Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the True Life Podcast. Hope everybody's having a beautiful day. Hope the sun is shining. Birds are singing. Welcome to this episode. Tonight, we're sitting with two architects who have each built a closed-loop system that routes something ancient through the present with almost zero loss. Hamilton Souther, pioneering maestro vegetalista and founder of Blue Morpho, who has guided more than fifteen thousand ayahuasca ceremonies across two decades in the Amazon. And Noah Healy, nuclear engineer and entered the University of Virginia as a high school junior mathematician with thirty five years in the field and inventor of coordinated discovery markets. One serves living biological intelligence. The other serves living mathematical intelligence. Tonight, we're going to explore energy, memory, coherence, and the hidden geometry that may connect them both. Noah and Hamilton, thanks for being here today. I appreciate it. And before we begin, I'd love each of you to just take two or three minutes and tell us in your own words what intelligence you feel you've been serving with your life's work. Hamilton, I'll start with you. I appreciate that. I feel like the intelligence I've been serving is intelligence itself. I think of intelligence from a holistic point of view, that somehow this planet here in this cosmos birth, the kind of intelligence that we get to be a part of with the intelligence to come up with the word intelligence. It's a bit of a snake eating its tail to get to its own head, or it's a bit of an infinity feedback loop on itself. But it's what we use to understand and identify how we're having this conversation. And the nature of that, I think, comes directly from the earth. And we can study the earth from our sciences. And beautifully, we still have mysteries that are unknown. So there's something to still discover, to create, and to invent in this beautiful space that we know of as the earth. And so... I just serve all intelligence, and I'm grateful to be here today with two very intelligent people. Nice. Noah, same question, my friend. Well, for me, I guess I'm team people. My point of view is that we've developed these rather more impressive inanimate objects that can do these things that are incredibly valuable as control structures and figuring out how to put them in our lives in ways that's valuable is a kind of similar challenge to the development of furniture and the other more traditional types of inanimate objects to figure out how to get them to be useful. So that's where I come at it from. Very nice. So I guess one of the things that I've been thinking about quite often lately is just this idea of spirituality. And I feel like maybe both of you come from different points of view over there. Noah, when I say spirituality, what comes to your mind? I'd say the primary experience of the supernatural. Yeah, that's well said. Hamilton, what's your opinion? I agree. I think there's something essential to the universe. And I like to think of it as a perspective of something supernatural. And we have some way to tap into it. And I hope everybody in their lifetime gets to really have a deep essence of that and come to their own understandings. I think often spirituality gets presented as a set of belief systems, like a solution set or problem set of beliefs. And I think that's kind of missing the point. I like to think of it as spirituality is what gives us the capacity for beliefs. And so anything that helps us better understand the supernatural. Yeah, I like that. In a previous conversation, Noah and I were having a big discussion about change and what's happening in the world and the way to do it. And I had brought up this idea of maybe there's something to do with like religion or there's something to do with like the mysteries. But Noah had mentioned like it has to be real. Do you remember that conversation, Noah? Can you break that down a little bit? Do I have that right? Yeah, I think that's fair enough. So there's a lot of room for deception in our sort of meta thoughts, if you will. So there's a story in Richard Feynman's autobiography where he was getting heavy into hallucinating. And he was afraid of LSD, so he was doing sensory deprivation tanks. And he's in a tank one day, and he suddenly realizes that he's foundationally solved one of the fundamental problems of quantum physics. He's really happy about that. So he gets out, because he can't just get out. The timer has to go. So he's in there feeding on the idea for a while. He gets out and he gets to the chalkboard and he just starts realizing that this is just completely insane nonsense, that everything that he's just done was entirely meaningless. And that's when he gave it up. It is perhaps unfortunate that that became an apparently fairly strong trend among the theoretical physics set. mind expansion, consciousness expansion is a new phase of, of theory formation, and not so much time at the blackboard. But, but yeah, it's, it's fairly easy to convince our things of stuff that turns out to be false. And we have deep historical evidence of this, because there are dozens of places across you know we define entire historical epics by societies discovering their foundational assumptions about the nature of cosmology or or morality or anything was just wrong um there's a science fiction author uh brin david brin who calls them out of context problems and writes an entire genre of science fiction problems where you think you've completely solved things and then you discover that your basis of reality was just