UFOs, Synchronicities & Prophetic Dreams (Ft. Eric Wargo)

In today's episode of American Alchemy, Jesse Michels sits down with author Eric Wargo to unravel the mysteries of time loops, precognition, and how our future selves might be influencing our present reality, weaving together insights from quantum mechanics, consciousness, and the very fabric of existence. Eric Wargo's Book "Time Loops": https://tinyurl.com/ericwargoamazon Support American Alchemy by Becoming a YouTube Member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuG2KzrIMe3qoNcuDVpwnXw/join WHOP ➤ Get access to exclusive behind the scenes episodes: https://whop.com/jessemichels/ SPOTIFY ➤ https://tinyurl.com/jessemichelsspotify DISCORD ➤ https://discord.gg/jessemichels INSTAGRAM (Personal) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichels INSTAGRAM (Show) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial TWITTER ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican EMAIL/BOOKINGS ➤ [email protected] Timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction 00:14 - Prophecies and Self-Fulfilling Events 04:09 - Carl Jung's Scarab Beetle Story 07:28 - The Oedipus Myth and Freud's Interpretation 11:22 - Freud's Dream and Personal Precognition 15:15 - Quantum Mechanics and the Mind 19:02 - Quantum Biology and Consciousness 24:16 - Precognition and Memory Formation 28:08 - Artists and Precognition in Culture 34:11 - Prophecy in Modern Times 39:02 - Remote Viewing and Precognition 42:06 - Psychokinesis and Experimenter Effect 46:45 - Free Will and Alternative Timelines 52:05 - Survival Instincts and Precognitive Dreams 58:02 - Consciousness and Perception of Reality 01:02:04 - UFOs and Time Travel 01:09:04 - Quantum Computers and Future Communication 01:13:24 - Gravity Manipulation and Time Machines 01:19:07 - Cosmological Implications and Retrocausation 01:24:04 - Factions and Temporal Interventions 01:27:04 - Philip K. Dick's Precognitive Experiences 01:31:02 - Personal Anecdotes and Synchronicities 01:33:04 - Conclusion Original music: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6LlLRudDi60Uy4jcmOSEs1 #science #quantumphysics #syncronicity #timetravel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos. SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming. When travel, expense, and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution, SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit concur.com to learn more.

• 0:30Jesse Michels?

  I'm here with Eric Wargo. This has been a long time coming because I think I refer to your books like in every episode that I do. And so this is an honor. I really appreciate it. Found myself in your neck of the woods in DC and had to do this and I'm really excited. You've written three books. The two that I've read are Time Loops and From Nowhere. And they're just incredible. In the world of kind of AI doomsdayers, where that's, you know, all the rage these days, where I think people struggle to kind of separate the human mind from kind of the robotic mind that is AI. You have a new theory of mind that I think comports with a lot of people's intuitions as to how the human mind works. I want to start with a really interesting concept that you actually present at the

• 1:15Jesse Michels?

  beginning of time loops, which is this idea that often prophecies are, you get some sort of message. That message actually causes you to react in a certain way to the message that then manifests or causes the actual prophecy to come to fruition. And the traditional example of this might be Oedipus. How do you explain that? What sort of model do you apply to that?

• 1:43Speaker 02

  If it works the way I think it works, and I think that various trends in science are converging, I think, on a, an actual physical explanation for how it works. If it works that way, prophecies have to be self fulfilling. Now, what does that mean? Events in the future are, in a sense, fixed, the same way events in the past are fixed. Now, if that's the case.

• 2:13Speaker 02

  Any kind of time travel and precognition is really a form of time travel. It's a form of informational time travel. Cannot change history. Okay, this is a misconception. People somehow they think about precognition or they think about time travel. I think, but wait, you could go in the past, go into the past and change history and and kill your grandfather. And so you wouldn't, you know, you couldn't be born and all that grandfather paradox. So that's, uh, it's kind of faulty reasoning. Uh, and in fact, physicists in the, in the eighties kind of did the math. I mean, they got interested in wormholes and things like that.

• 2:53Speaker 02

  And they did the math, uh, and found that no, in fact, if you send a particle through a wormhole or a billiard ball through a wormhole and try to deflect it away from the wormhole, it fails, you're always going to deflect yourself into the wormhole and you're always going to be in what's called a closed time light curve or a time loop. It means that the universe is self-consistent. It means you, uh, paradox doesn't occur. And that's the definition of paradox, something that can't occur. Um, so any intervention in time, any backward influence via information alone or via physical objects traveling through a wormhole or a time machine or something like that.

• 3:33Speaker 02

  That, that adventure in the past, whatever it is, is already part of the backstory of getting in the time machine in the future. Um, and there's really no problem. There's really no problem with time travel or with information traveling in time. It doesn't lead to paradox. You just have to wrap your head around the idea that, that you now are the product of time traveling information already. And maybe time travelers, you know, you know, your history, your past history includes, you know, all that time traveling, uh, either physical time traveling of advanced beings or.

• 4:15Speaker 02

  And at the very least, information in your head that's traveled back in time from your future. You are, you now are the product of information refluxing from your future and influencing your past and influencing your present. That's why we can say that prophecy is always self fulfilling. Now, that doesn't mean in a simplistic way that, that, that, you know, you have a dream and things are going to turn out exactly the way you dreamed it. There are all kinds of reasons why we don't interpret prophecies accurately. There's all kinds of reasons why the brain distorts information coming from our future. I think what one of the basic things that we're precognizing is our survival.

• 4:56Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 4:58Speaker 02

  And so we're in a sort of time loop relationship to our future surviving self.

• 5:03Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 5:03Speaker 02

  And imagine that's the case for even, you know, bacteria in the primordial soup, you know, that it goes back to the beginnings of the evolution of life.

• 5:14Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 5:16Speaker 02

  It's a, it's a, it's just a new way of thinking about causation.

• 5:20Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's interesting because on the one hand, I think belief in the block universe is traditionally associated with nihilism or something. It's like your future is sort of cemented in stone. And then on the other hand, what you're saying is there is sort of evolution upwards towards probably greater consciousness. And especially if artists are reaching forward into their future for kind of inspiration, you know, presumably that future is very rich and, you know, involves maybe more consciousness than is present. I do want to get into just a few examples because I think that's really powerful for kind of the average person getting into this sort of stuff because it's so trippy and not, you know, in accordance with their normal worldview. And so the example that I love

• 6:03Jesse Michels?

  is Carl Jung has this patient, she's this kind of very inaccessible kind of hyper rationalist patient who he can't kind of get through to. Obviously Carl Jung is this contemporary of Freud's, but who's even trippier in many ways than Freud. And he sees her and she comes in and she says, look, I had, I had this dream last night that I was gifted this golden scare beetle and it was this really Meaningful thing to me. She doesn't quite know what to make of it. And as she's telling recounting the story, she sees a scarab beetle coming down off the window sill and he then takes the scarab beetle and gifts it to her. And it's this like mind blowing, super meaningful thing for her that like changes her paradigm. And so it's the

• 6:47Jesse Michels?

  attentional patterns of actually knowing this sort of prophecy or the dream, the precognitive dream. Changing her reaction, her being aware of that dream actually caused the whole thing to happen, which I just find so fascinating.

• 7:04Speaker 02

  That's my favorite example of a time loop. That's the one I always use. When people ask me what a time loop is, that's the example because it's so it's so perfect. It, you know, it shows exactly how a dream changes behavior. And the behavior leads to the outcome in an unforeseen way. I mean, they, she couldn't have known. You know, we, I mentioned how dreams, you know, they, they show us the future, but not in a very clear way and often in a not directly intentionally actionable way, but they change our behavior like being deflected by a like billiards being deflected, you know, it's like it's a, that was a billiard ball from her future, which deflected her to this experience in her therapist's office the next day. And low and behold,

• 7:49Speaker 02

  that, that experience that it deflected her toward was what she dreamed about, but she couldn't have known that when she had the dream. So yeah, that's the, that's a beautiful, beautiful example.

• 8:01Jesse Michels?

  Do you have any other examples that you love?

• 8:05Speaker 02

  Oh, so many.

• 8:07Jesse Michels?

  I mean, another one would be just Oedipus, which is obviously sort of mythological. But do you want to tell that story?

• 8:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, I mean, there's a lot to say about Oedipus because I mean, if anyone, you know, if anyone knows anything about Oedipus these days, it's, they're going to be thinking about, oh, Sigmund Freud, you know, because of the Oedipus complex and all that. And he, you know, he focused. Well, the Oedipus story is that this, there's this prophecy that this young prince of Thebes is going to grow up and murder his father and marry his mother. And so to evade this prophecy,

• 8:47Speaker 02

  he flee, when he learns about this prophecy, he flees his, his city. He doesn't know that he's actually been brought up in a foster or adopted family. So he flees his city, winds up killing this man at a crossroads who turns out to be his father and then winds up marrying his mother unknowingly and becoming, you know, so he fulfills the process. It fulfills the prophecy exactly in his efforts to evade the prophecy.

• 9:18Speaker 02

  And this is, you know, this logic is, I think, crucial to, to how we relate to, to time and to our precognition, which we, we deny our precognition. We deny that prophecy, you know, partly because of cultural taboos and, and all kinds of things. The interesting thing is that Freud, I mean, he, he, he was only interested in that, that, that incestuous idea, like the, that part of the story. So he talked about the Oedipus complex and, you know, how children are sexually attracted to their, their opposite sex parent and want to kill because they're jealous of their same-sex parent and so on.

