Oh
Welcome to Duality Check, the podcast where two brothers embark on a thrilling journey
through the realms of scientific inquiry, the enigmatic mysteries of the past, and the uncharted
territories of spirituality. Join us as we explore the wonders of our world and beyond while we
embrace the roles of curious bystanders rather than experts. Together we'll unravel the intricate
tapestry of existence, blending the dichotomies of knowledge and wonder. Get ready to question,
ponder, and delve into the dualities that shape our understanding of the universe on Duality
Check. I'm Drew. And I'm Dean. And today's topic for the first episode of the show is we're
going to be talking about science. And we're going to talk about where are its limits, where
are its blind spots, like where are the areas that science is kind of hung up. I think it
should be a fun episode today. Yeah. Maybe we talk about a little bit of like, what we want
to accomplish with this podcast too. Yeah, yeah. So, the name is Duality Check, which I like
it because the word duality to me means a lot of different things like, It can mean, well,
its use in like science today is like duality. Dualism is this idea that, um, there is a,
uh, a sort of materialist physical system that is our body and brain, but there's this kind
of special something of like a spirit or the hard problem consciousness that we have a hard
time explaining. And a lot of scientists and philosophers are stuck. with this dualist view
when a lot of other scientists want to reduce it all to materialism. Yeah. That's one use
of the word duality. But the other is I like the idea of thinking of duality as this different
ways of approaching learning about the world. You have the scientific method, but you also
have the spiritual. and direct experience method. Yeah, the more experiential view of having
experience to things, therefore, it gives you a different view of the thing other than just
running tests. Right, right. And then another read on the word duality is duo or two. Because
there's two of us. There's two brothers. Two brothers having a marquise. That's right. We're
going to be talking about a lot of science. mysteries and Yeah, our goal is To Explore
all these weird and wonderful ideas. We want to talk cover scientific topics. We want to
cover That type of stuff, but we also want to cover the Talk about pyramids and UFOs and
Psychedelics, yeah. Yeah exactly Chakras dragons We're gonna talk science and we're gonna talk
woo. Yep, we're gonna mend them kind of give our own take on What that means for our lives,
right like what it means for Just the average human being and how science and the spiritual
aspects of life kind of Give us all Our templates that we go by every day, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm
We all have experiences of both. Right. In some way or another. Yeah, we all experience science
when we use our cell phones all day long. But a lot of us have these weird mystical experiences,
dreams, and you think about or talk about someone, and all of a sudden they call you. Yeah. Just
it's going to be interesting. And today's topic is science. We're going to start off there.
Yeah. So I just got a few topics written down here that I want to explore. It's a lot of
the stuff that is at the bleeding edge of science. But stuff that science has really been struggling
with. And I want to explore what science thinks the state of it is, but also some other weird
random theories that may account for some of these things too. Let's go. Have some fun.
And I'm probably just going to be commenting on a lot of things he talks about. Well, also
I'll give some, uh, some, I want to lay out, uh, that we are not experts. Neither of us
have PhDs or college degrees. We're very much a bystanders and all this stuff where we're
your average internet folk, like all you out there. We just like to learn. We like to talk
about stuff. We like to throw ideas around. So, we've all experienced. one thing or another
that, you know, makes us have an inspiration to, to dive into these topics. So right. That's
where we come from a little bit is just don't take us as some sort of gurus or anything.
And that'll obviously, yeah, that'll be obvious enough as we're discussing things like it's
just don't seem to know what they're talking about. Well, you're right. We don't. So what
do you got? All right. So the first thing I want to talk about is this dark matter and
dark energy, which I find incredibly fascinating. So when you look into like astronomy, cosmology,
and the group of scientists who are trying to explain like, where did everything come from?
Where did everything start? How do we explain the universe we see around us? There's these
two things that are, you know, they're talked about so often that a lot of people may. misunderstand
and think that science has a much better idea about what these things are or some sort of
evidence that they are what science thinks they are when in fact There's a whole heck of a
lot. We don't know and it's just theories at this point it's funny that you say when in
fact because Facts in theory are completely different things, right? Right? Yeah, so like
a fact would be like you can take a measurement. You can drop an apple and measure it's starting
point and it's ending point and the bounces it does and write all this down as like a fact
of what happened when you did this experiment. But the theory is how do you explain that behavior
and what causes it to do that? And so a lot of our theories have, you know, a theory is
something with some sort of evidence of the formal version of the word theory. not in the
colloquial use, like in the scientific use. The word theory is like an idea that has evidence
to back up somewhat. So it's kind of upgraded from a hypothesis, or just an idea, or speculation
to something a little more formalized. Yeah, it's basically something that has evidence
to start to understand it, but there's still aspects of it. that cannot be fully explained.
Whereas a law is even higher grade than a theory, right? So a law would be something like the
law's emotion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Some things are so well
understood, quote unquote, because we know that they happen every single time, there's no exceptions.
But just because we know that something happens every single time and we have the math to describe
how it happens and how it. you can predict how it will happen. You don't necessarily always
know the why. Right, there's always the why. But anyway, so let's talk about dark matter
first. So dark matter came about as a theory when we're pointing our telescopes out in space
and we see these galaxies, these crazy spiral galaxies, all these different shapes that are
trying to classify them. And we get Einstein's theory of gravity, which really helps us to
refine what gravity is and whatnot. But there's a problem when we're looking at certain galaxies.
So essentially what happens is you can, scientists have these ways of looking at a galaxy and
estimating how much mass is in there by essentially how bright the galaxy is my understanding.
OK. And so you can say, OK, here's this galaxy. There's x amount of stars in it. There's this
much mass total in that galaxy. And so then they try and draw up the math to explain all
of its movement. And they notice the rotation.
The inner stars rotate according to our understood laws of gravity. There's nothing super mysterious
about the inner stars and their speed of rotation. So when you get further out to the end of the
spiral? Yeah. So you get out to the edge of the galaxy and the stars are out there, according
to our theory of gravity, they're moving too fast. There's not enough gravity in what we
can see and observe about that galaxy that explains how fast these outer stars are moving. And
so they need more mass. They need something to explain why there's more gravity causing
those stars to rotate faster.
So and they haven't come up with other, I mean, well, so the term dark matter, like, yeah,
the term dark matter is like, essentially the first theory is like, well, there's probably
just stuff out there we can't see yet. Yeah, it's matter, but it's dark, cuz we know matter
is what, matter and gravity are interlinked. The more massive an object is, the more gravity
it has. So. They just figure there's some sort of matter there that we just, our telescopes
are not able to detect. Right. Because because matter we know is detectable by light, like
light bouncing off of it. Right. But light is it's got like a spectrum. Right. So all the
way you got like you got the visible light spectrum. But below that you have infrared. Yeah. And
down. And then above you also have, you know, ultraviolet and x-rays. All these things above.
So we have different telescopes that can look at those different... Right, right. The different
frequencies. Right. So they'll look at a galaxy with all of that, and still with all of that,
they don't come up with enough matter to explain these stars on the edge. Got it. So the one
theory I know about is called WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles. It's a type
of particle that doesn't interact with other matter, like... electromagnetically. So and
it doesn't like give off light, reflect light, or anything like that. But it does have gravity.
It interacts gravitationally. With the light? With other matter in the galaxy. Oh, gotcha.
So it's attracting and? Right. And they sort of think there's like these halos of dark matter
around galaxies, I've heard it explained as. So that means on a plane of matter, it would
be like a ring? Like a thin, like a ring, how is that? Yeah, again, we're not experts. I
don't know, okay. But it's interesting because when they add up all the, you look at all the
light, all the galaxies, they add up all this matter, and then they add up all this, what
we need as quote unquote dark matter to explain how everything moves. And it turns out there's
way more dark matter than there is matter, like by a long shot. So basically dark matter fills
in all of empty space. Uh, yeah, I don't know if they would say it that way, but. I mean,
well, cause empty space, right. It would, would the vacuum of space be more. It's more space
than what matter takes up. in the expanse of the universe. Empty space? Well, space. Yeah.
Well, there's more space than there is matter. Right. Like, the emptiness between our star
and the next star is like vast. My thought was that just offhand is that because we know about,
well, we don't know about, but we are starting to understand quantum. quantum particles in
the quantum realm and all this and is it possible, maybe it's possible that the space itself has
mass, it's just maybe it has more mass, maybe it actually attracts more than we initially
thought maybe? So you're saying in the quantum realm? Just the vacuum of space itself is somehow
attracting stuff? Yeah. Like it's almost, it's like a viscous thing, but it's on a totally
different level. Oh, are you talking about the theory that I was talking about before with
the like that Einstein's intuition? Yeah, the Einstein's intuition thing. Yeah, we're gonna
do a whole episode on that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But like in short, it's basically this idea
that. So all right. In short. In short, basically, is like, what if space itself is some sort
of fluid or material? Because we know from quantum physics that you can't divide. There's a minimum
amount of space. It's called a Planck length. And below that. what we mean by the word space
doesn't exactly even mean the same. We don't even know that there's anything less than that.
That's the minimum. Is it infinitely divisible? Right. So you always see these when they're
talking about relativity and stuff, we've all seen the graphic of like, you take. A sheet.
take a flexible sheet and you throw a bowling ball on there. Elastic sheet, and then you
put something massive in there. And then you take a smaller ball and you flick it across,
and it will, quote unquote, orbit the bowling ball in the middle, because it deforms the
sheet. Which is all fine, except for the fact that is a 2D demonstration of what is supposed
to be a 3D effect. And I've never. until this quote unquote Einstein's intuition theory never
actually saw an explanation for how does space deform in three dimensions? Yeah, what would
that even look like? Cause obviously we're looking like in that demonstration, we're looking at
a flat thing in a three dimensional world. So it's intuitive, like you can grasp the basic
idea of it, but it doesn't explain what it would, what the. what it would materialize in a three-dimensional
space. Right. So how do you visualize how space deforms, how 3D space deforms? Because the
sheet is only a 2D example. So the idea is like. Heard my head already. Yeah. If space is like,
imagine space as little tiny particles of space. And that what if you visualized it. instead
of deforming the way like a trampoline does, you visualize it like particles and how particles
can be more dense and less dense and you can have like a pressure gradient, like our atmosphere.