false. And he has this kind of story about You live in the society and it's basically peaceful and it's basically prosperous and everything pretty much works the way you think it's supposed to. And one day a boat that's larger than your village that's made out of some kind of shiny material you've never seen before you know, works in to the little fishing harbor you live in. And people you've never seen before get out with stuff you've never seen before. And it's all over now. Like you just, you just didn't know what game you were playing. And the real game has just been introduced to you. David Pérez, Hamilton, what do you what do you think of when you hear that? I think that we need to ask ourselves now, especially at this time of great emergent technology, what is the game and where we're headed? Understanding that up until now, there hasn't been an epic in human history where we've gotten it right, which is a pretty rough playing field to start from. That if we're thinking that we might not have it right right now either, and that if we go deep into our theoretical physics, there's still mysteries and questions around origin story and the nature of our cosmos to begin with. that uh we it's a good question as a uh from a mystical perspective to think well what do we have wrong and what do we have right and how can we start to bring realism to it i think that we've been evolving first through a series of ideologies and mythologies over you know four hundred five hundred thousand years as homo sapien and we're now coming out of a great time of great religion. And we're just in a few hundred years of science using the scientific method as a way to try to explore and discover and poke holes in some of our greater mythologies. And it leaves us with a great question, which is, you know, what is real now and how can we bring that? And it's interesting to me, the idea of an emergent kind of philosophy that could be both mystical in its nature, spiritual of the supernatural, but also fundamentally rooted in facts. And that those facts could be scientific laws and they could be added to as we discover more. And maybe we could grow more to a place where the game is even larger than Earth and we understand it in a more fundamental way. Yeah, it's really well said. We got a ghost coming in over here. What's up, ghost? Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. He says, that is the problem that is occurring right now. The truth is out and it permeates the whole information field already. I would push back on the idea of truth. Like, I'm not sure that we fundamentally understand what truth we're dealing with here, especially when it comes to different ideologies or different parts of the world. Like, You know, there's Grand Priest who talks about the liar's paradox. Like, how do we even define truth in these times? That's kind of an epistemological question, but what are you guys' thoughts on that? Yeah. You want to take that one first? I went first last time. Yeah, me too. That's a big question. Okay. Yeah, I'll jump in. I've got well-developed thoughts on this one. So... I see the three great breakthroughs of the early twentieth century as quantum physics, relativity, and Turing's computational understanding. And what they did was fundamentally break truth at a deep level, which we haven't repaired yet. You were talking about the scientific mode of being the basis of truth. The Enlightenment philosophers essentially did a bunch of work to claim that logic was strong enough to provide morality. They definitely had some internal pushback on that, but more or less everybody was on board with something close-ish to that proposition. And that's just not going to fly because between incompleteness and computability, logic is not powerful enough. We understand how that works. And so what I see having happened over the last, call it a century, is that... Nihilists, those that at whatever level, usually every conceivable level, reject the proposition of truth as a thing, are generally speaking winning the arguments because on a technical basis they are correct. They are, of course, absolutely wrong because reality is real and the truth would have to actually be out there. But any attempt to defend... any common belief that presently exists is doomed to failure because we know with absolutely no possibility of doubt that that's wrong. We've got quantum physics, which does a very good job of explaining measurements that we take of mostly small things. We have relativity, which does a similarly good job of describing fast and heavy things that we measure. We know that they're foundationally incompatible with each other. So that's a major problem. So we don't have a cosmography right now because The two explanations we have disagree. And then we have general computation, which mines holes in our very imagination and reason. And it identifies only a tiny handful of them. but it says that it has to be mostly holes. Most of what we imagine is just us lying to ourselves, where we think that we can imagine those things, but if we come to grips with a computer, we will discover, much as Feynman did when he got to the chalkboard, that our imaginations are just producing some ludicrous nonsense that we weren't smart enough or disciplined enough to figure out. And so truth is going to be very hard. I think it always has been. And it's up to us whether or not we want the discipline to pursue that. I think that more or less has to be a matter of faith. I think that's somewhere where spirituality can take a hand. But without that, I'm quite convinced that