• 10:02Speaker 02

  But, you know, he, he sort of denied, he didn't believe in precognition and he denied the, the rest of the story about the, you know, the prophecy and all that because well, that's just pre-modern, you know, superstition. The thing is, in Freud's own life, he, the dream that sort of... Uh, started it all for Freud. Uh, it was a dream he had in eighteen ninety five. Um, famous dream. He spent like fourteen pages of his, his landmark book, interpretation of dreams, you know, interpreting this dream through free association and stuff like that. Well, like twenty eight years later, I think, I may be getting the number wrong. Uh,

• 10:41Speaker 02

  he had and he developed an oral cancer, which like all these elements, these key elements in that dream he'd had almost three decades earlier, came true in his life. And he never acknowledged that that dream was a premonition, but it's, it's like in Freud's own life, he lived out that Oedipus story. I mean, he denied precognition. He denied prophecy. He denied, you know, the very existence and like patients would bring him precognitive dreams all the time because people have these dreams all the time. And they would bring in their dreams and he would just explain them away and in, in some facile way. And in his own life, he winds up denying prophecy and then

• 11:24Speaker 02

  developing this oral cancer, which by the way, was caused by his smoking. And there are hints in the dream of that fact, you know, so it, it has been argued that, well, had he, you know, I paid attention to this dream as a warning from his future, you know, he might've quit smoking and all that. That gets into these problems we talked about earlier of, of time loops and foreclosing a, a foreseen future. It doesn't work as simply as that, but, uh, that, yes, that's, so that's another way in which, uh, we fulfill a prophecy by denying it or ignoring it or shutting it aside. Um, so I think that's a hugely important archetype for

• 12:06Speaker 02

  modern people because we live in a culture that denies, uh, that, that the future can influence us, especially in dreams. And, you know, what, what effect does that, what impact does that have on our? Our mental health on our fortunes.

• 12:26Jesse Michels?

  That's absolutely fascinating because you think of Freud as believing that most people are sort of repressed and they have sort of an ego and an id and the id is sort of this compartmentalized savage self or something, you know, all these repressed desires. And so maybe the id for him was in some ways realizing that like his own work was actually sort of somewhat autobiographical because I think, you know, he did have that interesting relationship with his own mother. And so, you know, it's like, yeah, who watches The Watchmen or whatever, he's this like preeminent psychologist, but in fact, you know, maybe a lot of his own work and theories are actually a projection of his own subconscious.

• 13:03Speaker 02

  Well, it's his, this is why I think Freud is so interesting and important in all this because even though he didn't believe in precognition per se, his theory, his what sometimes called his metapsychology, which is that that's that kind of layered model of the consciousness where you have the tip of the iceberg, that's the conscious self and then this buried submerged unconscious. That theory of the unconscious is super important and it's a ready-made theory of precognition because really precognition manifests in all the ways that interested Freud in his career. So beginning with dreams, that's the number one way that people become aware that they

• 13:46Speaker 02

  are precognitive is through having precognitive dreams, but also they manifest in waking life in these kinds of what he called the psychopathology of everyday life, which is, that was the title of his second book, which is things like slips of the tongue and what we now call synchronicities. He didn't have that word yet, that was a term introduced by Carl Jung. You know, more generally just, you know, having a random thought about an old friend and then seeing him on the street, you know, like that, it's a very typical experience. And other like foibles, like neurotic symptoms or whatever that, that these, all these.

• 14:30Speaker 02

  All these kind of quirks of human behavior, that's how precognition, that's how it gets our attention. That's how we experience it and creativity, which is the subject of my, my most recent book and my next book that's coming.

• 14:45Speaker 02

  So it's a ready-made, it's a ready-made theory to understand precognition. We just have to, the way I always put it, you know, you, okay, you picture the iceberg with the tip on top and the submerged base. But you know, you, usually we think of time as a, as an axis, an X-axis, you know, running from left to right. So tip the iceberg on its side and just think of that future, that big submerged part, that's just, that's the future. It's we, we don't know the future yet. We, we can't interpret, we can't correctly interpret all this, this information coming at us and, and manifesting in all these oblique, indirect symbolic ways.

• 15:26Speaker 02

  But that's where it's coming from. It's not coming from some submerged layer of thought that we're not aware of. Because that's kind of a paradoxical idea anyway. It makes much more sense to, to think of that, the unconscious as our future consciousness that's, that's impacting us now.

• 15:45Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's interesting. It's like you get shards of it. You know, I, I often think when I have these sort of conversations with the AI dogmatic people, you know, I think AI is going to take over everything. I always say, well, I, I think the human mind works in a fundamentally distinct way. And I often cite your book, which has a really interesting model of the mind as kind of a hybrid quantum classical computer. And the very creative and interesting idea that you bring up and Robert Lanza and biocentrism also sort of touches on that there's temporal non-locality in quantum systems. So, uh, you know, you can do a double slit experiment in the future. It seems like that one interpretation that's affecting, you know, the one done with an tangled photon in the past.

• 16:29Jesse Michels?

  And you can even reverse qubit positions in, in a quantum computations. And so a lot of people even who are working on quantum computers, obviously the bottleneck is the hardware and getting the chips to work, have hypothesized that you can send information back in time on the semantic application layer in a hypothetical working quantum computer.

• 16:50Jesse Michels?

  And so if our brain is a quantum system, which people as prominent as Roger Penrose has have hypothesized, maybe we can glitch into the future and access some of this information, send it back in time.

• 17:04Speaker 02

  I think this is gonna be, I think what you're describing, the kind of use of quantum computers as

• 17:15Speaker 02

  commute or tesseract is the kind of a term I use from science fiction as like these four dimensional information processors and communication devices. I mean, I think that is really, it's kind of the link, it's gonna be, it's the link that's going to lead to true time travel. Okay, I think

• 17:32Speaker 02

  because it's that informational time travel that, you know, that's already happening. You can look at biological systems as models for how it works. And yeah, in a quantum computer, you can theoretically scale up the, that causal indeterminacy that's happening on the quantum level, you can scale that up into a like a usable, you know, object that you can measure at two time points and get, you know, get a sort of output prior to an input in a sense.

• 18:06Jesse Michels?

  Yes.

• 18:07Speaker 02

  And you scale that up in a quantum computer server that you leave plugged in for many years, it really opens the doorway to actually communicating across time. This is the, this is the really cool premise of William Gibson's The Peripheral. I don't know if you've read the book or seen the series, the series is actually really quite good.

• 18:28Speaker 02

  It's the premise is that this video gamer in the American South, you know, around now is in this like in this advanced sim and flying this drone in this like futuristic city and she thinks it's a sim, whatever, and she sees this character getting murdered, like she thinks it's an NPC getting murdered.

• 18:49Speaker 02

  But then she gets a call via Quantum Computer Server from this publicist who lives in London in like the 22nd century. And he tells her that in fact, what she witnessed, she was actually piloting a real drone in future London via Quantum Computer Server and had witnessed a real murder. And so he like enlists her aid in solving the murder, this murder across, you know, a century, you know. It's a really cool premise, but I think William Gibson is really appreciative, obviously. I mean, he foretold cyberspace essentially. And I think, I think this is the next, I think this is the next thing.

• 19:32Speaker 02

  And I think people who are thinking about quantum computing simply from the standpoint of just speeding up number crunching or whatever are like really missing the boat.

• 19:42Jesse Michels?

  I think it's absolutely the next thing. And the idea that the body is warm, wet and noisy and not, you know, actually a good conducive to quantum coherence is slowly being destroyed. It's going out the way. You have quantum biology, you have, you know, enzyme creation using quantum tunneling. You have birds navigating home using the CRY4 protein spin, which is, you know, basically a kind of a magnetometer. It's detecting the magnetic field of the earth and allowing them to do that. And you have other examples as well. And it's, these things are getting proven out over and over and over and over again. And I think actually, are you familiar with Rupert Sheldrake by any chance?

• 20:23Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 20:24Jesse Michels?

  So like, I think he doesn't have, you know, really clear mathematical models around how any of this stuff works, but he has really good experiments showing that humans in their bodies often just instinctively know when certain things are about to happen. And it's almost like we become, you know, it's like we know that, or animals know that earthquakes are about to happen. Kids know when their parents are near. And it's almost like you get. Overeducated, you get your, you know, elite Western liberal education or whatever, and you like unlearn that. But that's, of course, like incredibly instinctive. It makes total sense. And even prosaically, if you think about how the mind learns,

• 21:05Jesse Michels?

  it is in low sample size. You come out of the womb with like, you know, a fear of snakes and with a Chomsky and pre-grammar for certain things. And that's not how a classical computer works. You need to, you know, look at like the large language models that OpenAI is using. You're running the internet through that thing. Like, those are two very different things. So I think we have to be open to this quantum, you know, precognizance of the future model.

• 21:29Speaker 02

  Absolutely. I mean, I think that, uh, you know, Stuart Hameroff, I'm sure you know his work on microtubules. I think that's, you know, that's gonna be the, I think microtubules are probably gonna be the, the mechanism here. I think there, there are many, there are many quantum, you know, like I said, like I say in time loops, I think the brain, a lot of people simplistically say, oh, the brain is a quantum computer. It's not that simple. It's a, it's a hybrid. It's a hybrid of classical and quantum systems, you know, meshed. And we understand at this point, you know, through decades of neuroimaging and, and neuroscience that we have at this point, we understand really well that classical, uh, the classical circuit level, you know, way in which the brain takes input from the

• 22:13Speaker 02

  senses and controls the body and all that, you know, in this, in a way that you can liken to a, you know, a computer chip in a, in a robot, you know, it's, it's just way more complicated than that. But we, you know, that, that is true, that, that classical level of computation and control over a system is, is true. But, but what's happening inside neurons is what we're only beginning to understand. And, uh, and low and behold, these things that used to be just thought of as the bones of neurons, uh, turn out to be these really interesting, highly dynamic structures that, oh, they're quantum, you know, they're, they're, it's already been shown that they, uh, are, um,

• 22:58Speaker 02

  Superconductors, which really suggests that yeah, these quantum relationships are going on.

• 23:02Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, what was that study that came out a few months ago that they're super radiant? Do you know what I'm talking about?

• 23:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, there's been a bunch of stuff coming out from this team that Hammeroff works with. And I don't, I'm forgetting their names, but yeah, there's a lot of cool stuff coming out. Here's, but the thing is, I think that, you know, I almost think that Hammeroff could almost win the Nobel Prize for this work if he wasn't focused on consciousness. I think consciousness is really kind of a red herring in all this. Yeah, he's wanting to, to show how this generates consciousness, but I think.