So like way up near space, our atmosphere is incredibly thin and as you go down, the gravity
of all the air molecules pushing down on the other air molecules makes it more and more
dense as you come down to the surface. And then the same thing with water, the deeper you go,
the higher pressure is, because the particles themselves are more compacted. Because of pressure,
because of the weight of the thing. Yeah. So you could essentially, that could be a tool
for visualizing how space deforms. If space is these little fundamental space specs, what
if the deformation is just those specs? closer together. Yeah. Which would explain, it would
essentially work the same way relativity does, like, because around the sun, you would have
more space, and as you go out in the solar system, you would have less and less of it. And so
then that would affect what a straight line is. If there's more space on one side of you
than the other side of you, going straight is naturally gonna be a curve. rather than a straight
line. So it looks like you're going in an elliptical slash orbit, but in reality, that thing, that
particle, that mass is going in a straight line. It's going in a straight line through curved
space. Yeah. A three-dimensional thing. So in theory, if something else massive was to just
appear, it would change it in a sense of like it's more massive thing that came into it would
start to change the trajectory of it. Right. If you were to magically... If you're going
to start thinking... If you're going to stop thinking about it as a two-dimensional thing
and more of a three-dimensional thing where it could be affected at any axis, essentially.
Yeah. So if you were to just pop a new mass into existence, that would take the space around
it and make it more dense around that object. so that object would start affecting other
objects. And it's interesting if you think about it this way, too, with the particles of space
being more and less dense. It explains gravitational waves as well, because you would essentially
just be able to use the same sort of theory as pressure waves so that when two things orbit
each other, they would be making ripples through it the same way like if you drop a rock in
a pond, it makes ripples through. So that would, so with the ripples, yeah, the ripples would
move through the fabric, which would be this, if you're visualizing it the way we were talking
about, like these particles of space, that's the fabric. Right. Essentially. Yeah. But the
ripples aren't confined to a two-dimensional thing either, so they're rippling out three-dimensionally.
Right.
So yeah, that's dark matter and then our tangent. But the other side of that is dark energy.
Dark energy is super interesting. So the idea and how we came up with this idea of dark energy
is like when we point our telescope out at all these stars in every different direction, there's
this phenomenon called redshift. So you can do this in a lab. If you look at just like,
say, oxygen gas. and you shine a light through it and you record the light that has traveled
through the oxygen. The oxygen will absorb and sometimes different particles absorb different
particles emit, but it will affect the frequency of the light that you pushed through it and
absorb some of those frequencies and re-emit in other places. And so there's like a specific
signature of every different element and chemical and whatnot. so that you can actually look
out at a star really far away and notice, oh, that's the signature of oxygen there. But it's
not where it's supposed to be. It's shifted down towards the infrared. So that's how they
figure out the distance, but also the composition of the objects themselves, right? Well, partially.
Well, yeah. You can use the spectroscopy to... figure out the composition, but you can use
it to figure out. Because since you know the signature lines of, say, oxygen, you can tell
that it's off a certain distance from where it's supposed to be. And so that has redshifted.
It's kind of like the Doppler effect. So like when a car drives by you, as it's driving up
to you, it's moving in your direction. So it's sort of compressing those sound waves. Yeah.
And so it's happening. It pushes the sound of that car up in the spectrum so it'll sound
higher frequency And then as it goes away from you, it's leaving as it's putting those sounds
out to you So it's making those waves longer so it'll go lower pitch. So that's why you
get the As some drives by so it's essentially that but for light it's like the observer effect
of quantum physics But for sound almost Because you have there has to be an observer for it
to be shorter or longer, right? Depends on where you are observing it, that where it sounds
or how it sounds or looks. I don't know what you mean by that. Exactly. I mean, just that
like so like the observer effect of quantum physics is how like, you know, we don't have
to get into it fully here, but at this time, but like the fact that there has to be an observer
or an instrument picking up those waves at a certain point for it to be detected as a certain
length. Are you saying like essentially like it did a tree make a sound on the forest when
it fell? Kind of, yeah. In a sense, yeah. I think so. Like do those things even matter
or have the same, like is the fact that you're observing it changing it at all? Well I don't
know. That's just a thought. My pay grade for sure. Yeah, no kidding. Just a thought. A pay
grade of zero.
Okay, so dark energy. Yeah, right. We're looking at these stars we can tell The signatures in
there of the different elements we can see how far they've shifted Okay, and then you look
All around you and Everything is actually red shifted if you look one direction Say say you're
looking straight north all the stars there are red shifted. And then you look straight south.
And all the stars there are red shifted. And then you look east and west, and all the stars
in those directions are red shifted too. No matter what direction you look, everything
is red shifted. So there's something. Yeah. So with sound, you would expect as the thing's
approaching you, there's the. quote unquote purple shift where it gets higher frequency
and then as it's leaving, there's the red shift as it gets lower frequency. I see. But every
direction we look, everything is red shifted. Nothing is purple shifted at all. So it's as
if everything is going the same direction. It's as if everything is expanding. From our observation.
Everything is getting farther apart from each other. And that's why no matter what direction
we look, it's all moving away from us. hence redshift. Gotcha. OK. And so they use that
to determine how far away a galaxy is because they know how redshifted it is. There's a spectrum
of redshifting. Essentially, the explanation is that as that light is traveling to us, the
universe itself is expanding. And because of its expansion, it's ever so slightly elongating
those waves as they travel. OK. Getting it. And a longer wavelength is a lower frequency,
hence redshift. OK. So that's like the discovery of the expansion of the universe. But again,
they don't have the source. Well, what they don't know is where the heck is all the energy
coming from that is causing this expansion. Right. You know, we have basic physics telling
us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Like you have to have some sort of
energy input. If I have a ball on the table and I want it to roll, I have to push it to
make it roll that I'm inputting energy in order to cause an effect. Is this when the big bang
theory came out? Is around the time that they're essentially discovering that everything's expanding.
Which if you run that back in time, run that back in time, turn the clock back, if everything's
expanding and you turn it back, well everything must have been contracted at some point. And
if you do the math, then at some point in the past, everything would have been contracted
to the point of a singularity, hence like the Big Bang. And then something caused it to go
boom in the beginning. But what we don't know is what the heck is this source of energy that's
continually causing things to accelerate. Yeah, and don't they think it's expanding faster?
Yeah, so. Now? The expansion, it's not only expanding, which is weird, but it's accelerating
in its expansion. It's not losing energy. It's gaining. Gaining. Whatever is putting energy
in to cause things to spread apart is putting more and more energy over time. But like, where
is this all, like, Where is all this energy? And it's so much energy that when you combine
dark matter and dark energy, and then you take a look at actual physical matter and physical
energy that we can measure, and you add up all the physical matter, physical energy that we
can measure, and then you take that against dark matter and dark energy, the percentage
of the universe that is dark matter and dark energy is 96. Holy shit. So according to the
most advanced science, we only have any sort of physical laws or understanding for 4% of
the universe. That'll make you feel tiny, huh? Yeah. Wow. But it'll also, if you sit and ponder
on that, make you realize that science is a lot further away from explaining everything
that they think they are. Well, yeah, then it gives more it gives a little bit more credence
to the non-physical reality, like non-physical things that might happen in our universe. Right.
Yeah. Like how much can we actually know about the universe if all of our theories only explain
4% of it. Yeah. And if we're just a ball in a, in a solar system, in a galaxy that's moving
through space.
Who knows what energies and what kind of anything we might encounter. And we have no idea. Like
we were talking, like we talked about before, is like, you know, going back to science, not
being able to prove God or the creation or spirituality or spiritually, we don't know where we came
from. Sure. Yeah. And, you know, depends what type of scientists you talk to, right? Because
like there's like plenty of super humble and open minded scientists out there who admit
how little we know and are excited about learning at all. And then there's people that you'll
hear like on these shows and whatnot. The Neil deGrasse Tyson's of the world who make it sound
like we just we have everything. We're just we're just maybe. maybe a few decades, maybe
a couple centuries at the most away from like finishing off our theories and being able to
explain literally everything. Right. Which is like, it's such... So far from the truth. Yeah.
Truth has a loose term there, but... Dark matter and dark energy means science can only explain
4% of the universe right now. So... We know nothing. Right. We know nothing. But related
to that is gravity itself. That's like the next one I wanted to go on is like, unknown. What
actually is it? What causes it? You always hear it colloquially, I always mess up that word.
Colloquially, colloquially. Whatever, they know what we're trying to say. Yeah, yeah. You always
hear it described as a force. the force of gravity pulling you. But according to Einstein, once
he came around, he was like, well, no, it's not that gravity. Gravity isn't even a force.
It's just the byproduct of things moving through curved spacetime. Right, it's not necessary
for it to be an energy or something like that. Right. It's more the just yeah, so the fact
that it's something is moving near something else. It's more dense More has more matter
or more dense. Yeah, it's the better way to say it. So well that's under that other theory,
but Yeah, so it used to be thought that there was an actual force pulling you right? There
was something that was pulling that apple off of that tree and causing it to hit the ground,
right? And then Einstein comes along and he's like, no, what's actually happening is the
curved space time. So like when you see a planet orbiting the sun, it's actually taking a straight
line through curved space. And what that looks like is a circle. Yeah. Which is weird. It's
weird because we can't see it. It's weird because we can't see it. Can't explain it. But we also
can't. We don't know the why. We know it's fundamentally linked to mass, but we don't know the mechanism
for that. How is it that something that has mass can distort the very fabric of spacetime?
Yeah, which? What is it about energy being bound into a packet of mass? What is it that the
causes spacetime to curve? What is it about space time that allows that to write? Right.
Like, what is it about the space itself that allows a function of that sort? Yeah. Like,
you wouldn't necessarily think like, oh, cool. Here's this space, empty room. Yeah. I put
a ball in it, and now the space in that empty room is a different shape. Right. That's counterintuitive.
It's weird. Especially to what the limits of our. like cognitive abilities like There might
be something happening Magically, we should do a whole show on gravity honestly because
there's some like we can link it to that Yeah, he signs intuition idea. I think that's a good
idea that That other channel that I found I think we have it on one of our notes here But
yeah, we should probably link it because that it's a fascinating thing and we could go off
on multiple tangents with that Yeah stories and whatever and then the next one The next
topic I got here is quantum physics itself. Yeah. More specifically, because there's actually
quite a bit that we know about quantum physics. That's why we have cell phones and computers.
It's our understanding of quantum physics that has given us all these modern advances. Still
limited understanding, though. Well, it's the interpretations of the stuff. So we can describe.
There's a difference between describing how something works and describing why or where
it comes from. Right. You don't necessarily have to know the why to be able to use it.
You don't have to understand that gravity is a distortion of space-time in order to understand
how to throw a ball and make it land somewhere, right? Right. Like you can use gravity without
understanding it in a similar way with all of our study into quantum physics. We can use
it. Yeah. That doesn't necessarily mean we know why and how and where it comes from. Yeah,
the why is always a little bit similar. But specifically the topic in quantum physics that
is so... argued about is this idea of wave-particle duality. Mm-hmm. There it goes again. What's
that? Duality. Oh, duality. Hey. Didn't even notice. I didn't even notice. Didn't even catch
it. So, wave-particle duality is this idea that...
a subatomic particle or like an electron or whatever. We think it has like a packet, like
it is a little dot, like a particle. But when we observe how it moves, it moves like a wave,
which is super weird. How can something be both? And so that has given rise to different interpretations
of quantum dynamic or quantum physics. So you've got a. things like pilot wave theory, which
is this idea that there's a sort of wave that the particle is riding on. And then you've
got the many worlds interpretation, which is that wave and all the places that the particle
can be based on that wave. It actually is in all those places. It's just in different universes.