the systems that we have will disintegrate, are falling apart. Because when everybody's in charge of anything got there by either lying or claiming that everyone was a liar, then they're not going to be very good at doing anything. Indeed, that's what we see all around us constantly these days. Yeah. Hamilton, what are your thoughts on the imagination is producing lucrative nonsense? I think that's the role of the imagination. You know, until the imagination is somehow disciplined with practice to be, you know, mirroring facts and awarenesses and understandings, you're in a hallucination of your own creation. You can call it imagination or fantasy. It's just how you think. It could be the formation of awareness and understanding that gives you context. But as of right now, I think it stated incredibly well that between relativity and physics, and especially quantum physics, there's this great disparity and individuality and we're not of a collective mind or collective imagination anymore and there's a great reward for creating fantasy or illusion and presenting it as if it were fact and that's what i call this you know great mirage of beliefs that are being you know presented and we don't have a society that yet emphasizes the necessity for things to be rooted in fact. We're still willing to be in a relativistic play of opinion and ideas. And until then, I think individuals will continue to be rewarded for this state of mild to maximum hallucination and illusory state of imagination. How does that fit in though with the mystical experience? Because people could claim that the mystical experience is just an illusion. It is just sort of this mirage of ideas that come to you in an altered state. I think the best example I could have of that goes back to the float tank description and the opportunity in my early twenties to sit with fundamentally real mystics in the forest. And those mystics were not interested in illusion. So I think of them as, you know, original scientists, they're interested only in facts and efficacy. And they described in ayahuasca, if you can imagine under the influence of harmine and harm align and DMT, that if you are hallucinating, you had let yet learned how to center your consciousness or center yourself. And that you're supposed to move beyond a hallucinatory state or an imaginative state into something else. And that something else is purely mystical. It's transcendent of the mind that we typically use, the one that I was schooled in growing up. But it is a transcendental space to that kind of mirage of nonsense. And fundamentally, if you think about the role of that person in their society, they had a fundamental role to support the individuals in every kind of need that a tribal society would have to be able to thrive. And so, you know, some fall into the distortions of illusion, but my lineage was focused entirely on trying to discern fact from fiction. Noah, what are your thoughts? Uh, yeah, well, I don't have, I don't have those sorts of present day experiences, but again, I think that's a pretty obvious historical thing as well. Um, there's a sharp distinction between sort of, uh, madmen and mystics. Um, and, and in myth, there's a, there's a cost associated with, with getting it wrong that's societal, um, when, when like the Hebrews reject Samuel, that's the end of that branch of the monarchy and David takes over. Or when the Trojans aren't paying attention to Cassandra, who is canonically plugged into the universe and knows exactly what's going to happen, but is never believed. tragedy after tragedy befalls them as they sort of blindly walk into these things that they could have just been like, oh, yeah, well, that's dumb. Let's just not do that. So, yeah, I'd say that ethical and moral systems are – philosophical and metaphysical philosophical and therefore they require external axioms and those external axioms would have to be supernaturally available and so in the absence of a true supernatural to which human experience has access, which, again, religion, history strongly suggests that most people who have ever lived believe that that is a true proposition, then we will not be able to create a moral system that functions. And I'd say that's an accurate description of the modern day. Yeah, it's interesting. I've kind of been going back and forth with some people on X, actually one of the founders of the X Prize. And I see this giant push towards this idea of anti-aging and longevity. But it seems to speak of what you're talking about right now. It seems like, and I'm curious to get your guys' opinion on this. this whole move towards anti-aging and longevity, it doesn't seem anybody's talking about the moral or the ethical implications of that. Like, what about the idea of inherited power? What about the accumulation of resources? What are you guys' thoughts on this whole longevity movement? Well, the people who are pushing that are also from what little studies that exist out of a class of human beings with the lowest life satisfaction. Like there is almost everybody that studies really highly successful people figures out that They're effectively highly driven. And they do what they do because they're seeking after something that isn't where they're looking. And so they keep going. Everything's in the last place you look because you stop looking right after you find what you're looking for. So these people just never stop. The tap is all open all the time. And that's why they get so far. having that experience last forever is hell, isn't it? I mean, am I wrong? What do you think, Hamilton? There's