• 23:31Jesse Michels?

  And just for people, for people that don't know, the way he tries, the way he got on to this is Penrose created this theoretical model for, you know, the brain being a quantum system, which is kind of answering this age old question of why we see discrete macroscopic reality in kind of general relativity form, when actually it's sort of probabilistic, you know, and it's, you know, underlying at least subatomic nature, like where does that cutoff occur? And so he, he writes the Emperor's mind or something. And then the Emperor's new mind, I think is the one with Hammeroff. Hammeroff is this anesthesiologist who realizes that when you shut down the microtubules, the rest of the body is running as if it's totally alive, but consciousness shuts down. And so he thinks it's the center of consciousness.

• 24:14Speaker 02

  Well, that in and of itself is an interesting point, but, but I think focusing on the question of consciousness, I, you know, it's such a fraught area, you know? It's, you know, someone on Twitter a couple, last month posted a graph of like, like 200 different theories of consciousness, you know? And they all, you know, I'm, I'm sympathetic to a lot of these, you know, both the hard materialist versus the, you know, even the eliminated, limitative materialist explanations and the panpsychic, they're all interesting. I think you can learn from all of them, but, but. I don't think any, any physical explanation is going to satisfyingly explain consciousness. Yeah.

• 24:56Speaker 02

  And so it's kind of a hopeless, hopeless task to like, try and, try and say, here's the answer to consciousness with this one physical process. It's a very interesting physical process, but I don't think he's going to convince people, you know, with, with that. But these microtubules he's studying are, I think, the basis for precognition. Because if they're quantum computers, if they can then theoretically do what we were talking about, which is scale up this ability to sort of have a system where you're measuring at one point and then measuring at a second point and then getting information refluxing from that second measurement and reading it out in the past.

• 25:38Speaker 02

  You know, you string a lot of those together in some system. Well, then you have a precognitive circuit. And what's fascinating about microtubules is that these control the shape of the cell. They control,

• 25:50Speaker 02

  they control like the dendrites and axons, you know, forming new connections and they control the, the, the size of a synaptic connection. Like, you know, when you have a memory forming, they will expand that, that synaptic connection to facilitate that memory. So they're in charge of memory formation. And if precognition is a form of memory, as I argue, and as a lot of people have argued, then right there, you have a potential mechanism. You have a potential physical mechanism to explain this, this thing that has been rejected for, for centuries because, oh, it's impossible. It's, you know, has no physical basis. Well, I think we are now converging on a possible

• 26:34Speaker 02

  physical mechanism. I mean, that's a testable hypothesis at the very least.

• 26:38Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos. SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming.

• 26:57Speaker 00

  When travel, expense and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution, SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit Concur.com to learn more.

• 27:08Jesse Michels?

  Have you heard of a Russian scientist with the last name Lieberman? L I B E R, okay. Two friends of mine, Danil and David Lieberman, they previously worked at Snapchat. They're absolute geniuses. They sort of resemble like Bond villains or something. They like have this mind meld going on. They use one phone. They're very eccentric. Their father knew Hamroth and, or I think knew Penrose rather, and was really interested in cytoskeletal learning. But, okay, I have a, I have a different possible candidate outside of microtubules for a quantum system inside the brain. And this is not, I would say, mutually exclusive with microtubules.

• 27:51Jesse Michels?

  But are you familiar with the codate nucleus and the potassium? So Gary Nolan studies this stuff. And, you know, that's just part of the basal ganglia and the dorsal striatum of the brain. And if you hook somebody up to an FMRI while they're playing the game Go, you know, this more complex East Asian version of chess.

• 28:11Jesse Michels?

  When they make a brilliant move, and what defines a brilliant move is a move that doesn't make any sense in the context of like the incremental go-forward rational decision. It only makes sense in the context of an endpoint in which the person wins. So it's often based on the other person slipping up or whatever, their, their adversary slipping up. That part of the brain lights up in an FMRI. And so, and then that part of the brain, according to Gary Nolan, is also much more neuronally dense when you see a greater preponderance of UFOs and you have more premonition, you're a little more psychic. And so I wonder if that is not part of the quantum processing at the very least.

• 28:52Speaker 02

  Well, the quantum processing would be, again, it would be going on within the cells in that brain area. But that's, that makes perfect sense. The, that system is part of the reward system. And so it's, it's involved in our registration of rewards, our learning based on rewards, our predictions based on past rewards.

• 29:17Speaker 02

  And that system, I think, is central. You know, it's central, it's kind of the central classically in that classical computer model in terms of the organism, you know, changing its behavior based on rewards and getting excited about possible future rewards and anticipated rewards and all that. So that's what that system is doing, but, but the cell, but, but all the neurons in all parts of the brain have those microtubules and have those quantum components in them. So, yeah, I mean, that's, that's gonna, I'm sure that's gonna somehow prove to be important.

• 29:55Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 29:55Speaker 02

  You know, in future decades, when we understand this stuff better.

• 29:59Jesse Michels?

  And in, in time loops and in from nowhere, you have so many just fascinating examples and kind of the zeitgeist and culture of precognition. And so I don't know if you want to, you know, just cite some of those, like Michael Richards, this resident artist.

• 30:15Speaker 02

  Right.

• 30:15Jesse Michels?

  And the Twin Towers. Do you remember that one?

• 30:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, I, yes, his story is, it's tragic, but, you know, fascinating. He was, so Michael Richards, and this is Michael Rolando Richards, not Michael Richards, the comedian, but Michael Rolando Richards was a sculptor, a black sculptor in the 90s. I mean, he was sort of an up and coming sculptor in the New York art world in the 90s. And he did a series of, like, all of his works were like obsessed with flight. And he would, he would do these sculptural self portraits of himself as a Tuskegee Airmen.

• 31:00Speaker 02

  And the Tuskegee Airmen were black aviators in World War II, who sort of distinguished themselves, you know, in their, in their piloting, but then were subject to all the racism that, that you might expect. And anyway, he would portray himself as a Tuskegee Airmen. In some sculptures, he had crashed at the ground, or he had tried to parachute, or was trying to parachute into a target that was too small, or, and, and, and in the sculpture that made him most famous, which he did in 1999. While he was in Miami, uh, he portrayed himself as a Tuskegee Airmen, standing vertically erect and levitating off the ground and being impaled by airplanes, by a bunch of airplanes.

• 31:45Speaker 02

  And the sculpture is called Tar Baby versus Saint Sebastian. And Saint Sebastian was the, was the medieval saint who, you know, was always depicted like pierced by arrows. Uh, but anyway, so he depicted himself pierced by planes as a martyr pierced by planes. Okay. So he, you know, on the basis of the strength of his work, including, I assume that sculpture, he, and this would be another time loop, uh, he got a, um, he was awarded studio space for six months in the Twin Towers. The Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, uh, had been issuing studios to like a, you know, cohorts of 15 artists, like for six months,

• 32:29Speaker 02

  you know, so two cohorts a year. And, uh, so he was part of the summer 2001 cohort of artists. And, um, he alone among those artists, uh, had stayed in the studio the night of September 10th and was killed on the morning of September 11th. So when you, you know, know that story and then you see this sculpture that he did, um, where he's martyred, impaled by planes. But the thing is, he was, people who visited his studio said that he was working on other sculptures that were similarly like unbelievable. Like, like one of them was of him riding a burning meteor. Uh, and another one was, was of his

• 33:11Speaker 02

  torso, um, with wings, uh, like it was called Fallen Angel. So, uh, and his other works, you know, he did some pen and pencil stuff too, including one that had a plane crash, like a lot of sculptures of planes crashing.

• 33:27Jesse Michels?

  That's so crazy.

• 33:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, what do you make of that? And it's, you know, but the thing is, this is so common in artists. And when you delve into the lives of artists, I mean, there are a lot of famous cases. So there's, there's a famous case that I talk about in, in time loops. And you're, you'll read about it in most any book on ESP was Morgan Robertson, who was the science fiction author around the turn of the 20th century, who wrote this famous novel, well, it was not famous at the time, but he wrote this novel called Futility about the collision of the biggest ever ocean liner called the Titan with an, with a, with an iceberg on an April night in the North Atlantic

• 34:12Speaker 02

  on its third voyage between Liverpool and New York. Okay. So, you know, 14 years later.

• 34:18Jesse Michels?

  And you have blue blooded elite families on board.

• 34:21Speaker 02

  Oh, and they all die because of not enough lifeboats.

• 34:23Jesse Michels?

  It's the Titanic.

• 34:24Speaker 02

  It's the Titanic, essentially.

• 34:28Speaker 02

  You know, stories like that. But the thing is, when you delve into like, and, and it's easy for skeptics to go, oh, well, you know, in a world of, you know, chance, yeah, that's going to happen, you know, sometimes. And then we single out those, those examples and we make something of them. But it's all just random. Well, no, I mean, you, when you study the lives of artists,

• 34:52Speaker 02

  you find this stuff happens all the time, not necessarily with big events in the news. I mean, mostly, as with precognitive dreams, it happens mostly with personal upheavals, upheavals in our own lives, things that wouldn't necessarily even be significant to anybody else. But, but they are meaningful to us. And when we're dreaming or when we're creating art or whatever, we, those things come out. And it's just incredibly, incredibly common. I mean, I have so many, I filled this book with examples and I've got a million more. You know, I've got, I'm writing a second book on the same, you know, a similar subject with even more cases from, from writers.

• 35:34Speaker 02

  So it's just, it's a very, very common, very common phenomenon.

• 35:38Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's fascinating. You, I mean, the idea that.

• 35:43Jesse Michels?

  Profits aren't realism. That's a modern idea. That's a symptom of modernity. It's not, you know, that's kind of an aberration if you look at actually like the long time scale of human civilization. And you even, I don't know, this is a weird example, but like Alex Jones, say what you will about the guy as far as some of his other beliefs, but are you familiar with, he had an on air call on CNN where he goes, Osama bin Laden, if you take down the Twin Towers, I'm gonna come after you or something like, it's just this absurd, like, you know, literally what happened in six months before. And he's like, he's on cable. You can't fake that. He's on, you know, CNN.

