What's Outside The Simulation w/ Donald Hoffman

Welcome to Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu. In today’s mind-bending episode, Tom sits down with cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, who challenges everything you think you know about reality, consciousness, and the very fabric of our universe. What if the world around us isn’t the fundamental base of existence, but rather, nothing more than a meticulously rendered simulation—an efficient computational interface, like a high-tech headset, designed to help us survive, not reveal the truth? Together, Tom and Donald dive deep into groundbreaking theories emerging from the frontlines of quantum physics and mathematics, including “positive geometries” and the idea that spacetime is not fundamental. They break down complex scientific concepts—like Markov chains and the hard problem of consciousness—into compelling metaphors drawn from video games, virtual reality, and computation. Throughout the conversation, they grapple with the illusion of free will, the meaning of “base reality,” and whether consciousness is ultimately all there is—hinting at a future where understanding the software outside the headset could make today’s technology look like child’s play. Whether you’re a skeptic, a seeker, or just driven by unending curiosity, you’re in for an episode that could forever shift your perception of what it means to be real. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business:join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show: https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show SCALING a business:see if you qualify here. https://tombilyeu.com/call: https://tombilyeu.com/call Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox:sign up here. https://tombilyeu.com/: https://tombilyeu.com/ ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast,Tom Bilyeu’s Mindset Playbook https://open.spotify.com/show/47VE90Cittmo6TGGFqg2xf —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok:https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter:https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription orderQuince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpodMonetary Metals: Future-proof your wealth at https://monetarymetals.com/impactTruemed: Check your eligibility and start saving at https://truemed.com/impactAT&T Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.com http://business.att.comIncogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impactShopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impactNetsuite: Right now, get our free business guide, Demystifying AI, at https://NetSuite.com/Theory https://netsuite.com/TheoryQuo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impact Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices https://megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

• 0:00Tom Bilyeu?

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby, and then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University, and the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Tom Bilyeu?

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement.

• 1:07Speaker 01

  BJ's 42% off thank you celebration is our way of saying thank you for 42 years. Bring home family favorites for an unprecedented 42% off BJ's everyday low prices. All five pound ground beef, fresh chicken drumsticks, potatoes, apples, and more. Plus, free slices of cake on weekends. Shop BJ's Wholesale Club for once in a lifetime 42% savings through October 31st. Thank you for being a BJ's member. Terms apply. Visit BJ's.com for details. Not a member? Join BJ's today.

• 1:37Speaker 02

  We have not yet modeled the observer that's collecting the data in science. So, under Newtonian physics, you ignore the observer. In Einstein, you talk about the observer, but the observer is reduced to clocks and measurement pointers. In quantum theory, now the observer becomes front and center because there are two different regimes in quantum theory. There's a unitary evolution when no one's looking, when you don't observe. And then there's what they call the collapse of the wave function when you observe. So, all of a sudden, in quantum mechanics, the observer comes front and center. But quantum theory has no universally accepted model of the observer. And we haven't had it for now a century.

• 2:19Tom Bilyeu?

  Donald Hoffman, welcome back.

• 2:21Speaker 02

  Thank you, Tom. Great to be back.

• 2:22Tom Bilyeu?

  It's great to have you back. So I just recently did a video about the fact that we are living in a simulation, which I am increasingly convinced is true, which made me want to bring you back on. Now, we've talked about your theory before, that this is essentially, we're in a headset, like a VR, and the entire human experience is happening inside of that VR headset, therefore even spacetime is not real. Now, I think we're going to diverge a little bit on my sort of blanket statement that this is a simulation, and we'll get into that in a minute. But you've started saying something incredibly provocative and very interesting for me, which is that if this is a simulation-like thing inside of a headset, then we might be able

• 3:07Tom Bilyeu?

  to edit the code. And if we think of physics as being the pathway to editing that code, then you've said even things like a nuclear bomb would just be firecrackers compared to what we'll be able to do in the future. So, do you really believe that the code is editable? And if it is, have we already edited the code?

• 3:28Speaker 02

  First, I agree that spacetime is not fundamental. And I'm a cognitive scientist, and it's really, of course, up to the high-energy theoretical physicists to say whether or not spacetime is fundamental, right? Not a cognitive scientist. But they've been doing that now for quite a few decades. They've said-

• 3:46Tom Bilyeu?

  Saying that it's not fundamental.

• 3:47Speaker 02

  That it's not fundamental. So, Nima R. Khani-Hamed, at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, says that flat out. He says spacetime is doomed. It cannot be fundamental. And also quantum theory. So spacetime and quantum theory together are going to have to arise from some deeper framework. There are others as well, many, many other famous physicists, so many now that are working on this and making progress, that the European Research Council has a 10 million euro initiative on what are called positive geometries. And there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of mathematicians and theoretical physicists who are now starting to look for-

• 4:28Speaker 02

  Structures entirely outside of spacetime that can make predictions inside spacetime. And they're finding them. They're finding these things that are called positive geometries.

• 4:37Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, really fast, because I think people get lost at this. And my promise to the audience is that I'm going to try to simplify this stuff.

• 4:43Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 4:44Tom Bilyeu?

  To the point where if you understand just a little bit of the concept, it begins to open up a metaphor, if nothing else. And so I've always said regarding my belief that we're in a simulation is that it may just be that that's the best metaphor, that it's not literally true. You and I both agree, whatever we say here over in the fullness of time will be proven to be incomplete at a minimum.

• 5:09Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 5:10Tom Bilyeu?

  But I think that the idea that we're living in a simulation is such a profoundly accurate metaphor that it's very useful. So when we talk about them discovering these positive geometries, my understanding is basically you have Richard Feynman, who creates this like really brute force math equation to describe what happens when particles collide. And it's this just ridiculously complicated math equation that people will spend an entire career on a single equation.

• 5:44Speaker 02

  Right.

• 5:45Tom Bilyeu?

  Then you've got Arkhan Hamad, I forget, I can never remember.

• 5:49Speaker 02

  Me either, Arkhan Hamad, right?

• 5:50Tom Bilyeu?