a fundamental fear in our society about transition. We talk about going back in the past associated with our systems and This idea of youth worship in our societies that don't recognize anymore the fundamental role of aging as a positive expression of who we are and what we are and the accumulation of wisdom that comes through that process. And it seems like there's a natural dissociation from the idea that ourselves are our aging bodies. And so, you know, I don't know if there's a mythological desire to be Peter Pan in this situation, you know, unevolved forever in a pursuit of whatever is the personal desire. I think personally, that, you know, coming from a unique lens of looking into the unknown, i would prefer and trust the unknown more more than i would a extended lifetime here of earth i think that i relate to the idea that it would be hellish in some way to try to upset a natural evolutionary flow in this continuous churn of life that we get to be a part of and i think it makes life that much more miraculous and special for the amount of time that we get it and I like to think in a much larger scale of time that when you do that, this time that for us seems so slowed down and drawn out breath by breath, thought by thought. is actually just a flash for the universe. This is going to continue for billions of more years or even trillions of years or even more, or this cosmos is part of a multiverse. We have an opportunity to recognize something so much greater than just the desire to live longer as this body. and so you know i understand people's interest in that and that of course it'll be a huge industry but i would rather from a personal perspective transcend the fear of aging and death and fully embrace what is the natural evolutionary course of life yeah that is really well said we got my cassette no i'm sorry i almost said cassandra because we were talking about who we have over here uh Sonia. Sonia Delgado from Phoenix. Thanks for being here. I hope your day is going beautiful. She asked the question, at what point does preparing for the future become avoiding the present? Noah, you want to take that one first? That's pretty tricky. Well, because there's the conflict of whether or not the present even exists. This goes way, way back. Aristotle pointed out that the past is essentially indefinite and huge, except of course it's not real and the future is also indefinite and possibly even larger, but also it's not real, it's not here. And the present therefore is this kind of effervescent film between these two vast, you know, trans finite sets. So that that creates a real problem with what you do with the present. My My essential idea for how to make markets function better is by making actions in the present all be the natural and reasonable outcomes of correct plans for the future. And so in that sense, I'm... I believe that it is only through planning for the future that we can create a decision tree around what we're doing now in ways that can help us. I'd say that the hard part is how to get from here where you are to there where you're going. And that's something that we need society's help with all the time because there's not one of us that can do what all of us need done. And so finding a way to make that connection is the challenge. And to some extent, all efforts not put towards those things are simply wasted. So if you're in the unfortunate position, which I believe almost all of us are, that there is no connection between sort of what you're doing and where you would like to go, there's no present to waste under those circumstances, which is horrifying, but again, I think fairly real. Yeah, agreed. Hamilton, what are your thoughts on that? I love the framing of time that's presented here. You know, because the nature of the present is so ephemeral to understand. Our mind dances in the frame of time. So I like to just think for a person who's orienting this for themselves, to ask themselves what they're creating. to ask themselves what they're doing right now and why. And what's the purpose of the use of the time that they have, regardless of how they think about it. And we live in a society that plans for the future. So we must embrace the nature of that philosophical framing, whether or not we identify with it or not. And if you have a mass of people that are part of a social collective that agreed to four Oh one K's and pension plans, and you advance in your agent, you don't have a solution for that completely independent of that four Oh one K and pension plan. You'll find yourself out of a cultural framework, not out of a physics philosophical understanding of time. And so the practical nature of it is to orient to asking yourself what you're doing now and how that's going to affect who you are in the future. You know, and so if you, you know, for instance, really simply had bought Bitcoin in twenty ten and just held it and shoved it in a safe, you'd have a very different future now than if you didn't. Right. You didn't know what was going to happen. Just you just planned for the future by buying something that, you know, is a lottery ticket at that moment. You would have won the lottery in that sense from cryptocurrency. And so I think you just orient time to yourself and what you're doing. And I think where we look at that from a sociocultural perspective, you run into fear that most people are driven by fear of the future to plan for now, like the idea of like your prepper or something like that. And I just wouldn't do it that way. I would look at it from a perspective of solidarity and trust in the