• 36:19Speaker 02

  I didn't know about that. There's a million, I mean, there's a million

• 36:22Jesse Michels?

  There's so many.

• 36:23Speaker 02

  Prophecies, whatever you want to call them of 9/11. I mean, there's simply by virtue of the fact that, you know, the, there was the internet already at that point. And, you know, people can now collect all that stuff and put it online. So it's like, it's an overwhelming mess of, of material prophesying that event. But, yeah.

• 36:44Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's fascinating. Yeah, there's so many. My dad actually is a, he's kind of a self-help author. And he, he wrote a book called The Tools. And in it, he talks about how he would always dream of an earthquake on January 17. And that was both the day, that's my birthday. It's the day I was born. And then two years later, that was the Northridge quake.

• 37:05Speaker 02

  Oh, wow.

• 37:05Jesse Michels?

  And we live in LA. And so, yeah, I don't know. Very, very interesting. And I bet you, the more people you pull, like, it's this much higher percentage of people that can sort of pull these examples out than would meet the eye. One interesting instantiation of this that we've talked about in our phone calls, is you have this remote viewing program that the CIA ran, I think it was CIA and then DIA, from 1972 to 1995. And it was a psychic spy program. And whenever I tell people this, they're like, no way, like, that can't be real. But you have guys like Joseph McMonigal, who have won the Legion of Merit for over 200 instances in which

• 37:45Jesse Michels?

  he's helped, you know, add intelligence in very vital cases, finding hostages, you know, drawing up, you know, Russian nuclear sites, like, pretty, pretty intense, interesting stuff. And you even have Jessica Utz, who's a statistician.

• 38:02Jesse Michels?

  Out of Stanford, I believe, and Ray Hyman, who's a skeptic, I think, out of University of Oregon, coming in saying, you know, we expect this maybe to be debunked and, you know, coming in with a, you know, pretty scientific method, going through the, you know, recently declassified documents for Stargate, that's the name of the program, and coming out saying, you know, we think there's some inexplicable thing here, and we actually think that there is sort of a psychic function when it comes to human beings, so.

• 38:28Speaker 02

  Utz did an analysis of a lot of evidence for psychic functioning, not just the Stargate program, I don't believe, and she found overwhelming evidence, and she's been very, very vocal about this. I mean, she was the, you know, the president of the American Statistical Society and stuff one year, and she's, you know, in her address that year, her presidential address, um, you know, she said, you know, this is, this is evidence that would be, what, nobody would question. Uh, it's so strong, the statistical, you know, the, the, the quality of the evidence is so strong that if it were in any other field, nobody would question this.

• 39:08Jesse Michels?

  Yes.

• 39:08Speaker 02

  But people, people reject it, and they don't even want to see the evidence. They just, they reject, they, they don't even want to confront the evidence.

• 39:16Jesse Michels?

  It's fascinating, and every elite university from the Ryan Center at Duke, for, I think that was 1931 to 1960, and then you have SRI, you know, in the late 60s, early 70s, you have the Princeton Anomalous Research Lab, you have Washington, Wash U St. Louis with McDonnell Douglas, they had a parapsychology program, you have a lot of these elite universities, pretty open-minded when it comes to kind of mind over matter effects and remote viewing, and you talk to anybody from those programs, and they all come out saying, yeah, we're pretty sure they're like, weak effects, they're hard to instrumentalize, you know, that's hard to turn in, we can't turn them into math, we're on the, we're in the Stone Age in this stuff, but it's real.

• 40:01Jesse Michels?

  It's like definitely real.

• 40:03Speaker 02

  I've got, you know, I've got some kind of contrarian opinions about why they say that the effects are small, or why they get, they think they get small.

• 40:13Jesse Michels?

  I want to hear your contrarian opinion.

• 40:14Speaker 02

  Well, I think they're very often using the wrong conceptual frameworks, understanding this stuff. I mean, I think you, as you probably know from. Hints in my work, you know, I, I suspect, my hypothesis is that, that a lot of what gets called remote viewing is really precognition.

• 40:34Jesse Michels?

  Yep.

• 40:34Speaker 02

  Um, and I think more and more, I think a lot of people in the remote viewing community push back on that strongly, but I, I think, you know, a lot, some of the key players in that community are open to that idea more and more. I mean, I think Russell Targ even has sort of come around to that idea that, that it's, that feedback may be important beyond just training remote viewers, that, you know, maybe, maybe, maybe that's what remote viewers are really seeing. They're seeing that feedback in the future.

• 41:05Jesse Michels?

  That's a really interesting point.

• 41:06Speaker 02

  And, and the thing is, if you went at it, if you studied this stuff with that in mind, what kind of different results would you get? You know, I think people, you know, from the start of psychical research, you know, the, the, the, this was presumed to be telepathy. That was the model that was introduced by Frederick Myers in 1882.

• 41:26Jesse Michels?

  Uh huh.

• 41:26Speaker 02

  Uh, and the Society for Psychical Research, you know, collected all these amazing stories, amazing mountain of data, basically. And it was all interpreted in this mode of telepathy. At that point, precognition was not even thinkable. Um, uh, and there was this new, new technology, the telegraph, which provided this nice metaphor for understanding these effects, you know? Uh, and so, you know, they, uh, psychical research and then early ESP research kind of carried that forward and telepathy was the dominant model until the television age. Okay. So the television age in the second half of the, of the 20th century, oh, you know, it got reconceptualized and this kind of older vague idea of clairvoyance

• 42:10Speaker 02

  got turned into the dominant kind of framing for psychic phenomena, you know, remote viewing, that's television, you know, that's, it's, it's just, it's taking another, um, technology from the culture and applying it and using it to help understand some kind of psychic effect. But the thing is, if that's not really what's going on, then your results are only gonna get you so, you know, you're only gonna get, uh, You're not going to get the best results. If that's, if that paradigm is dominating your thinking, you're going to miss a lot of evidence that didn't fit within that paradigm. And, uh, and you're not going to be studying it in the most effective way.

• 42:55Speaker 02

  So, you know, that's my, again, that's my contrarian opinion. A lot of people will throw tomatoes at the TV set or at the computer when they, when they see me say that, I mean, people in remote, you know, who do remote viewing, you know, very much favor the idea that, you know, their consciousness is non-local and that they are traveling across space or seeing, you know, things across space. But, uh, I think there's compelling reason to, to think that this is a, this is temporal relationship.

• 43:24Jesse Michels?

  Well, I spoke to Hal Putoff, who ran the Stargate, the Psychics by program for the CIA for a very long time about your hypothesis that actually it's precognition, you're accessing a future knowledge state and that your feedback that the target was right. So say you drop a Russian nuclear base, getting confirmation that that was actually correct might be essential to actually the accuracy of the remote viewing in the first place because you're not just yet remote perceiving anything. And he seemed open to it. So I, I, I don't know, you know, the fact that he's open to it. I mean, he's as deep as anybody on this stuff scientifically. So that's, that's a good sign for you. But I guess in the case of like a random event generator or like, you know, affecting a random quantum mechanical process with your mind,

• 44:09Jesse Michels?

  how would that fit in with sort of, you know, it wouldn't be like, you'd have a pre-knowledge of the result or something?

• 44:16Speaker 02

  Well, there's two answers to that.

• 44:17Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 44:18Speaker 02

  One is, you know, PK doesn't need to be any, doesn't need to be related to precognition. I mean, there's, there's a lot that we don't know about, about,

• 44:28Speaker 02

  the mind and its abilities and effects of biological systems on things in the vicinity. You know, there are a lot of possibilities there, but I, I'm not a believer in this construct of psi. You know, this, this, it was, it was. That was really originally a word that was just to denote a black box. I mean, this is what we don't know about. Let's call it psi. But like

• 44:49Jesse Michels?

  Well, it was originally for the, this is the Greek letter for the, for the wave function for

• 44:53Speaker 02

  Well, there's that.

• 44:54Jesse Michels?

  equation.

• 44:54Speaker 02

  Yeah, but, um, but the parapsychology, it just sort of became this black box term. But it, like all black box terms, it got reified. And people like took it, oh, there's this thing called psi and it's this force or, or whatever. And people treat it as a thing rather than just as an open question. And calling these, these different things psi is itself biasing people towards, towards thinking that they're going to find one force or something that, that, that explains all these things. And I don't think that's the case at all. I mean, I think precognition has, I'm, you know, anticipating that there's going to be a, a pretty, uh,

• 45:38Speaker 02

  not that amazing, uh, physical, you know, process mechanism that can explain it. But, but PK effects may be explained very differently. It may have a very different, uh, something very different going on there. But the second answer though, that is that there is the possibility that, um, research on PK effects is, uh, is influenced by the experimenter's precognition. And this is an argument that's been made by Ed May. Um, I don't know if you've talked to him before, but he, he sort of took over the, he, from hell put off. He sort of, uh, led that program or the research arm of that program in the sort of, in its final decade.

• 46:19Jesse Michels?

  The nineties.

• 46:20Speaker 02

  Until it was, you know, uh, declassified and supposedly ended in 1995.

• 46:25Jesse Michels?

  Don't think that ever ended.

• 46:26Speaker 02

  Yeah. But, uh, the argument he, he has made is that, you know, he's, he's not a believer in the PK stuff. He thinks that the micro PK results, that's, that is the effects, supposed effects of consciousness on random number generators, uh, can be explained by, um, uh, I forget the term he uses, but he has a good term for, oh, uh, decision augmentation. Uh, that the, the researcher's precognition is drawing them to start an experiment or start a trial at a time when the random numbers are just going to, are going to generate the results that he wants or he, he or she wants.

• 47:06Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 47:08Speaker 02

  I think that is, I haven't looked at the PK data, so I can't speak to that. But I, I think that decision augmentation theory is potentially hugely important across science, because if this is an effect, then what kind of effect is this happening in any kind of biophysical experiment, or in the health sciences, or in psychology? It could be a huge, hugely important factor, who knows, in the replication crisis that we're seeing. It's, I think it's a really important question that I hope some people will start, sort of, I hope some people will take that ball and run with it and, and really investigate

• 47:53Speaker 02

  that potential. But you have to, you have to accept precognition first.