  Thank you. He realizes, oh, wait a second. These can actually be simplified into a single geometric shape. And when you calculate the volume, I think it is.

• 6:00Speaker 02

  Right.

• 6:00Tom Bilyeu?

  Of that simple shape, all of a sudden, in a very fast way, you can figure out how particles will interact when they collide.

• 6:10Speaker 02

  That's, that's exactly right. When you let go of the wrong framework and spacetime is just the wrong framework for principled reasons that we can talk about that are very, very simple. It's, it's actually very straightforward to understand why spacetime cannot be the fundamental base level of reality at all.

• 6:25Tom Bilyeu?

  Please say it.

• 6:26Speaker 02

  The first step is that spacetime is just a scientific theory. Right? And every scientific theory is just a theory. It's not the truth. Every scientific theory starts with assumptions. And it says, if you grant me these assumptions, then I'll explain all this other stuff.

• 6:44Speaker 02

  But it can never explain its own assumptions. So we get spacetime by making certain assumptions, like Einstein assuming that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames and so forth. But it doesn't explain its own assumptions, and so we will always need a deeper theory to explain the assumptions of a previous theory. But the new theory will always have its own assumptions. So, science is a very humble enterprise, in a way. We always know that our assumptions are not the final word. Now, a great scientific theory gives you not only the tools to explore what it can explain, the scope of what it can explain. It'll also give you the tools to explore the limits of its own assumptions. That's what a great theory.

• 7:28Speaker 02

  And it turns out that Einstein's spacetime, together with quantum theory, so quantum field theory and gravity, together give us the tools to show where their assumptions stop. And their assumption, so what they show is that the very notion of spacetime itself has no operational meaning at all, at what's called the Planck scale, 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, 10 to the minus 43 seconds. And so that means that spacetime is a wonderful framework, brilliant, and Einstein's contributions are brilliant, so is quantum mechanics. There's nothing wrong with these frameworks. But we knew a priori that they can't be the final word, because it's just a scientific theory. Theories are just theories.

• 8:09Speaker 02

  And so, but in this case, the theory is so good, it says, "This stops at the Planck scale." It has no meaning, no operational meaning. If you want to be very, very clear about that, if you want to measure things that are smaller and smaller and smaller, you need to have smaller and smaller wavelengths of light, or radiation, right? To resolve them. So your microscope is using smaller and smaller wavelengths of light to resolve things. But Einstein and quantum theory together tell us that as you get smaller and smaller wavelengths, the energy is going up, and as the wave, energies are going up, Einstein says, "Energy is mass, mass is going up, curved, spacetime is being curved by the mass, eventually, the mass is so great that you create a black hole."

• 8:55Speaker 02

  And so the very thing that you're trying to measure gets destroyed in a black hole. And if you get frustrated and say, well, I'm just going to try, put more energy, make it a smaller wavelength, the black hole just gets bigger and bigger. So it really means that the very notion of spacetime has no meaning operationally at all. At 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, 10 to the minus 43 seconds, we know it's over. Now, most physicists don't need to worry about this, right? What they're doing is within the normal range of physics that we can do every day. But the high-energy theoretical physicists are the ones for which this is a serious issue, because they're looking at the very, very high energies and they're looking at the limits of the current theory. And they're the ones that are, that the European Research Council is funding with the 10 million euro initiative

• 9:40Speaker 02

  to say, okay, what's next? We knew that spacetime stopped at the Planck scale.

• 9:44Tom Bilyeu?

  Because they really want to get beneath that minimum size?

• 9:48Speaker 02

  We need a deeper theory. There has to be some deeper scientific theory that gives rise to spacetime. So spacetime, in that sense, will be emergent from a much deeper framework. And we already get the hint that that's happening to us because we're finding these positive, they're finding these positive geometries that make the computations simpler.

• 10:08Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so do you see, actually, okay, I have a follow-up question there, but I really want to ground the audience who isn't technical on why I think at a minimum, the metaphor of the simulation is going to be so helpful.

• 10:20Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 10:20Tom Bilyeu?

  So this all started clicking for me when I started doing video game development. And all of a sudden, you're making all these decisions and you start looking at the universe and you're like, wait, I'm having to create physics. So you're looking sideways at the real universe and you're like, I am mimicking all of these things that I see in the real world to get this thing to function. And then you start getting to rendering. And once I realized, I've got to put all this thought into how the game world renders. And then you find out that there was a Nobel Prize awarded for proving that the universe is not locally real, which is a fancy way of saying that the universe only renders what is being measured or interacted with. So you could say, if you look at the moon, it renders because you need to.

• 11:03Tom Bilyeu?

  For that perceiving agent, it gets very tricky how you wanted to find that because it isn't just about conscious agents, though this may be where we disagree.

• 11:12Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 11:12Tom Bilyeu?

  But I would say it's anything that needs to interact or measure that thing. That's how the universe actually works. That's also how a game actually works. And so I started going, whoa, the fact that the universe effectively only renders what it must render and that it is always seeking computational efficiency. I was just like, yo, this is too weird. So when we start talking about the Planck scale, if people just go, oh, yeah, you don't render anything beyond that scale because you have a pixel size. Now metaphor, sure, I'm fine with that. But if you recognize that, oh, one of the ways that you can tell that this isn't base reality,

• 11:56Tom Bilyeu?

  let's say, is that it has this finite size that happens to map exactly to the idea of a pixel size or a tick speed in a computer. Cause when you're doing a game, there's a speed at which it checks with the code. And so the fact that the real universe also has a tick speed and a finite pixel size is just too wild. And so if nothing else, even if that ends up being proven like, oh, there's something that I'm missing and it gets you part of the way there to understanding it. It still gets you a long way to understanding it. And so as we talk today, I'm going to try to anchor the audience at a minimum in that metaphor

• 12:38Tom Bilyeu?

  to help them understand why this kind of thing stops people in their tracks when they start hearing how the universe actually operates.