future and trust in the universe, but also understanding our culture and understanding the direction that we're heading. And I love the idea of like this indefiniteness of the past and the future. And embracing for that in a beautiful way, like with openness and acceptance. You know, that way you'll find that you don't have to be in a state of fear today thinking about the future. You're in a state of calm and you're creating the future that you'd like to be part of. I'd pick a bone with living in a culture that plans for the future, if I may. Particularly when you're talking about things like for a one K and investment, one of the sort of fundamental issues underlying the general financial instability that we're experiencing is that the the boomers didn't save for retirement and it's not a close run thing. If you sort of take a very simple model of retirement, of essentially sort of being able to save, buy some asset that will then be bought back off of you for liquid capital in the future, a fairly critical part of investing and saving for the future is building a wealthy new generation that can afford to take over possession of the assets that you are accumulating. And that's aside from the fact that the raw dollar values just aren't even remotely close to where they would have to be for the kinds of retirement that we seem to believe we've set ourselves up for to be remotely physically possible. The absolute cliff of future asset acquisition means that there's no reasonable valuation of existing asset savings. And so a lot of the more questionable decisions like CDOs and the now move to push private equity into the public sphere and other things are, attempts by the financial system to paper over this radically large gap between what people think is going to look like the next quarter century and how much money is actually in the bank to pay for that. And I would say that we live in societies that have declined from societies that planned for the future. But I don't think that's a thing that is within most human lifetimes. And certainly not the majority of living humans have never lived in a society that had a plan for the future. And it's one of my little hobby horses. I think the current plan is to have a dark age. And it's a very bad plan. The only potentially bright point is that it will absolutely take out the people that are driving that plan. You know, that the people on top of society do not survive its collapse. But I would very much like there to be another path available. Yeah. Hamilton, do you see collapse on the horizon? I agree with the statement that there are agendas. And then the nature of those agendas, a fundamental dark age is... an opportunity. I would like to think that there's other forces at play in a greater context that might be able to nudge things in another direction. I would prefer that not be an inevitability, but I have heard those agendas and you know, you hear them in the notion of population decline and spreading of disease, uh, A lot of conspiracy theories are out there trying to describe the nature of that agenda. Many people are also interested in the collapse of the current systems. And there's talk about that online. I think that it's our responsibility to do something to ensure a greater probability of success that we don't go into a dark age. I don't think that serves anyone's children or future generations. So I think of that as like a poor orientation to our future and that You know, it's the responsibility of those that see that like pending doom to ally and decide to do something about it. I've thought about that in different occurrences that, you know, in a collapsing society, it opens up a lot of room for emergent society to happen. And so that becomes an opportunity for new cultural creation. And I would like to see that occur. Great. I would strongly agree with that sentiment. You know, it's interesting. If I look at it from like a really, really big picture, you know, if you look at like the demographic cliff, like there's twenty five million boomers that are on knocking on heaven's door in the next fifteen years. Maybe all of this stuff that we're seeing is a collective fear of death. Like it would make sense that like all this sort of chaos and stuff we're seeing. is similar to the body's response to like an adrenaline rush or an anxiety rush and of course you see all these people wanting to live forever or you see these financial markets beginning to fail it's it's the same thing with the collapse of ideas and if a large part of our world is dying like twenty five million people in the next fifteen years maybe what we're seeing is sort of that effect on the planet what what are your thoughts on that Well, I mean, that's definitely a major issue for us in America. Twenty-five million people over fifteen years out of a population of eight billion that expect to get eighty years out of a lifetime, which is a little optimistic for us, frankly, is ten million people a year. So that's twenty-five out of a hundred and fifty million people is just sort of expectation levels there. So, um, again, you know, we're punching above our weight because we had a baby boom, uh, when we did and other people had it at different times. Um, but, uh, but that's, that's, I think that's, that's probably real one. I think little cultural observation I have about that the boomers indirect effects is who the hero in movies is. When you watch movies from like the, the early seventies through like the eighties, the kids are the heroes or the young man. And then sort of, you know, the new dad became the hero