• 47:57Jesse Michels?

  Sure.

• 47:58Speaker 02

  That's, that's the barrier that we're up against right now.

• 48:00Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's a big barrier. When it comes to kind of remote viewing, anything in the future, or these prophecies or predictions, sometimes it feels like you're looking at like a bunch of alternative possible timelines. And, you know, you're not, you're not looking at, you know, the definite thing, you know? And so like, how would you explain that?

• 48:23Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos. SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming. When travel, expense and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution, SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit concur.com to learn more.

• 48:53Speaker 02

  I'm not a believer in alternative timelines.

• 48:55Jesse Michels?

  Okay. You're a block universe guy.

• 48:56Speaker 02

  I'm a block universe guy, and I think that, that giving ourselves

• 49:02Jesse Michels?

  So you don't believe in free will?

• 49:05Speaker 02

  I do and I don't. This is a, you know, this is its own conversation and, and you know, we can, we can go down the rabbit hole on that. Yeah. But that's the hang up. Yes, the hang up is free will. That's why people don't want to think about this stuff. Yeah. But I think we need to be brave and confront, you know, confront this idea. And that means temporarily taking your belief in free will, setting aside and just see what, see what the data shows us. And I, I think that it's, it's kind of a cop out to resort to sort of the many worlds and the multiple timelines and, and all that.

• 49:42Speaker 02

  Because in actual reality, if the Eveready and many worlds interpretation were correct, it means that there's practically infinite parallel universes. There's not just one where, you know, I got in the car accident and one where I didn't. Yeah. I mean, there's a million, you know, not knowing, there's infinite variations there. So it immediately makes kind of absurd, this idea that, oh, I'm seeing an alternative timeline. I mean, how, how do you, how do you even constrain that? How do you make that into any kind of Right. scientifically testable idea?

• 50:21Speaker 02

  And I, I, I find it, I find it implausible and, and not very interesting, honestly. I think it's much more interesting to think about how an actual future is, is inflecting or influencing us and sending us messages, but in a way that we inevitably misinterpret so that we, so that those timelines happen. And this is back to the Freud stuff because, you know, Freud was a theorist of symbolic transformation. How, how events in our lives, and he thought that they were events in our past lives, God, not past lives, but I mean, our prior history get transformed symbolically.

• 51:06Speaker 02

  And our thoughts get transformed symbolically into dreams. Well,

• 51:12Speaker 02

  What I argue in Time Loops and my second book, Pre-Cognitive Dreamer Come Along Self, that it's actually precisely because of those time loops that have to be fulfilled, that we as freely willed beings only get information from the future indirectly, obliquely, symbolically. And that's why there's this kind of ironic logic to fate. That's why fate has this kind of Oedipal logic where we fulfill prophecies precisely by trying to evade them, where, you know, outcomes in our future, we don't see clearly, we see them

• 51:57Speaker 02

  symbolically transformed, we misunderstand them, and those misunderstandings get us to take the actions that lead to them. But that doesn't mean that we're fated to like, you know, if we have a dream about a car accident, we're going to have that car accident. Very often, we dream about a car accident, and there are tons of examples of this that I've collected from readers in my books, but also in the literature. You know, people will have a dream about a car accident, and they'll come to the intersection where they're like, "Oh, my God, I dreamed about a car accident here," and they'll suddenly be put on alert, and they'll just narrowly avoid a car accident. So, yes, the obvious interpretation is that,

• 52:38Speaker 02

  "Oh, oh, I took a different timeline. You know, the dream was showing me one timeline, I took a different one." The simpler explanation is that collision in your dream was kind of a "what if"? It was kind of like a close call, and you, you know, when we have a close call, we always imagine in our heads what would have happened. We, you know, that catastrophizing thinking, and especially after we have a close call, we're like, "Oh, my God, that could have, you know, we could have collided." I think it's those thoughts, those thoughts about near misses. Any thought that gives, that reminds you of your survival?

• 53:19Speaker 02

  That's the kind of stuff that refluxes back in time in your tesseract brain. And so, yeah, we have dreams about catastrophes that we, in reality, nearly miss or avoid.

• 53:32Speaker 02

  But there's a way in which our brain focuses on those kinds of near misses and situations that in one way or another remind us of our survival. Because it makes perfect sense, right? That precognition, peace sentiment would arise as part of our sort of, you know, Darwinian reality of survival and our persistence in the block universe. That I think is the messages we're getting in precognition. So on the one hand, so it's not an alternative timeline you're seeing. It's a what if, or it's a thought about a near miss or a thought about a worst case

• 54:17Speaker 02

  that fortunately you avoided. So that's how I interpret those kinds of examples.

• 54:25Jesse Michels?

  Are you familiar with Donald Hoffman by any chance? So he believes that, you know, your perception itself has to be fitness selected. It has to actually be kind of perceptually adaptive in a way that it's not adaptive for you to actually see the substrate of underlying reality. And then you have this other guy, I believe his name is Dean Buonomo, your brain is a time machine. And he talks about how our brains have to sort of work on lifetime scale. We can't work on these sort of cosmic time scales. And you touch on this with this concept of sort of the long body or the, you know, the tesseract mind. So what does this mean?

• 55:10Jesse Michels?

  Is there sort of this more primordial version of us that we're interacting with? And we interact with it when it's sort of these life and death, you know? Like, yeah, that of course, it makes sense that you would, you would get the prophecy about the car crash or whatever, because that part of you doesn't want to get in the car crash or something. That's like the most. Most adaptive, naturally selected for thing for you to know.

• 55:33Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 55:33Jesse Michels?

  How does this work?

• 55:34Speaker 02

  Well, yeah, that's a great question. And I think there it gets to this kind of dichotomy we talked about between the classical computer of the brain that's, that's, you know, it really, the classical computer of the brain has to be, it has to be controlling our actions right in this moment and no other moment. Like, you know, you don't want to be pre-spawning something 10 seconds from now. You know, that's, you're going to be, you know, completely dysfunctional. You know, you have to, you know, your body, your senses and actions and everything happening in your body has to be coordinated to be most effective at this instant in time. So that classical computer system of the brain, you know, is really, it's, it's doing that.

• 56:18Speaker 02

  But there are these probably quantum processes that are helping. For instance, syncing it up, you know, like you have nerves that the travel up the length of your, of your body, like you step on a tack. That has to be synchronized with the immediate, you know, the, the visual signal of the tack, which is immediate because your eye is right here. And so this is the Benjamin Libet's work back in the seventies and eighties is those landmark studies that he did showing that there's this, this, this neural syncing of, of all these different sensory, all this different sensory information that has to, has different flight times,

• 57:01Speaker 02

  you know, through the brain. So it's all syncs up, but then it puts us

• 57:06Speaker 02

  like a half second in our past, according to that prediction, but we're not half second in our past. So something quantum is probably going on there to readjust then these sensations and coordinate them. But then the, what you're, what you're asking about though, is those, those longer timeframe kind of precognitive or pre sentimental signals, those have to sort of inflect us and, you know, orient us and maybe impact our decision making, for instance, or what we think of as our free will. So it's on that kind of level that precognition is operating. And there again, it's why it's always outside of conscious awareness, our consciousness.

• 57:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's always in, it's not something we're aware of because it's not right now. It's not part of the now that the classical brain is constructing out of our experience. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's another reason why I'm impatient with people who keep throwing the word consciousness around in these contexts of psychic phenomena and also, you know, UFOs and stuff. Everyone wants to say consciousness, consciousness, all about consciousness. I think that that's a distraction and it doesn't help us see how these things actually work. But as you mentioned, Donald Hoffman, yeah, his work is really interesting.

• 58:37Speaker 02

  I don't know what to make of it. I feel like it's overstated a little bit. You know, I feel like he's kind of overstated. I think a lot of scientists sort of do this when they want their ideas to have legs. I know I do it myself in my writing. I kind of overstate things a little bit because you want, you know, have an interesting idea and you want to see if it sticks, sticks to the wall, you know, like throwing spaghetti at the wall or whatever.

• 59:07Speaker 02

  I don't know if I would go as far as he does in saying that we don't perceive reality at all. You know, he sort of likens our perception to icons on the computer screen, you know, that what we're seeing is the fitness, I forget how he phrases it, we're seeing the fitness value of things. I don't know about that. I think he's partly right, certainly, but whether he's completely right, I don't know.

• 59:35Jesse Michels?

  So do you believe we're in some sort of maybe platonic cave and we're seeing something that is not at all like reality and, you know, occasionally we sort of glimpse the light? Or do you think we're seeing something that's just perceptually adaptive? But, you know?

• 59:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, I don't know. I feel like it's somewhere in between, you know? I think there's something slightly cave-like about our experience, but I'm...

• 1:00:04Speaker 02

  I wouldn't go so far as to kind of that sort of extreme kind of Gnostic view that

• 1:00:08Jesse Michels?

  Sure.

• 1:00:09Speaker 02

  We're in this, you know, complete bubble, uh, Truman Show kind of.

• 1:00:15Jesse Michels?

  Well, where the Gnostics, are you familiar with Riz Verk?

• 1:00:18Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:00:18Jesse Michels?

  So, you know, he talks about kind of this simulation hypothesis, the multiverse simulation. And I do, I'm sympathetic to this idea that maybe you are, your consciousness is being ported into this sort of sensory reductive, you know, 3D time-bound world. And that there is this more primordial self that the Greeks would, you know, say you experience in forms of sort of noesis. You forget yourself when you get, when you're born and, you know, this sort of anemesis process. And then through these, you know, mystery rituals that all these guys used to perform at like Eleusis, they experience their primordial selves. And so do you think that that's a possible model where you occasionally get these sort of downloads from on high,

• 1:01:01Jesse Michels?

  from your sort of higher self, but mostly you just have access to the kind of sensory stuff. But the senses are actually, uh, reductive on a default state of possibly greater omniscience. They're not sort of productive, which is, uh, you know, Aldous Huxley, William James, they would be sort of fans of this model as well.