• 12:45Speaker 02

  Right. Well, I'm on the same page with you completely on the rendering only as you need it. But I should be very, very clear that physics today is divided on this issue. So some physicists, I mean, they all recognize, the high energy theoretical physicists all recognize that spacetime is doomed at the Planck scale. So that's, that's not in question. What is in question is what to do about it and what to do with quantum theory. And so there are so-called primitive ontology approaches where they still try to have something that's there all the time, whether you rendered or render it or not. So the de Broglie-Bum interpretation of quantum theory, for example, has a particle that's running, riding on the quantum pilot wave,

• 13:27Speaker 02

  but there really is a particle all the time and it doesn't get rendered on the moment. So I, so I just want to be very, very clear that even though you and I are on the same page, the physics community is divided on this. There are others who will say that the quantum wave function really is like for, there's a A program called Cubism, so Quantum Bayesianism, that says the quantum wave function really just describes the degrees of belief of the observer and nothing else.

• 13:54Tom Bilyeu?

  Degrees of belief?

• 13:55Speaker 02

  Degrees of belief about what you will see.

• 13:58Tom Bilyeu?

  Interesting.

• 13:59Speaker 02

  When you observe, what you'll find when you observe.

• 14:03Tom Bilyeu?

  Taking a short break, but there's more Impact Theory after. Stay tuned. There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60, and it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself, their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality. Soft, well-made,

• 14:48Tom Bilyeu?

  built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too. So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns, now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about something that genuinely keeps me awake at night. My team at Impact Theory gets hit with phishing scams from bad actors pretending to be me all the time. And they keep getting more sophisticated attacks with details specific enough to look

• 15:31Tom Bilyeu?

  legit. AI has made a lot of things possible, including scams like this. But AI still needs raw material. It gets it from data brokers who sell your name, address, phone number to anyone willing to pay. Incogni goes after that supply. They handle removal requests across 420-plus harmful broker sites and the key

• 15:53Tom Bilyeu?

  Keep checking back as brokers constantly try to relist you. On the unlimited plan, the exposure scanner hunts down your information. Send a link and their privacy experts handle the takedown. Track your progress in the app and get a monthly risk assessment showing exactly where you stand. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan. Incogni is I-N-C-O-G-N-I dot com slash impact. Promo code IMPACT. It's completely risk free with a 30 day money back guarantee.

• 16:30Tom Bilyeu?

  Thanks for staying tuned. Now, let's get back to it. It may be a good time for you to define what you think is base reality. And then I'll make a confession about what I think about base reality, which is the right way to say it. And so we're going to need to keep those things apart. So really fast, tell people what you think is outside of the headset.

• 16:52Speaker 02

  Basically, the idea is something that Leibniz proposed in his monadology. He said, we need to start with the observer. He called them monads. And he said, we need to have monads in some kind of pre-established harmony.

• 17:04Tom Bilyeu?

  No one knows what a monad is?

• 17:05Speaker 02

  Yeah, so it's just an observer. This is just an observing entity. And John Wheeler, who was Feynman's PhD advisor, John Wheeler came to the same conclusion. He basically said, we need to restart physics with what he called observer participants. We need to have some kind of mathematical model of those and show how.

• 17:24Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you think they need to be conscious?

• 17:25Speaker 02

  My own personal view is yes, that they need to be conscious. But the mathematics that I'm working on allows a non-conscious interpretation. It wouldn't be a problem.

• 17:35Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay.

• 17:35Speaker 02

  So I'm personally thinking about it as conscious. But when you look at the mathematics, you don't have to say conscious. You can just say the appearance that something is like consciousness or something like that. So it's really, when I think about what I'm doing, it's a model of the observing process. And the reason that that's really critical in science is if you think about what science is, it's a bunch of people. That are looking at the world carefully with experimental equipment. But we're looking at the world, we're talking with each other and we're comparing our observations. What kinds of observations do you get? What do I get? What structure of the world would explain our observations?

• 18:18Speaker 02

  So it's we're not removed from this whole thing. It there is, we have to understand how our observations interface with the theories that we're trying to build. And so that's the the critical thing. And what's happened in science is we in Newton, we ignored the observer.

• 18:37Tom Bilyeu?

  Let me ask, do you think the universe was rendered prior to biological life?

• 18:42Speaker 02

  The distinction between biological life and non biological life, non biological entities is an artifact of the headset. I don't think it's a principled distinction. So so the answer would then be, I guess, yes.

• 18:53Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay.

• 18:54Speaker 02

  It's prior to biology. I I think that the distinction between living and non living is not principled. I think that it's an artifact of the limitations of our perceptual headset.

• 19:03Tom Bilyeu?

  I'm gonna remind you that you said that when we get to artificial intelligence. Because I've heard you say things about artificial intelligence that would have made me expect a different answer there. Okay, so we you haven't said the thing yet. So I take the headset off.

• 19:17Speaker 02

  Right.

• 19:17Tom Bilyeu?

  And what's there? What is the fundamental structure?

• 19:20Speaker 02

  What's really there is a bunch of observers interacting.

• 19:23Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay.

• 19:24Speaker 02

  It's really.

• 19:24Tom Bilyeu?

  That you would call conscious agents.

• 19:26Speaker 02

  I I yes, I'll call them conscious agents. But if someone, I should say, if someone doesn't like to have consciousness fundamental, then I would just say observers. Just call them observing agents. That's all you need.

• 19:37Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. When I think of the words observing agent, I think most people are gonna conjure like a thing that is maybe not conscious, but either is an AI entity, is a frog, is a human, is a mosquito. Like they're gonna have some sense of like that or a ghost or an apparition or a god. Like they're they're gonna be so trapped in the words and images that they've seen that I I fear that the metaphor is going to keep pulling them back into the headset. And they're gonna have a very hard time getting to a more foundational truth. So.

• 20:20Tom Bilyeu?

  It, I'll give, so yours is conscious agents, final answer?

• 20:25Speaker 02

  Yeah, or, or.

• 20:26Tom Bilyeu?

  But what do you believe? I get.

• 20:28Speaker 02

  I think, I think that I should say that would probably be the most understandable to the widest audience is just simply, I have a mathematical notion of an observer as the foundational notion.

• 20:37Tom Bilyeu?

  Give me the most obscure example of an observer.

• 20:40Speaker 02

  So all, by the way, an observer is very, very simple. Imagine yourself sitting at a stoplight and you're focused on the stoplight and you can see red, green, or yellow.