coming into the late eighties and the nineties that, that age. And, and, you know, now, Now the geriatric is the hero of the piece. And it's a little weird as somebody that's generationally younger than that, that you were like, Yeah, these were good. I saw these and I was like, hey, these protagonists my age were awesome. And then you're like, but there aren't any more young kid awesome stories anymore. And then there aren't any more young adult. It just sort of moved as a wave. So I think it was... PJ O'Rourke claimed that the boomer phenomenon would be over when Vogue did a story on fashionable funeral homes. And I think that might be in our future still. That's classic. I got a ton of questions chiming in over here. I see you guys over there. Let's go. This one says that – this one's coming from my friend Maya. Maya, thanks for being here. I hope your day is awesome. She says, are financial systems reflections of human psychology or distortions of it? Yes. So the value proposition of the open market is the collection of information from a disparate group of people. So the idea is you've got people that are farming grapes all over the planet. You've got people that are eating grapes all over the planet. How many grape farmers and how many grape eaters should there really be? when you go into the grocery store and pick up a cluster, you don't want to care about the eighteenth generation, you know, Roman descended farmers that are just sticking their hands in the dirt because that's what makes them feel alive versus, you know, some tech pro that just bought southern Indiana and figured out a way to turn robots into grape farmers. Like, like, you want grapes, like you're about to enjoy this sweet snack. And so there's a vast amount of human psychology because what you're distilling is what people's lives, what they want out of life, both to, you know, build what they're going to build in their achievements and just, you know, food, shelter, clothing. But we can't scale that. It'd be fine if everyone was totally fine with living in some little tribal village with just the stuff that you build or grow in your immediate neighborhood. And world population was in the tens to hundreds of millions instead of billions. That's a thing. That's happened. People can do that. If nobody can get together the charisma get a horde and conquer everybody it functions pretty decently but the flip side is we're here now and getting from here to there involves you know eight billion people dying so that's not great um and so we have we have this sort of higher level psychology is necessary and the markets created a mechanism That allowed human psychologies to, to bridge that gap. And then we plugged machines into them and we, we completely broke that. And now we're just have, you know, Skynet is, is telling us what to do. And, uh, that's not working out well for most of us. Jim Collison, Hamilton, jump in on this one. What do you think? Just that right now, humans are products of their own economy. And a great awareness that I've come up with over the years is that you can build an economy out of anything that the collective agrees is important. And so, fundamentally our economy now is in charging large amounts of money for fulfilling our basic needs. So for most of our history, our basic needs were free to sustain on very small populations and it's just not the case anymore. And so as we continue to develop, psychology becomes a huge part of how the economies form, and the economies are ultimately a reflection of our psychology, both. Our psychology is to have a market economy right now. You hear people all over speaking about the collapse of a market economy as if it were a terrible thing. And whoever said a market economy was a good thing to begin with? I don't know. It just exists. It's part of what we live with now. It's what we created as a collective. And so it's an opportunity really to understand that once you have a market economy, psychology is part of that market economy. There is a market economy of psychology and that psychology is going to be represented within it. You see from the nature of technology, I'm here in Silicon Valley and about to launch an AI based platform and The psychology is that technology is driving the future and that we are products of that technology. And in fact, we're now serving that technology where human population is serving our tools, not our tools serving us. So even there is a morphing of the idea of a market economy, the nature of psychology associated with it, that there could be a flip in orientation of who serves which tool base. And I think it's something to look at and it's worthy of ultimately evolving. Yeah, I think so too. This one comes in for you, Hamilton. It says, is Western culture seeking healing or absolution? I think there's a mental health crisis. And it's only been growing during my lifetime. And it's a product of our culture. It's not independent or separate from our culture. Our culture is enculturating and engendering this mental health crisis. And As we continue to explore that, there's a notion of wanting healing, but there's a deep question about whether or not society wants the concept of healing or actually wants to heal. I see a lot of people come to the healing arts looking for a kind of transformation and get stuck in a loop of healing. And so I like to think of, you know, mental, emotional healing through the plant medicines as a mechanism that can move very quickly, very much like when you get a cut and you get sutured and the sutures are removed within a week. And then within