Yeah. And it never, it doesn't. doesn't stay put until you observe it. The idea that there
are many dimensions or universes all having the same, all having a different point where
that thing is, that particle is. That particle could have taken, you know, trillions of different
paths, and there is a universe for every one of those trillion paths that it could have
taken. Yeah, and since everything is made of particles. Yeah, it leads into a lot of different
theories, a lot of different... The many world stuff's weird to me. I think it's kind of out
there. Well, quantum physics is just an open door for people to just make all sorts of assumptions
and come up with their own theories. And we used to watch the What the Bleep show and people
can take the quantum create whatever they want with it. Yeah. You can definitely go woo with
the interpretations as well, which, you know, I think everything has its ideas to contribute
to this because we don't really have this all resolved. But what modern, what you hear, like
when people talk about it, like the professors and whatnot, there's like this idea in quantum
physics where like, people were trying to figure out like, which is it? Is it a wave? Is it
a particle? How can it be both? And people were so like wrapped up arguing with each other
about the nature of it that like there became this mantra to like shut up and calculate.
Like we know the math, we can use the math to like do useful things. And as long as you guys
are sitting here philosophizing about is it a wave or a particle, we're not getting anything
done. So shut up and calculate. So they kind of, moved on from trying to explain this stuff
and was just like, all right, well, here's the math. We don't know what it means, but what
can we do with this now? That kind of explains the, the nature of physics and philosophy and
how they kind of, right. Kind of, kind of, uh, had a little bit of a breakup. Yeah. In a sense.
Well, cause physics started out like the original name for what we now call physics. back in
like ancient Greece was natural philosophy. It was actually philosophers that were the
ones who figured out how the world works and connected all the dots of this and that and
whatnot. And it was the realm of natural philosophy that was the origins of our Western science.
But on the other part on quantum physics is this challenge, like we have this quantum physics
that explains the small, we've got this gravity that explains the very large, but they don't
work well together. They're in fact, they're incompatible currently. And so the other area
where science is struggling is trying to figure out how do you combine small and the large?
How do you combine quantum physics? What's the connection? And that's where you get all these
other theories that you hear people talking about string theory and.
What else? So many I can't talk, think, even think about it right now. Yeah. What was the,
what was the discovery? Like, what was the, um, what was it that we realize with the Higgs
boson? So there's a thing. Okay. So, um, quantum physics, um, is trying to figure out what is
So at one point in time, someone first hypothesized this idea of an atom, that like this matter,
all this stuff we interact with is made of these little fundamental units called atoms. And
for a long time, we thought that was the fundamental unit. And then later on, it was discovered
that unit called the atom is actually made up of components. You got the protons and neutrons
and the electrons. And then they thought those were the fundamental. Particles, but then we
finally discovered that no, they're not Protons and neutrons are actually made up of these
things called quarks And so it's in there. It's in the quest to like explain the all the very
small things What is the most fundamental unit and they build these big particle accelerators
to take? Take yeah, take all this matter and bash it together. So breaks apart and while
it breaks apart, they can make measurements and use their theories to figure out what is
it that's coming out of those explosions basically. So what the Higgs boson is when they discovered
that there's even smaller shit. Yeah so with the particle accelerators, they started classifying
all the stuff that was coming out of those experiments and they created something called the standard
model. And the standard model is like... forget what it is, like 16 or 20 something different
types of particles. Quarks being one of them. Quarks. Yeah, there's different types of quarks
though. There's like strange quarks and they just named them whatever. Up quarks and down
quarks. Right. Yeah. It almost is like and there's computer code for explaining the movement of
them. Yeah, yeah. Well, it's like these are the little tiny pieces that make up the protons
and neutrons. So even electrons, that's one of the fundamental particles. We've discovered
that you can't break those apart, so that's fundamental.
And so an electron is negatively charged, and there's basically a positively charged version
of it. I think it's called a positron. So it's like the standard model in quantum physics
is this cataloging of all the different fundamental particles. And the Higgs boson was one that
had been theorized for a long time. What does it what is the state of it or what is the it?
Well, it has, quote unquote, been confirmed or found. OK, so do they know what it confirms
part of these theories in the standard model? I don't know what they all do. It's complicated
stuff. Should we look it up? I know that protons are supposed to be like, I don't know if it's
too up or too down, like two up quarks and a down quark or something like that. It might
be the other way around. And then the neutron is like two down quarks and an up quark, which
is weird to me because like how come two ups and a down make a proton but two downs and
an up make something that's like neutral charge? You would think. It would be opposite. Yeah.
So I don't understand that, but. I don't think they do either. Interesting. We're way past
our break. All right, you want to take a break real quick? Yeah, so we'll come back and keep
going. We're going to take a break, refill our drinks. Yeah. Crack a new beer. Yeah, we sit
here at Drew's house late at night, recording while he's on bad duty, waiting for the babies
to cry and calm them back down. Shove milk down their throats. So yeah, we're going to refresh
our drinks, make sure the babies are OK, and we'll be right back. Enjoy the music.
you
All right, we're back. We got our drinks refilled. Potty breaks in. Yeah, the kids are asleep
still. That's good. They're good. Good news. They're doing good. Yeah, if we ever take a
break really quick after getting into a new segment or randomly, it's going to be because
of the babes. Yeah, we'll call them baby breaks. Baby breaks. The oldest one snuggling his dogs.
So did you want to talk about what we're sipping on here? Oh, yeah. We are drinking Rogue Brewery.
It's called Bat Squatch, the hazy IPA. It's pretty good. I don't know if I did. Maybe you
brought this over one before. I don't know. I did bring another Rogue. I'm not sure if
it was this one. 54 IBU. We're kind of that's kind of we're into craft beers. Yeah. I mean,
we're not super snobby, but we're into craft beers. It's got a 54 IBU and I don't know this
one, but it's 12. Is that a SAM, S-A-M, 12 or SRM? I don't know. I don't know what that means.
I have no idea what that means. So as you could tell, we're not super snobbish. If you know
what SRM means, send us an email to hosts at dualitycheck.net. It's got a cool little graphic
on it though. It's like a star and it's kind of got like a gradient. So it tells you. what
is what the notes are a little bit more. It's kind of got, you see that it's kind of got
a, it's telling us that it's got a tropical citrusy, tropical citrusy, piney, bitter and
malty little bit. It's not very malty. Yeah. It's low on the mall. It's really high on the
tropical citrus. How you, uh, how you define that, but it's good. Yeah. How do you measure
the, what are the units of tropical measure? This doesn't sound very scientific to me. This
one's a lot less tropical. This leads us into our next topic. Beer measurements are bullshit.
It's all bullshit. Don't believe a thing you hear, you see on a beer can. Yeah, they tell
you how many I B U's you, I don't see any I's or B's or U's in this. It just looks like liquid
to me. No, the one I care about is the ALC, the alcohol content. 6.7% volume. Our dad,
every time we give him a beer, his very first question, how much percentage on that one?
Or if he gets a beer, he's like, ooh, this is really good. It's 9.7%. That's his first thing
he wants to talk about it. Yeah, it's 7.0 or higher for him. He wants to have one beer and
feel good. Right, right. I get it. Beer's bloating. Yeah, no, I get it. I love it though, so I'm
gonna drink more than one. All right, so we talked about dark matter, dark energy, gravity,
we were kinda in quantum physics, but. Can never get out of quantum physics. Yeah, that's a
rabbit hole. Let's, I guess go on from there, cause the next big topic that science is like
really. Oh, shit. Like struggling with. today is consciousness itself. So you hear people
throw around this term, the hard problem of consciousness. What does that even mean? Yeah,
so I guess that's like a distinction between the quote unquote easy problem, which doesn't
sound very easy to me. Well, it's easy to somebody, I'm sure. The quote unquote easy problem, the
thing that we can just not apply our known scientific methods to is how does the brain work. So we
can hook up a brain to all these different sensors and fMRIs and all of these technologies tell
what areas that the brain are lighting up that are associated with different states of mind,
different experiences. Senses. Yeah, so you can have someone put their brain in this machine
and then smell chocolate and see what part of the brain lights up. And then you can make
them smell a beer in a different part of the brain, but in the same region, the olfactory
region or whatever will light up. And so you can start making this map of where in the brain
are their associations different things, you can start to build a theory for how the brain
works. But no matter how much measurement you do, no matter what fancy machines you hook
up, what you can't explain with science- With the why. Is, well, you can't explain what makes
something what it is, right? So you can't explain the experience of looking at something red
and experiencing it as red. Or that it's actually red, either. We can say that- that object is
reflecting a certain wavelength of light that hits our retina and the rods and cones and
goes to the brain and it processes it. But you can't explain why we experienced that as something
that we call red. Right. Well, and you got to think of colorblind people too, right? They
don't experience colors the same as everybody else. And it kind of makes me think like, Are
we even looking at the same thing? Yeah, but that's like on the easy side of consciousness,
right? Sure. Yeah. Color blindness. The science can show that they have a certain type of.
Cones and rods. It's cones that are for color, I believe. Yeah. They'll have only two. So
there's three types of cones. There's the red detective cones, the green, and the blue detecting
cones. Right. And for color blind people, they'll only have two types, or a lower number of the
third type. So they can't experience the full. color spectrum that the rest of us can. I guess
what I was getting at, that makes sense. You can explain that, but you can't explain like
so. I guess it comes to more of like conditioning, right? So when you learn about colors, if your
brain is, let's say I'm looking at as a child learning colors, I'm looking at a color blue,
but somebody tells me that color is red long enough. I start associating blue with the color
red. Right. So I am looking at something that to somebody else, if they were looking through
my exact same eyes, would be blue. But I know it as red because I've been told that color
is red for so long. So like, how do you explain that? It's like that philosophical conundrum
is like, how do we know that what I call red and what you call red that we're actually experiencing?
The same color. Yeah. The same experience is happening. What looks like red to me might
look like blue to you, but because we use the same term, red, you call it that, even though
you may experience it differently. Right. That's interesting. The experience could be completely
different. Yeah. Yeah, and how would you know that? And how would you know? Yeah. Well, it's
similar. So the hard problem is like, what? We can't explain. what creates this idea of
being inside and looking out through these windows into the world. Like you can't explain what
it's like to exist. You can't explain what it's like to experience red, experience the smell
of coffee, experience the taste of a beer. Like we can't explain the phenomenon of the experience.
