agent who wanted to create a universe. Then, it would need the spacetime physics and the simple agents we get with neurons.

My pet name for his theory is “infinite regress of conscious pixels theory” His theory has helped me feel more secure that conscious must be fundamental. After all- it’s mapping onto particles in space time now! Wtf!

Did Donald mention DMT? Could you provide a timestamp?

I feel incredibly lucky to bear witness to a theory that I believe in time will re-define how humans understand reality. 🙏💗🪐

Superman in the world

47:38 Omega Point is the AI Singularity and The internet

I constructed a theory of time and reality based on the spiritual realm and the basic theme was the bible is a letter to a people who will read it. I had written it a few days ago. The three paragraphs are each a part of the whole.I wanted to see if you will read it. So I will put it in the reply to this comment. After I get a yes from someone in reply to this comment first.

Can proton be prooven true

Sounds a like like Wolfram’s concept of the Ruliad

Its soundvaves vibrations from the buzz