another week, your skin has started to heal and then you're left with a thin scar that that could be very much like our internal awareness of our healing arts. But instead, there's a culture of people who are very interested in healing. continuing that process and identifying with that process for a long period of time that's very inefficient and not something that's sustainable in a societies like the ones you find in the amazon there's a need for people to heal very quickly and move back into being supportive of the collective tribal identity and our society for whatever reason now I think is looking for a great scapegoat. We're looking for something to blame that we can place the rationale on for that mental health crisis, for that need for healing in the first place. And there's a huge discrepancy between our enforcement models and the lack of morality that was discussed earlier. So the lack of morality is actually driving in that imaginary fantasy more and more and more of the behaviors that treat legality as a risk profile, not a choice about behavior. And so there's just more people who are willing to transcend and break the nature of those rules and laws. And it continues to escalate. So I think it's obvious at this point that the fundamental philosophical nature of our culture is driving the state that our collectives find themselves in. And we're discussing the potential of a collapse associated with that. And I've been hearing that for a decade and I keep saying the same thing. Well, you know, Hey, don't jump off the cliff. If you see everyone jumping off the cliff, turn left or right, start talking about how to build something sustainable on the cliff edge. Like you have a choice here. Noah, what do you think? Yeah, I would concur with all that. Hamilton, thanks for sort of connecting back to my nihilism thesis. I'd say that that's, probably heavily connected. You know, charlatans pretending to provide solutions can be an extremely stable and lucrative way to go, assuming that you can leave town, you know, you can time the angry mob correctly. I think we're seeing a lot more angry mob behavior and a lot of desperation to try to figure out which train gets out of town when you've done it to the entire planet. And yeah, I'm attempting to dig in and build an entirely new kind of marketplace that doesn't have the epistemological and technical issues that the current markets have. And I mentioned to you before we got in here, currently in process of arguing with the Supreme Court about what status reality has in American law, because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared that reality is unpersuasive. And that strikes me as insanely dangerous. I don't know if the justices will agree or not. Yeah, I hope that they do. what let's stay on this thread a little bit like uh how what are you most excited about it seems like you're creating something pretty awesome though what are you most excited about about building right now in the future um thing i'm most excited about is the nature of how artificial intelligence tools amplify the creative capacity of individuals and that if we understand the nature of the tools as being not all of them but most of them being pretty neutral uh we have a an opportunity to amplify the power for creative creativity and what we think of is like for back lack of better word good like the opportunity to actually be smarter and and more thoughtful in our presentation of ourselves there's obviously a slippery slope there and that it can go the opposite direction the tools can be used for rapid acceleration of you know other problems but i also think this is the first time that you know the populace is going to have an opportunity to really participate in the voice that gets created out of the use of these tools. So our project is called Minty and it's really about harnessing collective creativity and around AI generative platforms and providing a safe and stable monetization platform for that so that creators can start to earn genuine revenue from their creativity. And there's all sorts of controversy around this subject. It's quite interesting in and around copyright law and who got trained on and why it got trained on and how it got trained on and how you pull out who owns what in this world of collective mindshare when great embedding spaces are holding the totality of that mind share and who owns that mind share. It starts to really tug at these questions inside these market economies. And what I think it was a very loose tapestry of support from the systems as no one's finding out sadly, about things that just seem ludicrous or you're completely illogical. And so in the middle of all of that, I'm excited about what we can do with these tools and what's coming. And I think maybe a transition out of the dark age is the amplification of collective intelligence. And I think that the current model of AI is a very early foundational step to what that could look like in five, ten, fifteen years. I will say the Industrial Revolution was an exceptional event in human history because it was the first exponential expansion of human economic capacity. the original Watt steam engines were used to pump water out of the mines that they were pulling coal out of. And of course, then they were using that coal to power the steam engines. And that's, that's the basic, like, that's all you need for exponentiation is that when the thing that you're doing is proportional to the rate that you're growing. And, and so that happened. But Particularly in the century since then, mathematics and particularly