• 1:01:21Speaker 02

  Right, the reducing valve model, yeah. Well, yeah, what you're describing is, you know, what mystics throughout, throughout time

• 1:01:30Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:01:31Speaker 02

  have said that because they have these experiences of higher consciousness or whatever. And, and so there's this kind of implicit model that what we're living on a day-to-day basis is this kind of reduced, constricted, constrained, um, uh, thing. I mean, I think the, but again, we have, you know, to just survive in the world, you know, if we were going through life in this mystical state, we'd immediately get eaten by a predator. You know, it's like you, you've got to, you've got to deal with, uh, the real world and, and, and then sometimes, you know, have these expanded, uh, experiences. Those are equally important, but I, I think it's sort of, it sells us, sells that, that pragmatic,

• 1:02:16Speaker 02

  um, reality short to say, oh, it's like living in a cave, you know? It's like, you know, we need to, we need to have that reduced. Pragmatic focus a lot of the time, you know, and yeah, we can't be living our higher self all the time. So this notion that we're evolving towards like always living a higher self kind of state. I'm not, I'm, I don't quite buy that kind of evolutionary view in that sense.

• 1:02:43Jesse Michels?

  How do UFOs play into all of this? I know UFO in some sense led you into this work yourself. Do you think UFOs have anything to do with the, the model overall of time that you have?

• 1:02:57Speaker 02

  Um, yes and no. I, there's a common, uh, oft heard

• 1:03:07Speaker 02

  claim nowadays in the UFO world that, and it goes along with this idea that, oh, it's really about consciousness and stuff. An oft heard idea that, that somehow our precognitive experiences and synchronicities and all those things are somehow part of the phenomenon or part of this UFO phenomenon, which I think is totally not true. I mean, precognition is intrinsic to who we are as, as creatures. And I think it's intrinsic to all life, probably. And people sort of think that they're all part of one thing.

• 1:03:41Speaker 02

  Maybe because they get interested in them together as I did. You know, you, you have one remarkable experience. It's going to lead you to reading about other remarkable experiences and and certainly open us to certain kinds of experiences. You know, if you're open to seeing UFOs, you're probably open to, to your dreams and, and, and having pre cognitive dreams and so on. But I don't think there's any intrinsic connection there.

• 1:04:10Speaker 02

  But, but the UFO question is hugely interesting to me and, and I think this time loops model is like really possibly very important. I've a, I'm a, I'm totally in agreement with Mike Masters, who I know you've interviewed that, that, uh, the

• 1:04:31Speaker 02

  Strongest hypothesis, I think, about what is underlying the real core of the UFO phenomenon. I think there's a lot of deception and psyop stuff going on too. But the real core there probably involves, you know, very likely involves time traveling. Humans or involves time traveling technology, at the very least. Yeah.

• 1:04:57Speaker 02

  And if so, then all the things that we can start to understand about time travel just from our own experience and from, as I say, our own precognitive experiences. And all these things that we were talking about, like time loops and the ways in which stuff from the future

• 1:05:21Speaker 02

  influences stuff in the past and in a way that that history is self-consistent. Those same factors are gonna are gonna be really important in in time travel and in our development of time traveling technology.

• 1:05:40Speaker 02

  We already talked about the the quantum computer sort of step towards that. I think that that that technology of communicating across time

• 1:05:52Speaker 02

  is going to cause an acceleration, a technological acceleration towards more advanced technology and towards probably solving these problems of of physical time travel. But yeah, I think I I think time travel is is hugely important. And so so, yeah, I mean, if there's a way, if there's a place to look for time travel besides quantum time traveling information, it's probably the UFO phenomenon.

• 1:06:22Jesse Michels?

  And maybe there's something about biology that is a porting of something that's a little more probabilistic or quantum, and maybe biology becomes vestigial in the future. And actually, what we're interacting with is some sort of kind of quantum code or something that's unbound by biological constraints. Because I think about your model of time loops and it's, you're kind of glitching into some like information layer of the future or whatever. But the Mike Masters thing is like, you're literally seeing these like beings that are like from the future. And those are two very distinct things. And you could find some sort of like, you know, biological matter transporter. But maybe more likely, we just become these sort of quantum information systems or something

• 1:07:04Jesse Michels?

  that can, you know, I don't know, time edit at will and, you know, kind of show up at will and almost be more information theoretic, like in a John Wheeler model of the universe or something than, you know, us.

• 1:07:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, there's all kinds of possibilities. I mean, I'm just, um, one of the, you know, it's like one of the premises, like we talked about the peripheral, you know, it's like, at one point in the story, this, you know, guy in the future, the user in the future, uh, sends, so it's the character in the 20th century, she happens to work at the local 3D print shop. Okay. And so he sends her instructions to 3D print this, this, you know, future technology headset that enables her to like, visit the future in an avatar and stuff like that. But that idea of trans, you know, 3D, you know, printing out information in the present

• 1:07:57Speaker 02

  based on information from the future is going to be part of this, you know, this halfway house, basically to time travel, you know, in the sense that, you know, you could have, say, a drone operator in the future, you know, you know, control a drone in the past and, you know, that's been built from future technology, but what, but with present capabilities of a 3D printer, you could essentially have a future, uh, you know, time drone, essentially, uh, flying around that's under the control of someone in the future, you know, via, uh, an existing. You know, 3D or the existing quantum uh server, you know, so we're gonna start seeing

• 1:08:39Speaker 02

  really interesting phenomena the moment the first quantum computers come online. And of course, the idea that maybe they're already online, you know, in deep black programs somewhere, you know, there's that, you know, it's just, it's an interesting variant of the idea of of a flying saucer coming through a wormhole, you know, into the past, you could have a flying saucer that's been built in the present, based on information from the future, and that's maybe even controlled by someone in the future via a quantum server. There's just all kinds of possibilities that I think we need to start thinking realistically, not just about, you know, these high strangeness UFO encounters, but think about what are

• 1:09:23Speaker 02

  the possibilities, what are the things that we're gonna do when we have these technologies, you know, maybe in a few years?

• 1:09:29Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:09:29Speaker 02

  You know, what are the effects that's gonna have on society? What are the phenomena that we're gonna start encountering in daily life because of this new relationship to our future when we have quantum computer servers that we leave plugged in, you know, for years, decades, centuries? That's gonna be transformative. Um, you know, if anything, that, you know, I think of the idea of the singularity, you know, the, you know, the sort of brink after which hu- human history becomes unpredictable. Well, I think that, that, you know, it's not spiritual machines that are gonna do it, it's, it's this time traveling technology that comes from uh, or this informational

• 1:10:10Speaker 02

  time traveling technology that comes from quantum computer servers that are gonna allow this, this new relationship to our future. And it could be incredibly destabilizing, you know, it's like the first people to use these devices are gonna get very rich by, by, you know, predicting stock fluctuations and, and all that. So, I don't know.

• 1:10:33Jesse Michels?

  But when we talked earlier about somebody having a premonition of a car crash and that being sort of adaptive, because that's based on this like really important survival mode for them, that, you know, or, you know, they have to be cognizant of that when the, you know, the event possibly is about to occur, so they swerve out or whatever. I had the thought that on a kind of a more macro scale, when it comes to humanity, these UFOs seem to show up consistently around nuclear sites.

• 1:11:01Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:11:01Jesse Michels?

  And so if you were trying to find kind of the Archimedes lever, like the point of most leverage for affecting timelines, when it came to humanity, he would probably go straight to nuclear sites.

• 1:11:11Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:11:11Jesse Michels?

  And so maybe that points to these things pushing us towards some teleology.

• 1:11:18Speaker 02

  Right. Yeah, I mean, the point of of time travel is, or one of the points of time travel is not going to be, you know, people think of this in terms of, again, changing timelines and stuff. I think that's, that's not the way to think about it. I think, you know, you can go into the past and you can do stuff in the past and have effects and you can plant the seeds for things that you will then harvest in the future. So, you know, you can go into the past and, and affect things in a, shape things in a way that, that will then pay off for you. You can plant, the way I put it in my second book is you can plant seeds in the past for a better tomorrow.

• 1:11:57Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 1:11:57Speaker 02

  You know, the, like, so the simplistic example that, that, that I use, it's, you know, it, there's all kinds of problems with this thought of experiment, but just, you know, go with me. You know, so you say you have a quantum computer server that's, that you leave plugged in from the, you know, from now until, you know, for centuries. And it's connected to 3D printers, big 3D printers, industrial 3D printers. And say, say you're working for, you're an astronomer in the 22nd century, and you discover an asteroid that's, that's on collision course for Earth. And it's, you know, you, you've detected

• 1:12:38Speaker 02

  it too late to, to intervene, to, to send a rocket to deflect the, the asteroid. But you have a quantum computer that's connected to 3D printers on the moon's far side, say. And you, you know, you send an instruction to print out a rocket, you know, 30 years in your past and launch the rocket. And, and so it, you know, when you detect the, the asteroid, but there's a rocket right there that, that destroys it because you've launched it in, in the past. That, that kind of scenario, there's all kinds of ways in which that kind of logic can.

• 1:13:18Speaker 02

  Be incredibly useful for obvious reasons, you know, not just in in amassing huge wealth, but in, you know, solving problems that that ordinarily take too long to solve. If you can, you can recruit the past to help you solve that problem. Um, or, or say, you know, uh, pandemics, you know, say, uh, uh, there's this, you know, you know, a new, you know, virus is is discovered that's, you know, super deadly. But you can, you know, and it's going to be a huge pandemic unless you do something quickly. Well, you can, you know, use, you know, again, use the same setup to do kinds of all the needed

• 1:14:01Speaker 02

  trials and and drug development, you know, 10 years in the past, uh, so that the the vaccine is ready by the time the the virus, you know, presents itself. That kind of, you know, using the past to to solve problems in the present that wouldn't be soluble otherwise, um, because they just take too long, you know, not just because it's a computer, not just because it's a mathematical problem that requires too many years of number crunching, but because you actually need people and machines and infrastructure to deal with the problem, uh, that takes time. Uh, so that kind of thing, again, this is why I see this this kind of intermediate

• 1:14:44Speaker 02

  technology towards physical time travel being like super important in coming years, um, with with quantum computation.