• 20:51Tom Bilyeu?

  Yep.

• 20:51Speaker 02

  Here's a very, very simple observer that can see three colors. And for a while you see red, and then maybe it turns to green, and maybe it turns to yellow. So for me, an observer is just simply an entity that can have a, a, a range of experiences like red, green, and yellow, and those experiences change. And that's literally all I mean by an observer.

• 21:12Tom Bilyeu?

  Is the concrete that the light is shining on an observer?

• 21:16Speaker 02

  Anything that you experience is an experience. That, that itself, the observer is the capacity to have experiences and have those experiences change. So anything that you see, like this table, or my hand, or, or concrete, or a street, those would all be experiences that an observer can have. But, but the observer is really an entity that has the capacity to have a range of experiences, maybe three, maybe a million, in the case of.

• 21:45Tom Bilyeu?

  Do we agree that a photon detector is an observer?

• 21:49Speaker 02

  So now we have to actually say, what's an observer versus what is a headset representation of an observer? So when I have.

• 21:56Tom Bilyeu?

  Well, so we're talking about the headset is off. This is what I'm trying to figure out.

• 21:59Speaker 02

  Oh, okay.

• 22:00Tom Bilyeu?

  Um, and so you take the headset off. I, when you say conscious agent, I think I understand his position. I don't agree with it, but I understand his position. When you start going into the caveats, I, then I'm projecting onto you. Now I'm like, oh, he's trying to get to what I think is the fundamental thing.

• 22:24Tom Bilyeu?

  But I won't know until I can pin you down on.

• 22:27Speaker 02

  Right, so, so the fundamental thing is abstract. The fundamental thing is literally a set of possible experiences. And a matrix that says, what's the probability of the changes of experiences? That's it.

• 22:40Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay, so that's a Markov chain.

• 22:42Speaker 02

  It's a Markov chain. And it's abstract. So when you talk about a photon, a photon detector or something like that. That's a different thing. That's now.

• 22:50Tom Bilyeu?

  Well, photons are already inside the headset.

• 22:52Speaker 02

  That's already in the headset.

• 22:53Tom Bilyeu?

  That's right. But I was just trying to figure out if you would agree that that is. Because, okay, let me briefly say what I think it is and then let's.

• 23:01Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 23:01Tom Bilyeu?

  Do battle and see if we can figure something out. So I think the universe is computational. And I said I had a confession about when you take the headset off or when you exit the simulation. I think the second you exit the matrix, in my language, you have to confront the only question that matters. Why is there something instead of nothing? That, that is quite literally every science, every inquiry, every question, what are God's thoughts? All of it is going to wind up with, how is it possible that there is an unmoved mover? Something that always was and always will be is just there. Like, it is very hard for us to grapple with. My only answer is, I have no idea.

• 23:45Tom Bilyeu?

  So I'm, I am only attempting to grapple with, I'm in the matrix. I don't think there's any way out. I don't think there is removing the headset and I will attempt to convince you of that. In our time together today. So for me, part of what I'm trying to figure out is there's some set of assumptions that you have that make you interested in this whole conversation. And I think the ability to edit the code is part of what drives you. Whereas for me, the thing that drives me is understanding how the world works. So that as a human, I know how to make the most of this experience.

• 24:28Speaker 02

  Right.

• 24:28Tom Bilyeu?

  And it, anyway, period. So. My confession about the what's outside the headset is so I can get people to understand, okay, we're in the matrix, we're in the headset. And the only thing that matters is that the universe is computational in the exact same way that a video game is computational.

• 24:47Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 24:47Tom Bilyeu?

  The reason the universe is not locally real is for the same reason that a video game world, which feels gigantic to like, think about how big a Minecraft world is, is eight, eight times the size of planet Earth. Once you take a measurement inside the game, say this is a meter in the game and then compared to the size of Earth, it's about eight times bigger. So the worlds are just staggeringly large. Uh, yet it's all processed on one or two chips. And so it's things that feel disparate in the game are actually being processed in the exact same spot. So getting people to understand that, I think is precisely why we're like, wait, how could this gigantic thing called spacetime communicate over distances that would require it to break

• 25:31Tom Bilyeu?

  the speed of light? But it's not actually because it's all being processed in the same place. So that is where I think if you come back to that, that this is literally functioning like a video game and video games are basically a simulation inside of a simulation.

• 25:46Speaker 02

  Right.

• 25:47Tom Bilyeu?

  Then it will all start to make sense. But the second you ask what's outside the simulation and can we access it? Then I'm like, that doesn't, it doesn't even make sense.

• 25:56Speaker 02

  First would say, yes, I like your idea about computation being the driver of the interface and the Markov chains are computationally universal. So anything that can be done with a universal Turing machine can be done with Markov chains.

• 26:09Tom Bilyeu?

  And really fast, I just want to explain, I had to look all this stuff up. So for anybody that's like Markov chain, what the hell is that?

• 26:14Speaker 02

  Right.

• 26:14Tom Bilyeu?

  I feel your pain. Uh, a Markov chain is the mathematics that explain how one thing transitions to another.

• 26:21Speaker 02

  That's right. The, I guess the direction that would be helpful right now would be to point out that in the video game, say Grand Theft Auto or something like that.

• 26:30Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, right.

• 26:31Speaker 02

  You have a car that you're driving, you see a steering wheel, you have an avatar, you see your avatar hands gripping the wheel, you see other people driving their cars, you see their avatars. But you are not your avatar. You are outside the game altogether. You're sitting somewhere with a Coca-Cola or something like that, playing the game. But the avatar in the game is not you. It looks like you, and if you get immersed in the game, then you can identify with the avatar temporarily. So you do want to learn how to play the game well, to be, if you want to be an expert in the game. But you can also step back and say, there's a world entirely outside the game. And in the metaphor I'm pushing here is, it's not only possible to say that, it's possible to actually look at the code. There is software outside of the virtual reality game.