Yeah. We can explain mechanistically what inputs are going into the brain. We can explain mechanistically
what parts of the brain are lighting up and interacting. In fact, you can even look at
the brain and based on like they're advanced enough now that you like based on what areas
are lighting up, you can make predictions about what experience they may be having, but you
can't explain. the feeling of what's actually happening. Right. Because each person is different.
Everybody's had a different upbringing. Everybody's had a different education. Like the brain itself
is programmable. We know that. It's like a self-adapting system. Yeah. We know that intuitively because
we are the thing. attached to our brain. We're the thing experiencing it through our, everything
through our brains, and all the inputs we have all go through the brain. So we understand
that the brain has that quality, but we don't know that anybody else is experiencing things
the same way. You can't know that. You assume it based on the guidelines laid out in front
of you by history, by teachers, by all of your mentors throughout life. that doesn't mean
that they understand what you're going through, what you're feeling, what you're experiencing,
just because they can give you a rough idea of how you should, what you should be experiencing,
I guess. Yeah, I find it interesting because like, I think we are actually are getting to
a point in history of science and technology that we're starting to approach. Where technology
is gonna start helping us answer these questions like as we're creating things like AI as we're
creating things these brain computer interfaces There will as people are trying to like actively
work on the problem of like is it possible to upload a brain into a computer? Neuralink putting
a chip in your brain that interfaces with it and Maybe you'll get some kind of insight as
to what's actually happening. Yeah maybe it will start to help us scratch at that hard
problem a little bit. Yeah. Well, and there's the other conundrum is like, uh, so like, you
know, like the idea of like teleportation, like in theory, if you could come up with a technology
that could like totally, perfectly scan your body, tell store exactly what atoms are in
what arrangement, at what point in time and being that across the universe. to something
that receives it and then constructs an exact duplicate, kind of like the Star Trek teleporters
or whatever. What do they call them? I think they were transporters or whatever. Yeah, something
like that. They had a different name for them because they didn't have the technology. They
didn't have the technology to. It's funny, just side note, it's funny watching those older
sci-fis because they tried so hard to predict. Uh-huh, uh-huh. And they got pretty close.
Well, yeah. But their terminology, the way they described it. Like, Star Trek was super far
off with their idea of a communicator. We all walk around with communicators now. But they're
way more advanced and powerful than they thought they would be or had the ability to envision.
They called them different things and all that kind of stuff. No, but the reason I brought
up the teleportation is because once you're reassembled on another planet somewhere, Is
that you? I mean intuitively I would say no. See that gets to the heart of the matter of
this argument, right? If all you are is a collection of atoms arranged in a particular pattern as
some schools of thought in modern science seem to believe that you can break everything down
to the material and that all we are is that is a complex collection of material. So according
to that theory, if you did do that to transport you to another planet, that would be you. It
would just be a duplicate you, I guess. Well, it would almost be like, you would have to
assume that if we got to that point, we wouldn't be burdened by deterioration of our atoms anymore.
Right? Because die slowly. Sure. Yeah. If you have the ability to just create something from
scratch. Because if you have that ability, that means you're, you're basically have the ability
to stop what you are at that moment and transport it back in time. Because if you're moving.
Are you like killing Drew and then a new Drew 2.0 is born? Or is it like the experience of
like going to sleep at night where you, then you have a disconnection in your consciousness
and you wake up and it resumes, you know, Yeah, like you falling asleep is you your consciousness
transporting to a Drew, you know a side drew a Different drew in a different dimension,
but same physically. Yeah, I look the same or would what or is what would actually happen?
Is like you your experience when you step in that teleporter is I'm dead I just got torn
apart Adam by Adam and then somewhere else a new Drew is put into a place because like The
other theory is that there's some sort of special, intangible thing that makes you you, right?
There's a ghost in the machine that there's. It's like the metaphor of a video game, right?
There's this avatar character in a virtual world running around shooting people, but in actual
fact, it's you. It's me, Drew, sitting behind my desk. It's you, a nerd, sitting behind your
desk playing. putting inputs into a controller that then maps to that world, right? And when
I die, I just get off and rage.
But yeah, no, I mean, that would. So like, if it's more of that second theory, right? There's
an ultimate consciousness. By disassembling you here and reassembling you over there, then
if the second theory is true, then it would just be a lump of matter without a soul in
it. or the soul.
Maybe the soul can detect that it got rebuilt somewhere else and we'll move over there. Yeah,
like I was gonna say is the soul, and my personal, well, the way I'm kind of piecing my philosophy
together is like, the soul is an eternal
force, I guess you would call it. But it almost would be something like a dark matter or dark
energy that can't be explained, but it reaches out. to the ends of the, you know, if I was
to be reassembled somewhere else in my matter, my, this, this configuration of atoms was to
be somewhere else, then that soul is just, it's like a, it's like, you know, being able to
control your fingers, like, you know, you have full control of them, but you don't have to
consciously think about it. Like it's, so you're conscious, you're constantly, I guess, multiverse,
like it would be like a multiverse where there's almost like a singular consciousness behind
it, behind all of the different smaller consciousness if you were to think about like a video game
theory. But like if we have a teleporter here on earth and one on Mars, and they beam you
to Mars, Instead of the multiverse. What happens to your soul? Does it move over there and like
attach to the new body? Cause then what happens if like, the teleporter on Earth when we're
sending you to Mars, it breaks in the middle. So it reads you perfectly and transmits you,
but then it doesn't destroy the material here. So now there's two duplicate copies of Drew.
What happens? Oh. Split personality disorder? Yeah, like, cause if there's a soul, like you
would think like, well, maybe the soul somehow splits, or maybe the soul would go to one and
not the other, and the other one would just be like a dead hump It would be like a person
who who's like clinically alive. Yeah. But is like a vegetative state for the rest of their
life. Like, would that be the one on Mars is like. Just never actually received the thing
it needs to. Yeah, like it's a body with no driver. Or it's a body with a driver, but there's
still no like. There's like it's almost it's an avatar of you, but it's not a conscious
avatar. It still has the same functions. It can still. do day-to-day tasks, but it's not
a soul in a sense of, because we don't really know what, what. I kind of lean towards that
theory myself. Yeah, because we don't really understand, like, like there are people, and
I'm sure we've all experienced people that look like they're just on autopilot. Yeah. And they
don't seem to have much function going on, you know, like, like much real thought, like much
real, um, like um, or I don't know how to explain it, but like, They're not taking conscious
control of their life. They're living it on autopilot. Yeah, they're just living it and
they're just letting things happen to them. And they don't seem to have much control over
what's going on in the moment. Yeah, the way I've been thinking about this topic recently
is like, so what if, what it actually is, is that So yeah, we have this human body. It's
this collection of cells. And for them, they're this community that lives together, communicates
together. They're sharing their resources. They're sending signals all over to let the other ones
know what's happening.
And then the brain itself, it does receive all these inputs and it lights up and flashes different
parts of the brain, but that could just be like an antenna to your spirits so that it's telling
your spirit what's happening and your spirit is inputting back into the brain what it wants
to happen. But it may explain like this idea of like a conscious and subconscious. What
if the subconscious is essentially like the body without the soul, right? Like it's the
thing taking in all this stuff. It's the thing, like the brain, it's the brain, the subconscious
is the brain and the conscious is the spirit. Yeah, and the conscious is how all of the information
gets disseminated to make sense and to be actionable to this body. Yeah. Like if there's other bodies
with different. with other brains that maybe have a different tuned antenna because it's
in a different space, it's at a different time, it needs different information to survive.
So if we talk about reincarnation maybe, if you go to the example of reincarnation, if
we are all constantly, if time is a- We're gonna do an episode on that by the way. We are, we're
gonna do an episode on a lot of this, this is kind of a tangent. But if you are,
If time is constant, like if it's a loop and it's just always happening all at once, right?
So the past, present and future is all happening at once and you are having incarnation in each,
in all of time. Yeah. Then every tune, every physical ass, like every physical body that
you have drew, you know, the
all have different tuning because they need different information and they need to take
in different things and be able to act on different things based on what's going on in their environment,
past, present and future, whatever that environment might be. Yeah, that whole idea of simultaneous
time is really interesting. Yes, we'll definitely do an episode on that. You get a lot of people
with hallucinogenic experiences or people with visionary experiences like shamans and stuff
talking about how time is an illusion. Yeah, and even without spirit. Even science, like
a lot of science talks about like it makes no sense why there's an arrow of time. Yeah, why
it's linear. Yeah. Yeah, I mean even without in both directions. Even without psychedelics,
right? Like there's people who do yoga. Mm-hmm. Or whatever kundalini. And they have this sort
of experience of like leaving their body or tapping into an energy. Tapping into their
higher body of existence, like their higher body of knowledge, you know. Or like that recent
episode of Brothers of the Serpent where they talk to that chick. Oh, yeah, yeah. What was
that? And she was she basically does. Yeah. What was the? That is episode 300. the Akashic
Records and Ancestral Magic with this, her name was Heather Shy. Yeah, Heather Shy. And did
they have a little snippet of what she does on there too? Cause I can't think of the name
of what she does. Like healing and
astrology type stuff. Yeah. And basically helps people go on like healing journeys. Or she
says she's a certified hypnotist too. Yeah. She uses hypnotism. Yeah. So look up Akashic
records, Akashic records and yeah, check out Brothers and Serpent. Brothers and Serpent
podcast is great. We both love it. Any similarities you notice between our podcast and theirs is
totally coincidental. There's no, yeah. Right. We definitely didn't take any inspiration from
them whatsoever. No, not at all. But that was a fascinating topic that she was talking about.
And I'd love to, our sister does some stuff like that. She does crystal healing, and she
does birth charts, and she's very in tune with that aspect of life. I have such a weird relationship
with those topics. Like, Like I, through my life, have gone back and forth between like
hard science atheism and like full on spiritual, full on new age woo spiritualism. And I've
got. got this BS meter that starts going off in my head when I hear people using certain
terms and whatnot. And I'm like, can you actually explain this? Or what is the actual theory
behind this? But I'm trying to be open-minded. Well, and it's like what we talked about. Science
can't do anything better for us a lot of the times with a lot of this stuff. Right. We're
talking about all of its limits. And in fact, I've actually found some sort of middle road,
like the duality. Yep. I actually believe what a lot of people would consider to be very woo-woo
stuff, but we'll get into a lot of that stuff in good time. Oh, on the topic of consciousness,
there's a lot of really interesting illusions that kind of help show that what you actually
experience is some sort of weird amalgamation of what your brain actually creates. Like when
you look out of your eyes and you see the world, like what you're seeing, what you're perceiving
is not what is coming into your brain. Right. It's a dumbed down version of all of the actual
information being being processed. Well, and some of it's straight up fabricated. Right,
because your brain wants to fill in the gaps to. Yeah, so there's this. So you can actually,
here, test this at home, guys. What you want to do is you want to take a white piece paper.