• 1:14:54Jesse Michels?

  Hmm. There are other models of physical time travel that involve, uh, possibly manipulation of gravity, which is very related to

• 1:15:03Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 1:15:03Jesse Michels?

  time and the general relativity.

• 1:15:05Speaker 02

  Well, that's the next thing. That's, that's, that's what will come next.

• 1:15:08Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:15:09Speaker 02

  And and there you're not limited to going, you know, sending information back in time just to when you turned on your quantum computer. And there you're you're free to to travel as far back as you want in time, uh, potentially, you know, whether you're using a wormhole or a what I call a time ship.

• 1:15:25Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:15:25Speaker 02

  Which would be, you know, some kind of.

• 1:15:27Jesse Michels?

  Are you familiar with De Glaucay? Do you know what that is?

• 1:15:29Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:15:30Jesse Michels?

  This German, the Nazi bell? Where you create a, you know, super high voltage

• 1:15:38Jesse Michels?

  over a short distance and it's this bell with a ceramic internal chamber where, you know, there are two ways to change gravity, to affect gravity, you know, enough mass and enough energy. We think of not, you know, being able to have the capacity to have enough energy to actually affect gravity in a real way. But if you have enough mass, you can obviously do it. If you have tons and tons of energy, you might be able to do it with really high voltages, you know, electric plasma thrusters. So there's this rumor of this like Nazi Wunderwaffe program under SS Officer Hans Kommler. And he had this sort of bell shaped object. And the guys that were working on this reportedly were Ernest Grauets, who was head of the SS Medical Division. So that probably means, you know, would imply that there are people involved.

• 1:16:20Jesse Michels?

  And Walter Gerlach, who was a gravity physicist, he was a physicist very focused on gravity. And you would put somebody inside the chamber and you would pour the whole thing with so much voltage that you create kind of a different inertial reference frame inside the chamber. So like every second on the outside would be a thousandth of a second on the inside. It'd slow time down, just like in a black hole in general relativity. The closer you get to a black hole, the more time slows, you know, gravitational source. And you walk out, you know, and all of a sudden you're a thousand years in the future. So I, it's a sort of wacky model, but I got really interested in this, um, you know, mid-century inventor, this kind of gravity inventor named Thomas Tunsen Brown.

• 1:17:02Jesse Michels?

  And kind of the subtext of his whole story is actually that he's extremely interested in time travel. And then he thinks that gravity manipulation leads to time travel. And so I, I find that kind of a very fascinating little, you know, yeah. Maybe part of the, yeah, maybe it's the next, the intermediate step before, you know, pure, pure information transfer, Allah, the movie The Fly or something.

• 1:17:27Speaker 02

  That's cool.

• 1:17:27Jesse Michels?

  Yeah. Do you think, um, you know, like, uh, I think about, have you read like, like, uh, the lectures by Schrodinger, like What is Life?

• 1:17:37Speaker 02

  No, I haven't. I haven't. I haven't. I have not read it. Yes.

• 1:17:41Jesse Michels?

  Cause he, he talks about these, these aperiodic crystals in the DNA that are somehow.

• 1:17:49Jesse Michels?

  Really important information receptacles for it is it's sort of speculative, but I think he doesn't really have like a really good, good model for this at the time. I don't even think we had the double helical structure of DNA at the time. It was 1944, right?

• 1:18:02Speaker 02

  Before it was discovered, yeah.

• 1:18:03Jesse Michels?

  So he's talking about this and I think what he's sort of implying is that like, that's like the, that's the port between the sort of quantum world and the, you know, more biological world or something.

• 1:18:15Speaker 02

  Well, that's really interesting you say that because I've, you know, thinking back to this idea of like 3D printing something based on information from the future. I've, you know, I'm, this is totally speculative, but what if DNA is that, is that, is like a quantum server and that, you know, that's DNA controls, you know, the protein, you know, uh, the proteins and all that. So what if, what if that is essentially what we are is 3D printed, uh, you know, drones essentially based on information from our evolutionary future, you know, it's, it just sort of opens up.

• 1:18:51Jesse Michels?

  That's fascinating.

• 1:18:52Speaker 02

  Really interesting possibilities.

• 1:18:54Jesse Michels?

  You know, Maxwell's equations work forwards just as they work backwards. And the more I get deep into the UFO thing, the only time the door shuts on me is around this model of what's called extended electrodynamics. It's not around like UFOs are real, like that's being pushed clearly, but there's this like secret science component of all of this. And I think it's like this extended electrodynamics, this idea that actually a more faithful adherence to the original 21 Maxwell's equations and not the kind of compression of Oliver Heaviside into these four vector calculus equations might actually represent, you know, true reality more and actually allow for all these exotic wave

• 1:19:36Jesse Michels?

  types outside of the transverse Hertzian wave. And so it might explain some of this sort of, you know, this I stuff that's like spooky action at a distance. It's kind of, kind of weird because you don't get the typical, you know, electrons pairing off sort of thing or attenuation over space time or through material or whatever. Um, but there's one of these wave types, I realize this is a crazy rabbit. But one of these wave types is called helicoidal and it's shaped like DNA. And so there's, there's this guy named Konstantin Mile and he's in the Black Forest of Germany and he's studying, you know, uh, this extended version of electrodynamics on plants. And he thinks that, you know, it can affect DNA and these sort of super.

• 1:20:20Jesse Michels?

  And you had this guy, Luke Montagnier, who's this French Nobel Prize winner. At the end of his life, he was saying, you know, electromagnetism is really important for communication, information transfer within DNA, within these aqueous nanostructures in DNA. I have no idea whether any of this is true, but DNA is, it's so clearly this information receptacle. Like that's clearly what it's there for. I mean, you can, you can cold store semantic information on it. Like from a, like use it like a computer server. It just takes a while to retrieve. So that's, it's just fascinating.

• 1:20:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, I want to know, you know, I'm not in the, I'm not a physicist and I'm not, certainly not a a quantum physicist and I'm not a quantum biologist. So, you know, I'm at a certain limit with my understanding. But I, you know, it's speculatively, it's fascinating and I would love to know more about the quantum, uh, quantum computing processes or aspects or capabilities of DNA. Yeah. Because it seems like that's, that could be key.

• 1:21:22Jesse Michels?

  Totally. Do you, do you, what do you think of John Wheeler? Cause I'm, I'm a big fan of his and I've heard you talk about him in other interviews. And to me, he's, he comes closest to my model of the world with the sort of information theoretic approach.

• 1:21:36Speaker 02

  Yeah, totally. I, I, yeah, I love Wheeler and I'm particularly fond of that, his U diagram. Are you familiar with his, uh, that, that diagram he wrote, you know, with the U, it's kind of more of a glyph, you know, of the, the U with where one tip of the U is the big bang and the other tip is an eyeball staring back at the big bang. And, you know, that I think is right. I mean, I think he's, he's and he was working with, uh, Not quite retrocausation. He was working with

• 1:22:12Speaker 02

  that kind of model that, well, you can affect a system by deciding whether to measure it as a particle or wave, you know, that kind of

• 1:22:20Jesse Michels?

  Delayed choice.

• 1:22:20Speaker 02

  Delayed choice is sort of a, again, it's kind of like, I think, a conceptual halfway house to true retrocausation.

• 1:22:27Jesse Michels?

  Yep.

• 1:22:28Speaker 02

  But if you add, if you add real retrocausation in there, which I think there, there are some very compelling models of, of real retrocausation. I mean, Yakir Haranov, his two-state vector formalism and

• 1:22:46Speaker 02

  Kramer, yeah, I mean, Kramer's a bit different.

• 1:22:51Jesse Michels?

  It's a handshake.

• 1:22:52Speaker 02

  It's a handshake, but it doesn't, I don't think Kramer's model really allows, like, affecting the path in a way that, that I think Aronov's model might.

• 1:23:05Speaker 02

  Anyway, if you, if you add to Wheeler's U, a real retrocausal

• 1:23:15Speaker 02

  interpretation of quantum mechanics, plus all the time, time traveling technology and all that, those possibilities that, that become more and more potentially prevalent in the universe as the universe ages, you know, like you have the potential of, of truly retrocausing, you know, retrocausing the Big Bang, you know, in a, in a big loop. And I, I love that model.

• 1:23:44Jesse Michels?

  And if time travel becomes possible at any point in the future, it's inherently always been possible.

• 1:23:50Speaker 02

  Right. Right.

• 1:23:52Jesse Michels?

  Which is fast.

• 1:23:52Speaker 02

  Well, it's, if it becomes possible at a point in the future, then, then time travelers have always been here.

• 1:23:59Jesse Michels?

  Exactly.

• 1:23:59Speaker 02

  And could be present at the beginning of the universe.

• 1:24:02Jesse Michels?

  And it would explain the alien thing. And it would explain all this sort of like forbidden archaeology stuff, you know, you have like the antique theory mechanism and all sorts of like precociously advanced architecture from the past. And, you know, all the alien mythology and lore, you know, it would just be these sort of time editing, you know, future versions of ourselves that have figured out time travel and are maybe trying to sway things towards a specific teleology.

• 1:24:30Speaker 02

  What, you know, also interests me is, is the possibility that

• 1:24:36Speaker 02

  The search for dark matter and dark energy could be

• 1:24:42Speaker 02

  that this may have something to do with that, that, that, you know, what if, you know, what if these trans temporal effects, what if the effects of massive, massive time traveling technology, wormholes, or, or something are affecting the mass of, of galaxies in their future and that that somehow affects things in the present that we can't detect. I just, um, you know, again, I'm, I, I'm beyond my level of, of, of cosmological understanding, but it just seems like, you know, there's retrocausation and time travel are the missing, are the things missing from our

• 1:25:25Speaker 02

  understanding of so many phenomena right now. I feel like there's gonna be a,

• 1:25:32Speaker 02

  there's gonna be a paradigm shift. There's gotta be a paradigm shift. That, that where people wake up and go, oh.