• 27:16Speaker 02

  And science is eminently up to the task of getting that software and figuring it out. So that's what I'm up to. I'm saying, yes, I agree with you, Tom. We should learn how to live in the simulation, to live good lives, enjoy ourselves. But it's not at all hard to think about the possibility that we can step out of this. Because I am not the Hoffman avatar. I transcend that. You're not the Tom avatar. You transcend, whatever you are. The Tom avatar is a trivial headset projection of something far more interesting, far more powerful than the little Tom and the little Don that are sitting right here. These are little avatars stuck in the rules of this game.

• 28:00Speaker 02

  We transcend the game. And it's possible, because we transcend the game, for science to transcend spacetime and to actually find the first layer of software that's rendering this headset. And so the theoretical physicists are doing this right now. They're finding the positive geometries. They're still scratching their head, what does this mean? We're just starting, though. I'm proposing a Markov chain approach to this, which I'm saying, this is a mathematically rigorous framework that will give us the software that can exactly render curved spacetime of Einstein, quantum field theory, non-locality. All of these things will come out of a deeper layer of software.

• 28:44Speaker 02

  And it's eminently within the power of science to rigorously write down this first layer of software outside of this game, outside of this VR game, and show exactly how this VR game is rendered. And... I want to do that simply because I'm a geek scientist and I just want to understand it. But you can easily see the technology that would come out of this. Because if you are the person, so if you're a wizard in Grand Theft Auto, you know how to drive the car as fast as you can in the rules of the game. And so you're the wizard in the game. But if you're just someone who can't drive very well, but you wrote the software, right? You couldn't actually play the game very well, but you wrote the software. You know the code.

• 29:27Speaker 02

  You can do stuff that's miraculous to the wizard. You can take the air out of his tires. You can take the gas out of his tank. You can make his car turn into a donkey and have him going, you know, five miles an hour. You can do anything. You can do miracles because you're not stuck in the game. You're not the avatar in the game. You transcend the game. And so that will be one of the big evidences from science that you are not your body. When we can actually transcend spacetime and play with spacetime like a game writer can play with the game that they've written. So that's what I'm after. I'm saying, and then you can't think big enough about the technologies that will come out of it. Right?

• 30:10Speaker 02

  If you can play with spacetime, you're not stuck with inside the rules of spacetime. So Einstein's laws, you know, can't go faster than the speed of light. That's true in the headset. It's not true if you're writing the code. You can do whatever you want. And if you can start to play with time and space, because you know how they're rendered, then you can do miracles. So that's why I say all the technologies we have right now will look completely antiquated as soon as we get the first layer of software outside the headset. And there's absolutely no reason why science should be limited to spacetime mathematics. Absolutely none. And the reason is because you are not stuck in space. You're not an object in spacetime.

• 30:53Speaker 02

  Your mind, your abilities transcend spacetime because you yourself are rendering spacetime right now. So the proof of that will be when we actually write down the code, show how the spacetime is rendered, and then start to play with it like we're playing with a toy. That will really show.

• 31:09Tom Bilyeu?

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. You're probably paying two salespeople to do one salesperson's job. That's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent AI-powered sales CRM loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched meeting intelligence built right into the CRM. Before every call, it pulls deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After it, it drafts your CRM updates to review and approve. So there's less admin and more selling.

• 31:48Tom Bilyeu?

  Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. There's no credit card payment needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started. Again, that's pipedrive.com/impact and you can be up and running in minutes.

• 32:16Speaker 03

  You get another IRS letter and your stomach drops. Your tax debt keeps growing. You fear wage garnishments or your bank accounts being levied. Interest is growing daily. You've heard the tax relief commercials, but when your financial future is at stake, experience matters. Delta Tax Group's team of experts have helped over 25,000 people resolve their tax issues over the last 17 years. Their tax professionals will help you understand your options with a free case analysis and free consultation. Don't figure it out alone. If the IRS is threatening to garnish your paycheck, levy your bank account, or put a lien on your home, you need to call Delta Tax Group now. They'll help you today with unfilled tax returns or tax debt. Don't wait for the IRS letter.

• 33:01Speaker 03

  Stop the nightmare and get your peace of mind back. Call Delta Tax Group now at 800-611-7199. That's 800-611-7199. 800-611-7199. Or visit delta tax group.com.

• 33:18Tom Bilyeu?

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action. Before we can go farther, we have to define you because this is one of the areas that when I'm listening to you talk, I always want to be like, oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. We gotta, we gotta define that because I want to know what you mean. Okay, so we're going to do this in, I think, a very specific way. So there's the vision of the Matrix and you've got Thomas Anderson inside of the Matrix, but the him that's outside of it is literally in a pod. He's bald. He hasn't moved his muscles ever. He's never used his eyes, but he's in a knowable location and you can go and find him. And that's the real world. And when you take the red pill, you send a disruption signal that they can track and then go get him. So that would be a version of you, which is startlingly

• 34:03Tom Bilyeu?

  similar to the you in the headset, but you're outside the game. Then you've got my version, which is you're an NPC. You are a program. You're pure computation. You're hardcoded. You have no free will. Like you're, you're just doing NPC video game stuff. It feels like you have free will. I got that. But nonetheless, and so there is no you outside of the game. The idea of outside of the game plus you is literally nonsensical. So if you think of a character in a game, that character only exists because there is a program that is running that person and person in quotes,

• 34:44Tom Bilyeu?

  of course. If you tried to take that character's code and run it even in a different game on a similar engine, it wouldn't work. If you then tried to take it and run it out in the real world, it's literally just like code. It would just sit there on a piece of paper. It, you wouldn't even have a sense that it represented an NPC. It would literally just be lines of code. And so then we've got a third option, which is what I thought you were going to say, which is

• 35:12Tom Bilyeu?

  Consciousness is fundamental. It is one thing. There is one consciousness, which in my defense, I've heard you say a gazillion times.

• 35:18Speaker 02

  Right.

• 35:19Tom Bilyeu?

  And if there is one consciousness, it is basically broadcasting into the headset, these experiences, for whatever reason. And I've heard you and many other people say, it's the universe trying to understand itself from all these different angles.

• 35:34Speaker 02

  Right.

• 35:34Tom Bilyeu?