Do you have a paper around here? You should do this. Yeah, I'll do it right now. OK. Do
you have anything that's not lined? It may not work with lines. I'll use this. There you go.
All right. A plain white piece of paper, a black dot in the middle of it. Oh yeah, I know where
you're going with this. Okay. Okay, now what I want you to do is hold that in front of yourself
and close one eye. You might not be able to hear me, but we'll do this. OK, now if you
move it around, you might have to move it a little closer and farther, but there's a certain
sweet spot if you get it directly into the part of your vision where the stem of your eye connects
to the eyeball. There's actually no rods and cones there, and your eye can't actually detect
that dot. I think you have to hold it a little further out. and make sure one eye is closed.
Just keep them. You think the computer screens are affecting me at all? If you get it right
in the sweet spot, it will disappear. So essentially what's happening is there's this point in your
field of vision where your brain fills in the blank. And if you have both eyes open, it can
kind of use information from one eye to fill in the blank in the other eye. But if you have
only one eye open, you can actually find the sweet spot. It's a little easier. I found it
easier if you have it face down, and then you can move your head over it. I know it's hard
to do with the microphone. Stand up, pull it up.
So try that at home. and maybe even look it up online to get better directions on how to
do it. But I've done it multiple times. You can actually get the dot to disappear if you
put it right in the perfect spot. Well, I know that if I move it over to where my other eye
would pick it up, obviously it disappears, but.
Yeah, I haven't found a sweet spot yet. I'm going to keep working on it. Yeah. It's my
homework over the weekend. Mm-hmm. Ha, ha, ha. There's another illusion where for people who
have the ability to flip your tongue upside down, you can flip your tongue and kind of
bite down on it. So the left side of your tongue is on the right, and the right side of your
tongue is on the left. And then if you touch what is now on the right side, you will f***.
Actually feel it on the right side even though it's the left side of your tongue and you should
be Feeling it as the left side of your tongue, but you will still feel it as the right side
of your tongue. It's really weird Yeah, it's almost like the I Can't do it, but I understand
the principle of it. Yeah, it's almost like the right side of your brain or body is picking
it up now like Because you're moving it from your left side to your right side, now the
neurons that are being fired are still in like, it's still flipping, right, in space. It's
flipping in space, but your perception isn't flipping. Right. Because the brain never evolved
to like, need to detect the difference between the left side and the right side of your tongue.
It's going to after we get done with it. It's weird. I can't flip my tongue though. He looks
like a funny track though.
I can make a taco. That reminds me. So our family has this like weird trait where we can shake
our eyes. You just kind of like go partially cross-eyed and like put a little pressure in
your eyes while eyeballs start shaking. And we used to have our great grandma try and do
it every time. It just looked like her face would start vibrating, her cheeks would vibrate.
She'd stop breathing and she's just focusing all of her energy to try to make it happen.
Yeah, it looks like she's just trying to take a poo, it's the funniest thing ever. And her
whole face would just go brrr, just shaking violently. And I can't do it, I can't make
them shake. You can't? I think you could. I can't, I'm the odd man out. You're the black
sheep. I can cross one eye. instead of both eyes. Oh, you definitely look weird doing that.
Isn't that weird? Yeah. Like most people, when you go to cross your eye, you cross both eyes
at the same time, simultaneously. Mine is one eye.
I don't know. That's probably why you can't do it. Maybe. Yeah. Maybe. All right, here's
one more. So if you're driving, obviously don't do this or pause it and wait till you're in
a safe spot. At your destination. What we want you to do is.
Have a look around the room that you're sitting in or wherever you find yourself. And I want
you to take note mentally. Try and remember every single thing you see that is red. So
do that now. Look around. Try and get a running list in your head. Everything that you see
that has just even a little bit of red. You doing it? Yep. Are you ready? All right. I'm
ready. Close your eyes. And I want you to tell me. everything that is green and don't open
your eyes. Yeah. And now. Can you think of anything in here that's green? I mean, the only thing
I know for sure is this Rubik's Cube sitting in front of me. Has green on it. I don't even
know that it's facing the eye. See, the green's not even facing me. But I know it has green
on it. Right, right. And what that illustrates is this thing that the brain does where.
I think this is personally related to what people experience as the law of attraction Where essentially
if you set your sights on something you concentrate on something enough your brain goes to work
Trying to pull all the instances of that it sees in the world And so it had I asked you
to name the stuff that was read you could have named a good amount I was ready to yeah, I
was ready to point to him too. Uh-huh with my eyes closed right but because I Instead asked
you about the green while you were focused on the red. Yeah. You don't have any of that stuff
in your brain, even though you just combed the entire room. So your brain is doing all this
cataloging for you because you asked it to focus on something and it will deliver what you focus
on. Yeah. It's very similar. Like it's essentially why like when you buy a new car, all of a sudden
you see that car everywhere. Or when I named my son. Is tuned into that car now. Yeah. And
so it will present. instances where you see that car. Whereas when you didn't have that
car, you wouldn't even think about getting that car. You don't notice that car being everywhere.
When I named my son Wyatt, I knew there was people who named Wyatt, but I had never heard,
never been around, never registered as people like, but now every play place, every single
park, everywhere we go, it just seems like there's a kid named Wyatt. Every time I'm like, What
is going on? And it's the same. Yeah. I mean, cause I've definitely felt that phenomenon
when I buy a car, I had an Azuzu rodeo. Who the hell has an Azuzu rodeo? But I see it saw
them everywhere. Every single place I went, I saw an Azuzu rodeo. This is crazy. And once
I got my car, in fact, I mean, there's probably something qualitatively difference between
the wholeness of what people describe as the law of attraction because like it's a little
different to like start seeing a bunch of it and as a little and it's a whole nother thing
is like the instant it came to your head, like there it is. There it is. Yeah. Like it doesn't
explain like you and me talking about someone and then all of a sudden that person calls
you tomorrow. Like that, that doesn't explain that. Like there's something weird happening
there, but it does. It can like explain a subset of that phenomenon where you do start focusing
on it, and then all of a sudden, you see examples of it. And so it's actually really a powerful
thing to do. So even though science will say, oh, this law of attraction, oh, that's just
a bunch of woo BS, like there actually is, at the very least, there is some known truth to
it, which is the fact that your brain will do work for you based on whatever you want it
to focus on. Wow. It's kind of like the idea too, had the experience where there's like
a problem you're chewing on or something and then you go to bed and you wake up and you're
like, oh, that's the solution. Yep. You're breaking work on stuff even when you're not consciously
doing it. Nowadays, it's going to be hard to decipher with all this new technology that's
listening into everything. Yeah. You know, AI listening to your conversations. Is it the
law of attraction or is it Alexa being a freaking creepo spy? Listening to everything, waiting
for me to say, hey, Alexa. Oh yeah, sorry if I woke your Alexa's up. Alexa. Hey Alexa.
Hey, Alexa, send me a song. All right, let's move on to another one. So that's consciousness.
You want to talk about hard and soft sciences after that? Or do you want to go? I want to
talk about the limits of science in the field of archaeology. So yeah, which that is hard
and soft science is that topic. So. So hard sciences, what is a hard science and what are
the soft science? What are the like slash humanities or what they're called, right? So a hard science,
like physics. Mathematics. Well, math is more of a subset of philosophy, I would say, than
a science because you can't exactly test it in the same way. Okay, yeah, I guess that's
true. But you can put a bunch of number blocks together. Well, yeah, but like so like physics,
biology, OK, yeah, yeah. I'm with you. Yeah, where you're trying to figure out how the natural
world works.
It's totally different than these softer sciences slash humanities, where, because if you apply
the scientific, uh, method to the natural sciences, the hard sciences, you will get back data from
the real world itself. Yeah. Wish if you do a good job in your experiment design and not
getting tricked by the data and not reading things into the, but yeah, not being biased,
all this stuff. you can get out truth. Or at least you can help eliminate lies and come
to a little bit better understanding of how the world works. Might upgrade to a theory.
Yeah, one day. But in the humanities or the soft sciences, you can't coax the truth out
in the same way. So you can't design an experiment for whether or not Roman society was this way
or that way. you can, what we do instead is you can just dig up stuff. You can do some
tests on the stuff, right? That you can use actual scientific tests like carbon dating
and- Sure, but you can't know what the society itself was like. Right, so no matter what artifacts
you dig up, no matter what, like murals and paintings and even writings, you don't actually,
none of that will actually tell you what the day-to-day life was like, what... For an average
Egyptian. You can kind of piece stuff together, but there is no objective truth, right, answer
out there that we can actually directly access with an experiment the same way that you can
do with physics. Right, that's why when you look at archeology and history and stuff, we're
painting a picture of what it looked like based on the artifacts we're finding. Right, so we
do get certain data points, like we know that... They wore this kind of clothes. This particular
tool returned this result, giving it this sort of estimated date, that this writing is claimed,
at least, to have been written by this person in this area. Whether that's fact or whether
that's derived from some kind of truth or if it was some kind of fiction that somebody wrote.
Right. So you end up with all these different data points. And then the job of the archaeologist
is to then weave that. Hopefully. into a story that explains all those things in the best
way possible. But it's just a story story. And there could be infinite number of different
stories that incorporate all this stuff in different ways. And then you can maybe make some predictions
that maybe some days later we'll Confer or deny. Yeah. But you can't get straight at the truth
the same way you can with the hard sciences. Yeah. You can't prove it. You can't prove it.
All you can do is speculate. It's all speculation. Another example of that is like psychology.
Yep. So psychology it's like trying to figure out like how the brain works, but more on the
conscious side of things, rather than the neuroscience where it's like the actual neuron connections
and how does the brain physically work? This is more like How does the human psyche work?
Yeah. Like, what is the- What are human motivations? What are the physical repercussions for what's
happening psychologically in a certain person, right? Right, right. What is the action that
they're taking based on the things that they're saying, the things that we can determine based
on their medications or their history or their nurture, the whole nurture nature type thing.
And the thing with psychology is the best tool they have for sussing out the truth of what
is it that humans actually think about this or that is surveying humans. But the thing
is, humans can be wrong about what they think. They can lie. I have many times in the past
been wrong about why I think or feel a certain way about my own brain. So when I answer someone's
survey... You're doing it to the best of your knowledge in the moment. I may be misleading
because I may not have that understanding. Yeah, about what it is that you're feeling or what
it is that you're experiencing. Then there's also lying. And then there's also people being
too shy to admit the truth. Yeah. Just telling people what they think people want to hear.