• 1:25:40Jesse Michels?

  Well, I think, you know, Steven Spielberg, who I think is very clued into all the UFO stuff has, you know, since he was, I think, a kid, he was super into UFO, obviously made ET, he made, you know, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He's told this guy, Robert Lee Field, who I think created Deadpool, that, you know, um, UFOs are definitely, like, what do you think is more likely that these are like, you know, from Zeta Reticuli or Proxima Centauri, or that there are future selves sort of guarding our, our, you know, our present and making sure that certain timelines get sustained. And I just think that is the clearest, you know, kind of Occam's razor explanation. And it is, it is paradigm shifting and it's, it's bizarre to kind of conceive of. Um, and yet it's, it's very interesting and it would also

• 1:26:24Jesse Michels?

  involve factions. It would involve maybe different versions, depending on what your type of universe you believe in, it might involve different versions of the future trying to sustain themselves or something.

• 1:26:36Speaker 02

  Well, or just different, you know, if you, yeah, different future faction, you know, there doesn't need to be a unified, sure, you know, civilization in our future. I mean, we're very divided now and we, and we, you know, we fight amongst ourselves and, and countries are at war with each other. You know, that could happen across time too. You know, you could have, uh, you know, I'll just take some example, you know, Russian time travelers in fifty years going back in time to the United States and meddling in ways that will benefit them in the future. And just as we might have American time travelers, you know, doing the same, we'd have like multiple factions, you know, intervening in each other's histories.

• 1:27:21Jesse Michels?

  And what do you think of Philip K. Dick? You write about him from nowhere, and you kind of talk about him, and you talk about Jacques Vallée, who's a massive fan of his.

• 1:27:29Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:27:30Jesse Michels?

  And I'm a big fan of both, but I also think their worldview is just so fascinating, and specifically Philip K. Dick. You know, I think people don't fully realize how real he thought a lot of this stuff was, and how autobiographical a lot of his stories are. You bring up Valles, but I think he even gave a speech in Metz in France in like 1976 or seven where he goes, no, like, the man in the high castle was actually a real timeline, where, you know, there are these simulators, and they simulated this version of World War II where the Japanese and the Germans won, and they, you know, cut America in half, and then they decided to rewind the clock because that, you know, didn't quite work

• 1:28:10Jesse Michels?

  out. And the simulators were rewinding the JFK assassination multiple times, trying to make it work out. Yeah, it's fascinating.

• 1:28:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, he was a fascinating character, and definitely troubled. I mean, he had a million different versions of reality going on, and was, you know, a pretty fucked up guy in many ways, but brilliant. And probably, you know, he was the only

• 1:28:37Speaker 02

  artist that I've, like, studied in my, you know, work on artists and writers, who really understood and basically accepted what I'm arguing, which is that artists are influenced by their future. I mean, he knew he was a precog, he knew he was precognitive, and it wasn't just, these weren't just empty claims. I mean, he, you know, it's very clear in his writing, sometimes writing about his own future experiences. And you can see, actually, you can go back to his letters, I mean, he was very open at writing about his dreams and stuff in letters, and you can see even examples of precognition that he didn't detect.

• 1:29:15Jesse Michels?

  That's wild. What's an example of that? So that shows it's not all this crazy signaling where he's just trying to act like.

• 1:29:22Speaker 02

  There's an example that I write about in my new book.

• 1:29:27Speaker 02

  That he in some, I say, but I argument in, in, in one of the chapters of my new book is that, you know, he and Jacques Vallée were kind of precognizing each other's work. And that in fact, Valis is Vallée.

• 1:29:41Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 1:29:42Speaker 02

  Um, because they both read each other's work. They were both writing, uh, in 1974, 1975. That's when, uh, Vallée was writing The Invisible College. And that's when Dick was writing the first draft of what became Valis. It was at that point, uh, I mean, they published, fortunately, they published that first draft posthumously. It's a radio free album, uh, but he was, he already had this, this, this word had come to him, Valis. And, and it, and this story that he wrote around this idea is all to be found in Jacques Vallée's book.

• 1:30:22Speaker 02

  Um, this, the idea of a teaching like satellite and the idea of, of, of people receiving, you know, awakened people receiving signals from some distant star that are designed to, to, you know, uh, uh, save us from some peril or whatever. There's so many parallels between these two books, but neither of them could have read each other at that point. Um, so the, the argument is a little complex, but, but yeah, there's a convergence there, a precognitive convergence, I think.

• 1:30:55Speaker 02

  But, uh, the, one of the examples of, of Phil Dick's many precognitive dreams was that around, I think this was in 1974, he had a dream where, uh, there are a lot of details of this dream, but it was like, there was these, these diminutive, these small alien creatures, um, I think came out of a spaceship, gave him some piece of technology. Uh, but there was another part of the dream where he was, he was shown a, a, a brownie, I think, or a, or a, that had been scored by a fork around, around its edges. And it was somehow a relief map. Okay.

• 1:31:39Speaker 02

  But it was to do with this, oh, and, and someone told him, oh, don't take that. It belongs to, um,

• 1:31:46Speaker 02

  Betty Fields, he he missed, he misremembered the name Betty Hill as Betty Field. He thought, oh, this is a reference to the UFO abductee. Um, so three years later, he's like super excited when he sees Close Encounters, uh, and he doesn't make a connection to that dream, but a dream of like diminutive childlike creatures coming out of a spaceship, a, a piece of food that's scored by a fork around the edges. I mean, that's like, that's the scene in Close Encounters where he fork scores, you know, mashed potatoes around the edge, you know, and it's a relief map, turns out to be a relief map essentially of, of, of Devil's Tower. Um, and, and the idea, and that all being linked to a UFO, someone who's had a UFO encounter. I think it's, it worked, that's

• 1:32:30Speaker 02

  the way precognitive dreams work. They, they work on associations, you know, they don't present something literally, but they present, you know, a set of associations around this core thing. I think he was precognizing Spielberg's movie.

• 1:32:44Jesse Michels?

  That's fascinating.

• 1:32:45Speaker 02

  The people precognize movies that way all the time. Um, uh, yeah. So, yeah, he was, but there's so many examples like that. And a lot of them he was aware of, you know, he'd have this dream and then, oh my God, the next day, you know, this, this thing happens and it's just like in his dream and, you know, he's not making this stuff up.

• 1:33:04Jesse Michels?

  I have a really weird, actually, personal example. That's just came out. I'll figure out whether I'm going to cut this or not, but I, I was hanging out with a friend and he was like, man, like, you should go to France. He just said it out of nowhere. And I was like, why, why should I go to France, man? And he was like, I don't know, I kind of see you dating a French girl or something. And I was like, interesting. Okay. And he, he was like, my last girlfriend, he knew her and he was like, yeah, she was, you know, British, but she kind of had like this American mentality. Like, I think you need like a Europe, true European mentality, whatever. And he's like, I'm convinced of this because I just saw this movie, um, Before Sunset,

• 1:33:48Jesse Michels?

  made by Richard Linklater, and the main character's name is Jesse. And, um, and I'm like, man, I love that movie. I love Richard Linklater. He's amazing. I'm like, that movie's incredible. And he's like, yeah, I kind of see you with this, like, you know, the character, like Julie Delpy or whatever. I'm like, she's just awesome. She's beautiful. I would be down for that. And so the next day on a whim, I book a trip to France and I end up being there for the whole summer. And in Paris, I end up dating a girl and then I, I come back. And her, her name is Celine. Her name, I come back and I watched the movie Before Sunset and her name was Julie Delpy's character's name. Isn't that weird?

• 1:34:33Speaker 02

  That's incredible.

• 1:34:34Jesse Michels?

  It's nuts.

• 1:34:35Speaker 02

  Well, there's a time loop.

• 1:34:36Jesse Michels?

  That's a time.

• 1:34:37Speaker 02

  Because he told you this and then.

• 1:34:39Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, literally.

• 1:34:40Speaker 02

  It affected your actions.

• 1:34:41Jesse Michels?

  And I was thinking about it in the back of my head where I'm like, that's kind of why I made the decision, which is crazy to make a decision based on that, but it felt like, you know.

• 1:34:49Speaker 02

  Yep.

• 1:34:49Jesse Michels?

  The right synchronicity or something.

• 1:34:51Speaker 02

  Yeah. But people, synchronicity is sort of the, the go-to term that people use when this kind of stuff happens.

• 1:34:58Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:34:59Speaker 02

  Because they don't have a concept of precognition for the most part.

• 1:35:01Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:35:02Speaker 02

  Uh, so, you know, synchronicity will work, you know, uh.

• 1:35:04Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, maybe precognition. Yeah, yeah.

• 1:35:07Speaker 02

  That's good.

• 1:35:08Jesse Michels?

  But and then, and then Jacques Vallée is how I learned of Valis because I was at his apartment. And he was like, this is my favorite book, so maybe you're on to something. But Eric, I appreciate your time, man. This was awesome. Uh, we could probably go much longer, but, uh, this was fantastic. And, uh, everybody go out and buy From Nowhere. Uh, it's a really fantastic book and time loops.

• 1:35:30Speaker 02

  Thank you very much. It's been fun. Finally, finally getting to sit down and talk.

• 1:35:34Jesse Michels?

  We made it happen.

• 1:35:35Speaker 03

  Your sausage McMuffin with egg didn't change. Your receipt did. The sausage McMuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5. Only at McDonald's for a limited time.

• 1:35:48Speaker 04

  Price and participation may vary. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing.

• 1:35:51Speaker 05

  They're running a cover two defense. But you're running to get game day deals on Uber Eats. Keep everyone at tonight's watch party fed with deals from your go-to restaurants. Or stock up with deals on your favorite snacks and groceries. Whatever the occasion, get game day deals on Uber Eats all season long. It's not football without food. Uber Eats. Order now. Terms apply. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.