  Uh, which, if that is the final take, then we can go down that road. Um, okay, so those feel like the three options of you.

• 35:44Speaker 02

  Right.

• 35:44Tom Bilyeu?

  So one being distressingly close to how you see yourself in the headset. One being there is no you. It's your, the you in the game is it, period, end of story. There's no taking the headset off.

• 35:55Speaker 02

  That's your view, right?

• 35:56Tom Bilyeu?

  That's my view. And then there's the, well, it's sort of you, but consciousness is one fundamental thing. And the you in the headset can't really be experienced outside of the headset. That's a headset only exclusive. Um, and so I've heard you say dying is removing the headset and realizing that you're part of the one.

• 36:14Speaker 02

  Right.

• 36:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. Uh, does one of those accurately reflect your view? Or is there a different?

• 36:21Speaker 02

  I would say that you're, the third one is the closest to, to my view.

• 36:24Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. And. But it's only close. It's not precise.

• 36:27Speaker 02

  That, that's right. It's, it's, well, put it this way, it's, it's the closest that I can come right now to saying something precise about what I think.

• 36:34Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. So you know there's something wrong, but you're not yet sure what that is.

• 36:38Speaker 02

  In, in this, in the following sense, that every scientific theory is always provisional. But my view is that every scientific theory starts with assumptions and you know that that can't be the final word. So when I say, I'm going to assume, as a scientist, I'm saying, I'm going to assume that there is one consciousness and that it is usefully described by an infinite set of different kinds of Markov chains that are all related and we can, in a way we can talk about. So that's, so that's going to be my theory. So there is one consciousness and it has all these complicated, um,

• 37:12Speaker 02

  Branchings into subconsciousnesses and even smaller subconsciousnesses. And that whole thing is the fundamental layer. And then from that, I can create our spacetime, you know, three dimensions of space, one dimension of time. I could create one with five dimensions, a billion dimensions of space. I could create things, any headset that you can want.

• 37:33Tom Bilyeu?

  Is right now, and I'll trust you because I'm not sure what the answer is going to be, but is right now the right time to go into how consciousness gives birth to the mathematics that give us the artificial but useful within the headset spacetime?

• 37:53Speaker 02

  Sure. This is, it's never going to be easy, but it's not.

• 37:57Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. So we'll put, let's really pin down. So the closest thing that you can get to right now is that to take off the headset is to return to the one.

• 38:06Speaker 02

  Right.

• 38:06Tom Bilyeu?

  One consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. There is nothing else.

• 38:10Speaker 02

  Right.

• 38:11Tom Bilyeu?

  Everything else is a layer on top of that.

• 38:14Speaker 02

  Right.

• 38:14Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, before we get to the mathematics, do you believe that the metaphor of the headset is meant to communicate something that is inherently computational?

• 38:26Speaker 02

  I would think that's perfectly fine. The idea that I've got is that there are all these conscious agents, but we can write down mathematically what, how we're going to describe them. And that mathematics allows us to think of them as computational. We don't reduce them.

• 38:40Tom Bilyeu?

  So computational is a very important word to me in that computational is making clear that this is being run on something, that energy is somewhere being consumed in order to run the, all the code that is going to say, the Donald Hoffman inside of the headset has all of these different properties, the way your cells divide, the way that your DNA comes together to form your physical structure, that you're a part of the human species, like all of that has to be computed. And then there are things like physics and weight distribution, aging, like all of that

• 39:23Tom Bilyeu?

  stuff goes into the you that's inside of the headset.

• 39:30Tom Bilyeu?

  So to me, when I say computational, that's what I'm talking about. It's mathematics, it's energy to run the computations, and you're taking inputs which have been coded somehow, some way. So this, in your, if you say yes to this, what you're saying is consciousness writes computer code. And once that code is written, then it can be run, it can be computed, quite literally. And that's why it has to be efficient. Because so much effort from my thinking is that goes into making it efficiently computed. Does all of that feel true, or did I get something wrong?

• 40:12Speaker 02

  That's all true from a perspective. So, so the idea would be that the very notion of computation, of a universal Turing machine, a universal notion of computation.

• 40:24Tom Bilyeu?

  Well, when you say a Turing machine, do you just mean inputs become outputs?

• 40:28Speaker 02

  Well, it's in, in, in computer science, there we, we have the notion of automata theory and formal automata and hierarchy of them. And so we have a notion of the various kinds of levels of computational sophistication that you can have. And the ultimate is a universal Turing machine, which, which can compute anything. And, and so-

• 40:45Tom Bilyeu?

  What makes something a universal Turing machine?

• 40:48Speaker 02

  It, well, so this is Alan Turing was the one who defined it. It has a, it's a machine that has a finite set of states and a finite set of transition rules, has a start state, a set of halt states. And you can show that if it has a certain level of complexity in the transition rules effectively, and if it has a potentially infinite tape, you have as much tape as you need for, for what you're doing, then, then it's in some sense computationally universal. There, there's, everything that can be computed, it can be computed by a universal Turing machine. And, and also the universal Turing machine can sort of simulate any particular Turing machine.

• 41:28Tom Bilyeu?

  So basically, it has the rules by which it knows how to run the computations?

• 41:36Speaker 02

  That's right. And, and it's, what Turing did that was brilliant was he, he made this very, very simple. He, he basically had a set of, a small set of states and a start state, some halt states, and then a set of transition rules. And, and in fact, so when I said that Markov chains are computationally universal, you, you can effectively model- Turing's machines with a subset of Markov chains. So they include Turing's notion of computation as a subset of the possible Markov chains. So, so it's now the notion that you were bringing up are very, very important physical notions about energy and time and the effort that's required for certain computations.

• 42:15Speaker 02

  But that will be now a headset specific aspect of the computation as seen through a headset.

• 42:22Tom Bilyeu?

  Yes, but remember, we're trying to get to you. We're trying to figure out how you define you.

• 42:27Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 42:27Tom Bilyeu?

  And what I'm saying is the computation is necessary to have any intelligible sense of you that people will understand. I think part of the reason that people find this conversation interesting is it's dealing with death. And so, hey, if I'm in a computational universe, maybe I can transcend this. Maybe there's a way for me to get out of the matrix. Maybe there's a way for me to skip around to my code and be young again or whatever.