Yeah. And so all of these sorts of issues can creep in, which makes it one of the- you know,
soft sciences because, yeah, because you can't put a, there's no objective way to it. Yeah.
Like until one day we have some sort of sci-fi way where you can like put on a VR helmet and
be inside someone else's head, hear their thoughts, see what they see, smell what they smell. Like
you can't know for sure that what someone else is reporting about their own psyche is actually
the truth or the fact. Right. And so. And even still, right? So if you could read somebody's
mind, it doesn't mean that what they are thinking is what is the objective truth. Yeah. Right.
Of what's happening inside their head. Right. So you can see an event and be like, what I'm
seeing is some guy being an asshole cutting me off in traffic. And what someone else seen
that is like. maybe they have a different perspective and they're like, oh no, I see a guy who was
needed to get over here and tried to squeeze in, you know? Yeah. That's more of a fourth
dimensional type of a... There is no objective truth in some situations about like the narrative
that we make up in our heads about what's happening. Yep. The way we perceive everything is totally
subjective to your experience and everything that's happening to you that day. perhaps and
you know it all it's all it's all kind of just up in the air and flowing because you can't
you just can't prove what somebody's experiencing what they're telling you is fact even they
can't prove it to you they can't tell you they can't give you enough information about the
way they feel to make you certain that that's the way they feel. Right. It's just not possible.
Right. coming up on our break here. OK. We got time. Do you want to take a break? We got like
10 minutes or so, I think, in five. Anyway. Keep going a little bit. Yeah. So.
I brought up the hard sciences in order to point out archaeology, right? So specifically you
can see this in places like Egypt where you see, and I highly recommend the work of Ben
Kirkwick, Van Kirkwick, I think. Yeah, from Uncharted X. From Uncharted X YouTube channel.
He's got this great series called A Tale of Two Industries. Yeah. which is fantastic. Essentially,
what you see when you look back in ancient Egypt is, so there was, no one's disputing, not even
us people into the weird, that there was these dynastic ancient Egyptians who were in the
Bronze Age, who could manipulate copper. They didn't have steel yet. They had, they didn't
even have the wheel until much later. Um, they're primitive. I mean, yeah, for the most part
they were in, you know, a certain age of human development. Yeah. Um, the copper age, but
according to their writings, um, they inherited their tradition from the gods, from the early
times, from the Zeptepe, the ancient ones. So that up. Um, and essentially you see two different
types of things. So what are acknowledged as some of the oldest stuff in Egypt are actually
the highest technological achievements. So the Sphinx, the great pyramids, um, And you can
actually see examples of how it's different technology. If you go out and look in the quarries
where a lot of the stone was quarried from, you can see two different types of quarrying
happening. You can see quarry that is done with copper chisels. Yeah. And there's all this
like evidence leftover of the use of the copper chisels and the tools and all the like dust
that's made in doing that. Right. And you can see the tooling marks on the stone itself that
looks like chisel patterns. And then there's this other type of quarrying where it looks
like ice cream scoops. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it literally looks like the way ice cream looks.
I mean, you scoop it out of the tin, like what's left in the tin. That's what the rock looks
like. Little semi-circle, partial circle, your partially circular motions, if you will. It's
like you took your hand through sand and dug that out and like that's the impression it
made. Yeah, so you have these you have these Pyramids that are built with super high precision
with like perfectly flat surfaces with no mortar and the stones are coming together So you can't
even get a piece of paper in between You get these boxes that are like perfectly level you
get these vases that are made Dude the episode where he was talking about his recent appearance
on Joe Rogan with Randall. He's talking about all the precision of the stone vases. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. They're granite vases. They're granite. It was one of the hardest, most like, it's
also brittle stone. Right. And these things are cut to like within hundredths or thousands
of an inch, perfectly parallel lines on different sides. Dimensions. Perfectly perpendicular
on the vertical versus the horizontal. The dimensions on the left and right are perfect. The two
different handles are perfect to each other. The precision is like space age precision.
Yeah. And he was on, what's the one you showed me the other day? Jones? What's his first name?
Chris Jones? Danny Jones. And he was talking about that again, too. And he was talking about
how you would need a Chimera, like a computer. Mm-hmm to be able to make those types of Yeah,
like an ancient like a like a mechanistic you need a touring machine Yeah, touring machine.
Yes, what it was That's what it was a touring machine to be able to make those types and
even if you did that Even if you wrote it out and you let you know you still need to have
a way for that touring machine to then Convert whatever you calculated into something physical.
So you don't need machining you would need a lathe or something like right even a lathe
who can't explain like the the handles because you can't do those handles off of the draw
with a lathe because it would cut that off. Yeah. It's crazy. Anyway, so you have these
things. So you have these crazy, perfect pyramids. But you also have these crumbling, decrepit
pyramids that are made out of much weaker stone, smaller pieces. And then you've got these perfect
stone, mathematically perfect jars. And then you've got clay pottery that is painted up
to look like the stone. So you have these two levels of technology. And you think when you
hear this, OK, well, obviously, they got better as time went on. Like the early Egyptians,
they developed their technology. And they got better and better. Except even according to
Egyptologists, the stuff that's perfect, that's all the stuff that actually comes earlier.
Yep. It was all mimicry. It was all stuff. the older stuff was the worst stuff because they
were trying to mimic. Yeah. So you get this really great stuff and then you get this like
crap stuff that is trying to mimic the other stuff. And that speaks in and of itself speaks
of a lost technology. At least it speaks of a, of a changing of, like of the way the world,
like maybe it was, you know, cause we all know like societies rise and fall. So at the very
least something happened to make it so that they were not as good at these things as they
used to be. Right, like they had a certain level of technology and lost it. It lost it over
time. Yeah. But that's not the official story. So official Egyptology and their archaeologists,
what they talk about is they basically just discount a lot because they take whatever data
points they accept and are accepted in their respectable circles and they weave a narrative
telling us about the Egypt. And what's funny is like, you know how they get the, like this
record of all the pharaohs? Yeah. As they found this king's list. Right. And so. They will
take the word of the ancient Egyptians themselves in certain settings where they give them this
king's list of who ruled after who, what are the dynasties. But the thing about that king's
list is it goes way further back. And so what the Egyptologists have done is they said, everything
before this point, that's just myth. So they'll believe the Egyptians on this later part of
the king's list. But when they themselves say they inherited this technology from an earlier
source. That's bullshit. From the gods, from the Zeptepe times. And then when they actually
provide you a list of the kings that ruled during that time, you don't accept that. So it just
goes to show the limitations of these soft sciences. The biases. They're ruled by people who have
agendas. Just like everybody else. They have motivations. They have desires to keep their
prestigious positions. And maybe there's some darker elements that maybe there's some financial
elements to it. You know, maybe there's some darker elements that maybe there's a conspiracy.
There's probably at some level of conspiracy that makes it seem that they're definitely
covering up some, maybe not even covering up, but they're just not giving the evidence that
they can see in front of their face enough, enough support. They're not willing to accept.
things that they don't accept, they haven't already accepted. Yeah, they've put together
a narrative. And they're so committed to that their narrative, that they're willing to ignore
certain evidence because they can't easily slot it into their narrative. And that's the problem
with these soft sciences, is they're so human interpretation based. There's no way to like,
you can't just catch them in a lie. Right, and you have to trust that they are going out the
general population's best interests at heart. It's just not realistic. All right, so with
that, we're gonna go refill our drinks one more time. Yeah. We'll be back. and final segment
of episode one of Duality. Check. That's right, very excited. Check, check, check. Yeah.
We're here guys. Just listen to music for a minute.
Alright, welcome back. We totally did not just talk for five minutes and forget to press record.
We'll forget that happened. And we totally, this is our first attempt at this show as well.
Yeah. We totally didn't do a whole segment that we trashed. We nailed it. Yeah. Just so you're
as aware, no. All right, well, anyway. I was talking about how I changed beers. Dean's still
drinking the Rogue, the Bat Squatch. Yeah, yeah. This is good. And you are drinking now? I'm
drinking the Sierra Nevada Hazy Little Thing from Sierra Nevada Brewing Company in Chico.
6.7 ABV. Yeah, that's for your day. 6.7 alcohol. It doesn't say ABV, like, it doesn't want us
to know. What does it have an IBU on it? That's what I meant. IBU. It doesn't say ABV. It doesn't
say it. That's the one it doesn't say on here. Yeah, they don't all say that when they do.
But I'll recycle it because it's telling me to. Yeah. Another Hazy. You're going to see
a lot of Hazys. It seems to be like what most craft brews make as far as IPAs these days.
I don't get a lot of the old school ones I really liked. I like hoppy and piney IPAs. Those are
my favorite. I remember when you first introduced me to Pliny the Younger. You brought over one
bottle and it was like a magical thing for me. No, the elder is the one you can get pretty
regularly. Regularly, yeah. The younger is the rare. It's the younger that's a special release.
And I don't know if they bottle it. I think it's only in kegs, unless you go to the brewery
itself. Like, you have to know when it's going to release, and know what place to go to get
it. They only keg that? No. I think. Well, maybe you, I don't know. You definitely brought some
home at one point, I feel like. Unless it was the elder that we were drinking. It was probably
the elder. OK. Which they haven't nugget. Honest mistake, I was under the age. I mean, I was.
You what? No, I'm just kidding. But I was still. I totally didn't teach you about alcohol when
you were not of age. I mean, learning, it's not a problem. Right? I got my socks on. Oh,
god. Inside joke. Oh, god.
If you know, you know. I told the story at his wedding, and he turned beet red, and I kind
of felt bad afterwards. Well, it was mostly because I looked at the audience and I was
like, shit, there's a lot of people here that might not have wanted to hear that. But it's
fine. And it is totally fine. It's in the past now or the future. Yeah, because it's uncyclical.
All right. So we were talking about Egypt and about archaeology and how like it's kind of
a game of like painting a narrative with the little bits of data that they get here and
there. Mm hmm. Right, like it's a data point that there's a pyramid there. Yeah, right.
Well, I mean, I haven't been there. Have you been there? I don't know. But yeah. Unless
all of Google Earth is a conspiracy. Everything I've ever known is a lie. OK. Yeah. We got
to grab onto something as truth. OK, so yes, it is a physical thing in a physical space.