• 42:52Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 42:53Tom Bilyeu?

  I have a whole story that one day I will tell about a guy that is obsessed with figuring out if you can flip the database entry, for him it's on his wife, from zero, which means dead, to one for alive.

• 43:07Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 43:08Tom Bilyeu?

  And I think this is all what haunts people and or what makes this conversation so interesting.

• 43:14Speaker 02

  Right.

• 43:14Tom Bilyeu?

  And where I always terminate is that there is no getting out of the quote unquote matrix because at some point you have to accept, computational or not, we are biological creatures and I can completely disrupt who you think you are with chemicals. So imagine what I can do with a chemical that can make your ego feel like it's dissolving. Now imagine how startling it would be to not even be computational in nature anymore. You're just one with the consciousness, like that would be so, it wouldn't be you. Like part of what makes you you is that you're scared of spiders or that you love ketchup or you know, whatever. All of that is gone.

• 43:58Tom Bilyeu?

  And so what would it even mean to say you at that point?

• 44:03Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 44:03Tom Bilyeu?

  And that's where it's like, I want to start drawing distinctions. One, because I think it makes the, um, the setup of what this is, what's possible, what's not possible. We can actually have the conversation. But then it also brings up the sort of finiteness of.

• 44:21Tom Bilyeu?

  The you factor. So for instance, some people will find great relief from death anxiety at uploading their consciousness. But once they really think about it, they'll realize they have no experiential connection with that duplication. So it'd be the exact same as cloning you, but you can't experience the clone. The clone's gonna go do its thing and be its own separate entity that has literally nothing to do with you, other than from a starting point, you guys are identical. And so that's where I want to really ground this.

• 44:58Speaker 02

  Very good. Great points. So I would say a couple of things. I'll put something out there that's sort of stunning to start off with. I'm a cognitive neuroscientist, and I will, I will claim that I have no neurons unless they're observed. The rendering thing that you were talking about before.

• 45:20Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah.

• 45:20Speaker 02

  So my body.

• 45:21Tom Bilyeu?

  Let me, let me stress test that.

• 45:24Speaker 02

  Right.

• 45:25Tom Bilyeu?

  I would say that you don't believe you have no neurons. I think what you really mean is they are encoded, they're just not running. So the computation to make them turn an input into an output is dormant.

• 45:44Speaker 02

  And so there we might disagree, because I'm actually saying, you know, like retinal ganglion cells, that's the kind of neuron that's, that's in me.

• 45:51Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah.

• 45:51Speaker 02

  Retinal ganglion cells do not exist unless they're perceived. They literally do not exist. There is.

• 45:57Tom Bilyeu?

  Let me try one more time.

• 45:58Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 45:59Tom Bilyeu?

  And see.

• 45:59Speaker 02

  Different way?

• 45:59Tom Bilyeu?

  Okay. When you think of computer code, and that code turns into a character.

• 46:06Speaker 02

  Right.

• 46:06Tom Bilyeu?

  I will agree that we're simulating eyeballs, or we're simulating vision, we're simulating sound. And so you could certainly say that the eyes, they're not real at all, ever.

• 46:21Tom Bilyeu?

  But what I'm getting at is, are you saying that those never exist? So those cells never exist and they are merely a simulated thing?

• 46:31Speaker 02

  That's, that's right. If some neuroscientist looked inside my brain with some kind of correct apparatus, they would see neurons.

• 46:40Tom Bilyeu?

  Yes.

• 46:40Speaker 02

  And that would be their perception. Those neurons would exist only in their perception and they were actually never my neurons. So, so I'm literally saying, the render is really a render and nothing is there. So the chemical, we talk about chemicals in space and time and so forth. Neurons, I'm saying those absolutely do not exist, except in the instant of a render. So if a neuroscientist opens a brain and looks, then that neuroscientist has neural experiences? And that's all that neurons are.

• 47:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you think-

• 47:15Speaker 02

  What we're actually dealing with is something much different than neurons.

• 47:18Tom Bilyeu?

  But is the non-visual mathematics of the neurons firing still running? And that's what makes you you? And it's just the visual layer that fails to render? Or are you saying that the, the thing we call Donald Hoffman is entirely a broadcast signal? That is received and that's what animates you?

• 47:41Speaker 02

  I would say that, that Hoffman is a particular rendering program that other people can see? And that I experience? And that I'm not fundamentally, I don't, most of us identify with our bodies and with the things that are going through our head. But if you start, you know, a meditation process, for example? And you start to just go into silence? And you just start to look at your emotions? And you look at all the things that are so important to you? And you look and you find that you can, you can just sort of step back? And say, "Well, I thought that that was me. I thought that the love of doing this particular thing, which I still love, was me." Well, no, I can, I can step back and I can look at that and say, "That..."

• 48:27Speaker 02

  Is something I could do or not do, but I am not that. I transcend that. So when you actually spend time just looking at yourself, all the things that you think are you, you can step back and say, no, I am more like the silence that's looking at all this stuff. I'm looking at my love of basketball. I'm looking at my love of eating, you know, whatever it is I like to eat, some pancakes or something like that. I can look at all the things that I think are, or I'm an entrepreneur and this is really, really important. That's who I am. I can look back at, look at that and say, you know what? I did that. I can walk away from it. That's not who I am. So there is a sense in which, when you go into complete silence and just watch all the emotions,

• 49:11Speaker 02

  watch all the thoughts and watch other people's emotions and thoughts, you realize, yeah, we're sort of lost in the game. That's not you. That's you lost in the game. And I can step back and just say, okay, well, how is the game rendered? How am I getting sucked in? I'm not a little thing trapped in the game. I am capable of stepping back, looking at the whole game, disidentifying. So for me, being a professor and doing all the academic stuff, very, very important getting papers published, I can look back at that and go, you know what? I did that. That's not me. It was important to me. I thought it was me for a long time. I identified with it.