But the other problem with archaeology is that there's a lot of lost. Knowledge and it's heartbreaking
Like the burning of Library of Alexandria Yeah Just how much human? well, and even not to
get not I don't want this to mean anything politically but like the a lot of the temples and artifacts
from the Middle East that are being destroyed and the Iraq war The Iraq War and how much
that devastated our human knowledge. There was a lot of ancient Samarian and Babylonian artifacts
that were just flat out destroyed. For what? The museum of Baghdad was looted. Yep. When
even the, so going way back, right? The pyramids themselves, the limestone casing blocks. Yep,
those were stolen. Like the pyramid, the pictures you see. That doesn't represent what the pyramid
looked like in its entirety. It would have been smooth with a flat surface on the side instead
of a stepping surface. Yeah. And it would have had, it was rumored to have, or it was told
in ancient sources to have had a gold capstone. Yeah. Can you imagine if we could see it that
way today? Well, you can if you play Assassin's Creed. I played that one a little bit. Dude.
You need to play that. That one's the best one. I think because you get to roll around maybe
a third into it. But anyway, I went straight under the sphinx. I was like, where's the library?
Dude, I did the same thing. I went straight to the pyramids. I climbed to the very top.
I wrote my name. Yep. And then I jumped off and I was like, and then I slid down. You can
slide down it and like dude, so cool. Anyway, um, but Just as quick. Yeah, there's just so
much we've lost. Yeah, but like a quick side note too, like there are scientists and archeologists
that are looking into how the elements of the pyramid themselves, the mainstream is that
it was a tomb. Right. Because later- The Egyptologists say that the great pyramid, well, all three
of the great pyramids were tombs. But even though the only tombs, the only actual bodies they've
ever found were in the much older, much easier to date. Well, the actually the newer pyramids,
that's what I mean. Oh, sorry. Yeah. No, that's what I mean. Yeah. Newer ones that are much
easier to date and they have humans remains in them and there's, you know, but along with
all of the accoutrements that would go with it, like the offerings that you need for the
dead and whatnot. Yeah. For the duet. But, um, the The three pyramids, they don't have that.
Yeah, there was never been a tomb found. A tomb found. There's never been a body found. There's
been a bunch of chambers. There's been a bunch of weirdly oriented shafts found. And there's
been an aquifer. The Orion correlation, where the three pyramids where they all line up to
Orion's belt. But there's also been an aquifer found underneath the pyramids or a river, like
an underground river. There's an underground. Water source water source. Yeah, and there's
a lot of speculation to what this all means the orientation, you know the construction
the fact that the King's chamber Inside the pyramid. Mm-hmm is made of like multi tonned
stones Three miles away. No like 500 miles away Okay. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah, either way. It's
far Yeah, and these people were supposed to move 60-ton stone without the wheel. 500 miles.
Granted, there was this one guy. I can't remember his name, but I saw a couple videos of him
recently that reminded me of when I saw it originally, like years back. It was a guy who is an engineer.
He's a retired engineer. Oh, you're talking Christopher Dunn. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. He
uses the leverage of like a center point underneath the stone. It's like a leverage point so you
can rotate it and then using like logs laid out in a certain way to like slide it over
like a conveyor belt looking thing. Oh, you're talking about, no, that's not Christopher Dunn
then. You're talking about the people who were like trying to use primitive technology to
explain how the stones are moved. Right. The problem is, Granted, there are some that make
sense. There are some, yeah. But the pace at which it would have to be done would make it
like a multi-century project. Yeah, still hundreds of years. But just granted, that is a name.
Supposedly built in like 25 years, according to, I don't even know what the source is for
that, I think. I don't know. But still, the evidence showing that it is not a tomb, I just
wanted to go on the side note Like the pyramid itself is being blocked by Zahi Hawass. Like
you can't do any, I mean, and also those conflicts that are happening there too. But. He's the
authority figure that runs the, I forget what it is, the Egyptian. Egyptology. Department
of antiquities or whatever. Yeah, something like that. He's like the leading. He's like
the official head of like everything in Egyptology in Egypt. He tells people who can and can't
do what projects. He approves all of it. Can and can't study the pyramids or anything in
Egypt. ways. One person, not a board of directors. Yeah. You know? But anyway. His story is really
interesting, too. He actually came from this group of like, what were they into? They were
into weird psychic stuff. Yeah, no, he was like a spiritual guy. They paid for Zahi Gwasa's
education to plant him in official Egyptology so they could get it in. Yeah, well imagine
that they're playing the long game. Well, according to them, he turned on them and he denied them
access too. Yeah, maybe there's a lot of money involved. Or there's just a deeper knowledge
and understanding of what's going on there. Or he got the talking to before he got that
position. He's like, hey, listen, do you want to know the origins of the universe? Right.
Then shut the fuck up. Right, right. Like, we'll give you this knowledge for yourself, but you
must... Nobody else. You must only allow the official story for everyone else. Yeah, we
like to talk about these things guys. Listen, we're gonna talk about conspiracies. Yeah.
And we're gonna talk about them a lot. And we'll support them and we'll break them down too.
Yeah, we'll try to break them down to the best of our ability. And I think we are pretty grounded
in what, like. This is why we're doing this episode specifically as first two is like to
let people know we appreciate science, we appreciate all it has to offer. Go easy on holding the
mic all the time.
Yeah, like we're gonna go pretty heavy on it. So just... The other thing that a big loss
of knowledge that we know for sure happened was here in the Americas. Yeah, the Spanish
when they came here, they literally went out of their way to burn every single text that
the Mayans had. Yeah. To the point where I think we have like three or four. That's it. and
they had such an interesting, unique language and stuff. And just what's the wealth of knowledge
that we could glean from that? From this land, the land we live in. Someone upon high decided
this was not godly. These heathens and these savages, we must destroy all their knowledge
and turn them into good Christians. Man. Yeah, the amount of knowledge that could have been,
I mean, it's like, you know, in the... to grasp it. It's like, you know, your grandparents
or somebody that you've respected your whole life wanting to pass on their knowledge. It's
like that, but multiplied on such a level that like there's so much about the world that they
knew and had a perspective on because these are modern anatomical humans that have the
same brain, but these are, they have the same brain as us. Right, right. They just lived
a different lifestyle. And they had some amazing accomplishments, buildings and stuff. They
had their own pyramids. There's probably some dark stuff going on with seemingly human sacrifices
and whatnot. But the world was a different place.
What was it all for? What were they, what did they know? Or what did they think about the
world and the nature of it? What experiences did they have that shaped their learning? Or
was it all just a dictator at the top telling people what to think from the time that humanity
has started? Right. Was there just a powerful person trying to project it all? Why are we
pointing all this out? All these like, blind spots, shortcomings, total theoretic things
that science tends to portray as fact when in fact it's really just a theory. Yeah. And the
reason is because it's like, it's important for us to know how the world works. And the
people who call themselves the intellectuals who... take it upon themselves to represent
us in pursuing knowledge and truth, and then sharing with us the rest of the world on what
they find. They're just humans. They have all sorts of monetary and political reasons for.
So one thing in the history of science, science comes out of it. I mean, it goes way back.
the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, but like back before that, it was the scholastics, the
Catholics that were doing science, and before that the Greeks and all these, you know. But.
Okay, I got my point back. So where I was going with that is that. The roots of science, of
modern science, came out of the scholastics. This was like when science and religion were
part of the same thing. And so it wasn't so crazy to do science and for that science to
line up with the religious understandings. Obviously that can lead to religious biases and lead
to blind spots because of that. But at some point during the Enlightenment when atheism
and people started leaving the church and The Catholics were fragmenting into all these different
religions. And people who wanted to do science, there was more and more people who were doing
science who were not spiritual. And they were trying to steer science in a direction where,
no, we're going to explain these things without miracles. We're going to explain these things
without God. We're going to explain these things as mechanistic. This is when this materialism
worldview got started. And so there's this bias. to this day in science where if something seems
to be hinting at something that gives credibility to religion, we're going to try and steer away
from that explanation. That is our last option for where we'll go for the explanation. And
it's funny because it blows up in their face all the time. In fact, recently they just found
the biblical city of Sodom. Right. And that it was destroyed by an air burst meteor that
exploded in the atmosphere above Sodom and just leveled the city. Right. Yeah, it was just
like what happened in Tunguska. Just like that. Yeah. Another example is the city of Troy that
we came down in the writings of like the Iliad and whatnot. Yeah. Homer wrote about them.
We hadn't found it. And everyone thought it was just a myth until someone actually found
it. And so in a similar way, like any time science seems to be leading us in a direction that
might give credence to spirituality and religion, everything possible is done to steer the science
away from that. It's far away from it. And so all of this evidence with like the Younger
Dryas impact theory, this idea that. 12,800 years ago to 11,600 years ago, this period
called the Younger Dryas, there was an event that happened. That wiped the earth. That wiped
the earth clean. In a sense. And we know that he was existed then. Yeah, and there were some
safe havens, obviously. Right. But the majority, in this theory, the... Ocean levels rose by
hundreds of feet. 400 feet over the younger dryas. And that means that anything like if
you think about like where we have our cities, everything's coastal. The largest cities are
all right next to the coast. So that would, and if you talk about like a air burst that
would, you know, if you had any type of technology that might be electrical would have been wiped
out, like not saying that it was. Everything would have been wiped out. And my point isn't
to go into the Younger Dryas on a Tangent, because we're going to do a whole show on that. We're
definitely going to do a whole show on that, for sure. In fact, probably more cool. Actually,
our next, yeah, I think our next one. Yeah, in fact, yeah, that's next episode. That's
our next episode, is that? But the reason I bring that up is to just show that all this
Younger Dryas science is just look at the unfair and ridiculous skepticism it's getting. Go
to cometresearchgroup.com. Might be down there. Check them both. Just Google it. You'll find
them. Or the Cosmic Tusk. Either of those websites have all this published scientific research
on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. But the problem, the reason why so many scientists
are against it, is because this is essentially proof of the biblical flood. And we don't want
to go there. No. Yeah, it's proof of that. And it's also proof that there was not proof, but
it's, it's proof that there is possible that there was large societies, large, um, like
civilization happening before this time. Right. And that it only makes sense when you talk
about like the Clovis culture and how like, that's like the accepted time of like human.
development where we grew agriculture and we started like all like that. Well, the Clovis
is Clovis in North America. Yeah, yeah. But like the that period of time is when civilization
like started. Right, right. Because we started agriculture and we started all these things
to start technologically advancing to have a civilization. Sometime maybe 50 60. I don't
know exactly date on this part but. humans left Africa and we started spreading over Europe
and Asia. And then about 12,800 years ago during, or before that, during the ice age, there was
a land corridor across Asia into Alaska and people walked that. And that was the first
peopling of the Americas. And then the, uh, the, uh, ice age ended and that land bridge
was closed cause the sea levels rose and the ice went away. Um, And so those people that
were now in America were isolated. So that essentially the Native Americans all descended from essentially
the people who were migrating out of Asia. You're right. But the problem with that is we keep
finding stuff that goes back before that 12,800 or before that ice age when the land bridge
was closed again. But we still find. Artifacts. Yeah. Where they were supposedly had just came
from there. San Diego find that is estimated at like 200,000 years old, here in America.
Dude. Yeah, that's insane. I mean, just to think that like. And that the first. And we know
there were seafaring cultures. Like, now we're starting to understand like a lot of these
older like maps and like. Right, like all the Polynesian islands. Yeah. Like these are people
who traveled thousands of miles across the ocean. There were seafaring people. But the official
story is that we went out of Africa, we started populating the Earth, and then the first civilizations
was Samaria. Well, I guess now, the Gobekli Tepe. That's explained as like, the official
story on Gobekli Tepe is that was a Hundred gatherers making a religious site. Yeah. Yeah,
that was the first time it was actually civilization It was just a first sign of religion. Yeah,
so that's because it Ritual messes up their narrative because it's actually dated If you
look at this sophistication of the burial of it, yeah Like because go back you tip well,
I've heard research Was a buried Mount is a mound of buried artifacts A buried site that's
in a hill in Turkey. It's in Turkey and the word Gobekli Tepe in Turkish means pot-bellied
hill. Pot-bellied hill, that's right. And it's essentially what they believe to be a deliberately
buried site that dates back 12,000 years. But it's giant stonework with relief carving. So
there's difference between normal carving of pictures and what's called high relief is a
normal carving. Like if you want to draw a dog, you etch into the stone the places where the
dog shape is. Not this. But a high relief is instead of etching in where the dog is, Everywhere
where the dog is not and leave is a protrusion in the three dimensional which is so much harder
a three-dimensional Image of it. So you have this super advanced carving back 12,000 years
ago right at
Younger dryus right at the end that means that beginning of it. Well, yeah, no 11,600 so be
right around the end. Yeah So it's like the beginning of this supposed civilizat- Like
you're talking about like, you're going from like hunter gatherer is what the accepted people
were at the time or hunter gatherers. And they're trying to now tell us that they think hunter
gatherers are just, we're just a little bit more advanced than we thought they were. And
they were able to do all these amazing things. But- If you think about the division of labor.
So without civilization, no division of labor. You have to have division of labor for that
kind of thing. Right. And also, Gobekli Tepe just demonstrates all of this knowledge of
the stars. We need to do an episode just on Gobekli Tepe too. I think we could do that
for sure. I mean, we could probably put that in with the under drives. But anyway, Gobekli
Tepe is fascinating, just all of the artifacts that you find there. Exactly.
The other thing I wanted to get into, but we're actually running out of time. So maybe I'll-
Maybe do a quick synopsis. But the other issue with science today is this was a big hubbub
about 10 years ago or so, about a decade ago. There's a really good video. I'll link it in
the show notes by Veritasium. And it's this issue in science known as the replication price,
crisis, replication crisis. which essentially what happened is that someone decided to do
research on science itself. And they gathered a collection of scientific papers that were
peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, the most prestigious journals that were highly
cited. So the way it works, right, is like, if you're doing scientific research in a particular
area, you're building on earlier knowledge. So you're going to cite the papers of that
earlier knowledge in your paper. Yeah. And the more cited your paper is, the more fundamental
it is, or the more credible it becomes, the more citations it gets. The more based in previous.
So they took highly cited, peer-reviewed, and prestigious journals, and they took a sample
of these papers, and they actually went through and tried to duplicate the studies. Yeah. And
I think it was like... 60, 70% failed. Unreplicable. So this led to this big old controversy in
science. And I want to spend some time on it. But essentially, you should watch the video,
because he does a better job. Derek can fair test it. Yeah, we'll link it in the show notes
for sure. People should watch it. But it essentially comes to a number of things with incentive
issues. So science. scientists in order to have a successful career. It's not about doing boring
science, like boring science, like replication studies and negative studies showing that something
that was thought was true is not true. Those types of things don't get published. And so
what scientists end up doing is only publishing positive results. And there's another issue
called p-hacking, where essentially you take the statistical analysis and there's lots of
ways to do it, but you essentially are able to fudge the statistics in different ways in
order to show a positive result where there wasn't one or shouldn't have been one. Yeah.
Isn't that because the threshold of positive, of a positive result is so low or so high?
So one way to get around it would be to have a higher threshold. But there could still be
the issue with that. Because part of the issue is there's like multi-target studies. So one
way that p-hacking can work is if maybe you're looking for something, but to be safe, you're
actually going to look for a dozen different things. That would get you to the same conclusion.
And even if 11 out of the 12 things you were looking for showed no statistical significance,
if one of them does, all of a sudden you shift the study to being about that. But that's not
what the study was set out in the first place. It was just some sort of statistic fluke you
found in it. So you can take any of those markers and call it proof for something that's completely
unrelated otherwise. Yeah, and the other thing is the sample size issue. So a lot of studies
don't have the funding to do real, true, statistical, significant sample sizes. And so what they'll
do instead, they'll they'll do small sample sizes, or they'll cut off their data at the
point where the data starts shifting in the wrong direction. Right, right where it goes
to the point of statistical significance, and then they stop. Yeah, yeah. For instance, let's
say I had the theory that when I roll dice, I can get more than 1 sixth percentage of sixes
to roll because of my mind powers. OK? Yeah. And so I do a study, right? And I start rolling.
And the thing with statistics and probabilities is sometimes, like if you're flipping a coin,
you're going to get hot. You're going to have a lot more heads in a row. So maybe I'm doing
my study on rolling dice, and I happen to get a lot of sixes in a row. It didn't even have
to be sixes. Let's say I did one of these simultaneous studies. So I'm just tracking the statistics.
And I roll it. And I happened to be hot on one number in particular. And this time it was
a six. That's the number I was talking about. And before I keep rolling to get way more sample
size, I cut off the study. And I say, boom, our study's concluded. I run the analysis.
And I just happened to capture the one point where I had a hot streak. And so it shows,
quote unquote, statistical significance, even though it was a hacked study. Yeah. And anyway,
so they kept doing research on this and they're essentially estimating that some 70% of scientific
papers are undubicable. Yeah, the replication crisis is definitely, but like I've heard too
on other podcasts is like, there's a lot of scientists waking up to it and there's a lot
of Yeah, and there's been a lot of work towards that in the last two people are understanding
that this is a problem came out but it just goes to show is there a Now there's just an
established this is right and we have to do it this way continuously or Can we change the
fundamental? workings of like Published studies like that being the thing that gets you credibility
in your theories, right? I mean, in my mind, we need more decentralized publishing outlets.
I mean, I don't know. Less government control over the funding. I mean, we're in the freaking
internet age. Why is everything still controlled by publishers? There should just be decentralized
blockchain-based peer review. So here's the thing. Just decentralized blockchain-based
science paper posting. Yeah. Right? So you post it. No one's reviewed it yet, but the fact
that you post it and someone else sees it, they can go review it, take a look on it, post a
review, and that's how you get your peer review by actual peers interested. And then people
can take that paper and do that. Rather than some political process of this blind peer review
where you don't know what qualifications they're actually going to allow or not allow your paper
based on. It's a lot of weird formalities in science that aren't essential to the scientific
process itself. What is science? Like at its core, is science the universities? Is science
the research publications? Is science like the Nobel Prize? No, those are just formalities
built up around science. What science is, is the scientific method, which is about... Comes
back to that. just a process of finding knowledge. Everything else is like dressing built up on
around it. It's a religion built around science. It's all the rituals that you would expect
from humans to create. And it's almost any institution to give it enough time. Right. And the funding
is an issue too. Government funding is some of the company funding is pretty shady in certain
areas. Well, because a lot of that can be privatized. They do these studies and get the knowledge,
and then they patent it, and then they put it on a shelf, and they lock it away. It's like
all the health funding done by the tobacco companies on cigarettes. That's an obvious conflict of
interest. But let's say all of science, instead of government being the main channel that funds
money into science, what if it was Walmart? Would you exp- how much? Would you expect an
uptick or a downtick in the amount of studies that find faulty Walmart practices or products?
You'd expect a downtick. Okay, what if science was overly funded by the Catholic Church? Would
you expect an uptick or a downtick in things that contradict the Bible? That's why you need
to leave it funded by the public. And it needs to be funded by... a population that is well
aware of what's going on in science, what the actual facts are. It just needs to not be any
one particular person in control. And the government isn't a person. Or entity, yeah. And obviously
this is like, conspiratorial thinking, and we can get into all that later. But yeah, we're
going to get into it. There are a whole different set of biases that come along with government
funding. The same way you would have them with Catholic Church funding or Walmart funding
science. The fact that it's the government doesn't mean that it's... unbiased. Yeah, of course.
There are going to be biases. It depends on the government. Right. Anyway, there was another
podcast I wanted to cover that talks about our present dark ages guy, Steve Patterson. And
I'll link it in the show notes. I think you guys should check it out. Definitely watch
that one. And maybe even watch the Brothers of the Serpent podcast with Jeremy Figgins.
Yeah. Maybe even willing that one. Yeah, this was one of their listeners that wrote in and
they ended up interviewing him and he went through this whole like. process of becoming an academic.
Yeah, he's got a lot about the process of like people censoring his research. Yeah, I mean,
he's got a lot of anecdotes about being in the collegiate world and what that's like going
through and writing papers and talking to professors. And I'm sure a lot of you will have as well.
But yeah, no, it's fascinating to hear. So we'll link that one too. And all of this is not said
to make you guys think science is BS. Science is our best tool at figuring out how the world
around us works. Well, at least it's the best tool figuring out how everything works materially.
Yeah, and as far as spirituality goes, that's all self-discovery. And we'll get into a lot
of that type of stuff too. Yeah. We'll talk about- all of the disembodiment stuff and any
type of spiritual thing that you might think of. Yeah, so it's been fun. I think we had
a successful first episode. I hope all you guys enjoyed. Hey, if you have any thoughts on the
show, please write in, host at dualitycheck.net. We're also launching our Facebook and Instagram.
And none of us is, neither of us are like huge social media guys. So we'll do our best on
that. We'll figure it out. the email was probably gonna be the best way to get ahold of us for
a little while. Yeah, but we'll be posting as far as like when we'll be doing episodes and
all that kind of stuff coming up. So keep an eye out. Look for our logo, it's pretty pretty.
Yeah. We love it. Have some fun looking at all the details in it. There's a lot of like little
Easter eggs. Keep lookin'. Yeah, and keep lookin' out at the universe. The world around you and
learning and have fun experiencing. this crazy world we live in. Yeah. Come back next time
for some more questions to be added to. We'll just add questions to your questions. Yeah.
Because we sure as heck don't have any answers. No. Adios. Later.
you
Thanks for watching!
you
Thanks for watching!
Bye!