• 49:54Speaker 02

  My whole personal identity was tied up with it, but you know what? At one point I was tied up with toys in the sandbox as a five-year-old. And if someone stole my toy, I fell apart. I was destroyed because someone stole my toy. But now I can step back and go, oh, no, that was just that rendering of me. And, you know, I went through that render and I can step back. So even my most advanced scientific stuff that I want to do, that's not me. That's just me playing in a sandbox with some toys. And so I can always step back. So my idea is, is really, we transcend this so much that we can actually, we're smart enough that we can actually figure out the code that's rendering us and what we thought is ourself in this thing.

• 50:38Speaker 02

  We can actually render that code. And if we do that, I mean, here's the proof, right? I'm claiming an empirical thing. We will be able to understand.

• 50:50Speaker 02

  The first layer of software outside of spacetime, we will be able to build spacetime. We will be able to build models that work completely inside spacetime. And once we know how to do that, we will have technologies that will look like magic. We will not be bound by the speed of light. We will not be bound by the rules of the game because we now understand the software behind the game. We're no longer the players in the game. We transcend the game. So I'm claiming Tom transcends spacetime. Whatever Tom is, is not stuck in this body, is not stuck in the entrepreneur game at all. Tom transcends that completely. And but for some reason, this one consciousness chooses to go in with both feet, go into the avatar, get lost completely,

• 51:35Speaker 02

  identify with the kid and the five-year-old in the sandbox and the toys and really cry when someone steals my toys, really cry when my paper doesn't get published, really cry when someone dies. So I really, I'm in the game, but then I can step back and go, wow, that was a perspective on the deeper me. Whatever I am, I'm really glad I spent 70, 80, 90 years as Tom Vilyu. But now I'm stepping out. That was a great ride.

• 52:04Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you think you'll have memories of that?

• 52:07Speaker 02

  I don't see why you shouldn't be able to have the memories and look at them, just like I have a memory of being a five-year-old crying because someone stole my toy in the sandbox.

• 52:17Tom Bilyeu?

  What is the mechanism by which memories are formed?

• 52:22Speaker 02

  Well, of course, inside spacetime, we would talk about synaptic connections and so forth. So in the headset, we would use that kind of thing in neuroscience. In the Markov chain model that I am working on, it would be in the memory of the transition probabilities of these matrices.

• 52:38Tom Bilyeu?

  But how would you store that memory? If I have a Ferrari and then I completely disassemble it and I make a blender, and if I go to the blender and I say, that blender's a dope car, right? That people would be like, that's nonsensical. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, but it's the same parts from the Ferrari. And then people would be like, sure, but it doesn't drive. And so the thought that those are the same thing, like, not really. So for me, the one consciousness just is completely unrelated to these, you're gonna hate this language, these skin suits that it wears inside of the headset and

• 53:18Tom Bilyeu?

  You may have an image of the one consciousness that is so radically different than what I'm imagining, that we'll just never be able to really have the same conversation. But to me, it, we are our biology. And so the second you tell me I transcend my biology, I'm like, oh, it's not me. And while I agree with you on all of the, like, we'll be able to do things that are magical. But for instance, if I went in and gave myself, uh, you know, 190 IQ, I'm not me anymore, because I'm not a guy with 190 IQ. And so the second I begin interfacing with the world in that fundamentally different way, my personality would just be fundamentally different.

• 54:01Tom Bilyeu?

  And so would there be remnants, would there be things that I recognize or somebody else recognizes? Maybe there might be overlap, but it's like, that stuff, if I'm a mosquito, I'm not me. Like, it's just the way that data is processed is so fundamentally different. So that's where I'm like, I don't think you remains a coherent statement. In the same way that you say below the plank scale, spacetime is just incoherent. I would say the concept of you is incoherent outside of the headset.

• 54:31Speaker 02

  Well, I think that's a, an interesting and reasonable point of view. I would just say that if you look back at your life, the five-year-old Tom, five-year-old Don, had what they thought they were, things that were very, very important to them. That if you said, look, you take these toys away from me, take my sandbox away from me, you've destroyed my world. And what else is there?

• 54:55Tom Bilyeu?

  Have you ever met anybody with Alzheimer's disease?

• 54:57Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 54:57Tom Bilyeu?

  Do you think of them as the same person?

• 55:00Speaker 02

  I, I think of them as someone who's had their headset destroyed. And they're not able to, to use this particular headset.

• 55:09Tom Bilyeu?

  So the headset version, though, do you think of them as the same headset version?

• 55:13Speaker 02

  No, but then I don't, so I agree, they're not the same. But I also would, would say that whoever they are transcends their body and their Alzheimer's. Just like you and I transcend our five-year-old and our 10-year-old and our 15-year-old versions of ourselves. All of those, when I was 15, there were things that were very important to me at 15 that are just not important to me now. Things that I would say were absolutely essential, that I'd now smile and say, "Well, yes, when you were 15, that was important. That was absolutely essential." It's not now. It's not important at all. And so, the things that I currently think are very important as an adult, I now think would now have arrived. No, I've not arrived. This is just another step along the way.

• 55:58Speaker 02

  This is the one consciousness, looking at itself from an infinite number of perspectives. I think that's what's really going on. There is one consciousness, it transcends anything, so it just looks at itself from an infinite number of perspectives and goes, "Oh, let me really look at myself as a five-year-old Don in the sandbox. Oh, now let me look as a 15-year-old Tom, doing a teenage thing. And let me look at myself in all these different ways, and enjoy that, get lost in it, and then wake up and go, 'Well, I did that, I'm glad I did that. I learned a little bit about me, my transcendence, effectively, by doing all those different things.'" So, I would put it this way, Tom.

• 56:40Speaker 02

  The way I look at it right now is, right now, Tom and Don, there's really just one consciousness through two different avatars. There's a Tom avatar and a Don avatar, that are talking, and they're two different perspectives that the one is taking, and it's enjoying the process of looking at itself through a Tom lens and a Don lens, playing with those perspectives. And at some point, it will say, "No, I've done that enough, now I'll do something else."

• 57:06Tom Bilyeu?

  That's it for Part 1. Make sure you are subscribed, so you do not miss Part 2, coming up soon.

• 57:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements and perfect

• 57:56Tom Bilyeu?

  planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2 and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.