computational mathematics has been deeply fascinated by much more powerful kinds of operation than exponentiation. And sort of regular human psychology already isn't particularly great at thinking about exponential systems, but exploiting computer technology gives us the opportunity to be looking at very hyper exponential systems and transformations that could be extraordinarily sudden, extraordinarily general. And yeah, there's a lot of sort of fun scraps of things. George R. R. Martin has a an active case with a few dozen other people around suing some of the AI platforms for copyright infringement. He also released a new and illustrated version of some of his classics, which appears to have used AI-generated art inside of them. That's a choice, I guess. The commodification of a lot of things, like pop music doesn't have to be AI-generated to be soulless. We just have the same five guys writing all of it. And, and they, they do just fine. Like they don't, they don't need, they don't need a computer to do that for them. Um, so, uh, I remember I saw a scrap of an interview with, uh, I think it was, uh, Branton Marsalis. It was one of the Marsalis. I can't remember which one I think was Branton. Um, and he was talking about why people didn't buy music anymore. um and he was saying that his son listens to sort of current popular music and he never buys any of it and he's as a professional musician for his entire life and from a family professional musicians he's totally fine with that because why would you ever listen to any of those songs again after like a week or two um whereas he owns i think it was uh wagner's ring cycle but He was talking about classical music pieces and he owns these things and he listens to them over and over and over again. He's been listening for decades and he keeps going back and finding new things. He's like, that's real. That's an intense, meaningful, impressive accomplishment from which as a professional artist, I can learn and grow. That's a foundational and important thing and he owns it. And he's happy that he does. And if we can build a lot more things like that, the world looks real different than it does right now. Yeah, I think we're on the cusp of like the greatest explosion of creativity. Excuse me. Like all these AI models, they give an individual the opportunity to have the same resources as like a Fortune five hundred company not that long ago. And if we and I see it in the people that I talk to, I think we're moving and this might be the antidote for consumption is creativity. Like it's so beautiful and you get in that state, you get in that zone or sort of that observer versus field sort of, you know, paradigm where you can. You can really create. You can channel whatever energy is out there and then create it out there. I see it. I see the antidote to consumerism as creativity. I see it with what you're building, Hamilton, and the same thing with you, Noah, with the coordinated markets. It's an exciting time, and I think if we can focus on the solutions instead of so much of the collapse, we can really see a whole new world being born out there. Is that too optimistic? I don't think so. I mean, I think there's – eight billion human beings that want to wake up tomorrow. And collapse isn't going to make that happen. So, you know, any one of them. And I don't think it's that complicated to get yourself heading down the right path. Hamilton mentioned the importance of sort of telling the truth. I think it's pretty close to that simple because what's being sort of popularly pumped out is just so clearly nonsensical and clearly insane. that all you have to do is just say so. It's like, wait a minute, you know, weren't you speaking in a different accent, you know, on this TikTok, on my phone, saying the exact opposite of what you just said to a different audience, like what the hell's going on here? Um, and, uh, and just that, you know, um, a, a core of, of honest people that actually start building things will make real things. And there will be no competition for that because the things that the other things we have are Potemkin. If there's one thing, I wanna pose this to both of you guys. If there's one thing that we could begin doing today to fundamentally transform education, what would it be and why? I really love the idea of a project we're working on in this space, which is about understanding better what a human is. and understanding better how they learn and teaching a person that way, not through a general model of education. And the nature of the tools that we're talking about, not right now, but just in their next evolution, will be able to be hyper-specialized to an individual. And think about a change in education where not only are you fully understood by your teacher, your teacher is able to generate a gap analysis for the information that's going to be presented in a way that has more resonance for you. And that alone changes the nature of teaching. And often that level of education was only allowed to our highest elite. And this very low level general education was given based on socioeconomic level. I think the democratization of that would be the biggest impact that I know of right now on education. I love it. Yeah, I'd concur. I always pound the drum for better math education whenever I'm asked the question. I think that we really ossified our math education thanks to NASA. basically public knowledge. You know, the Nazis at NASA were asked how we could beat the Soviets now that Sputnik was in the air. And so they said, okay, this is what you got to do. You give everybody an IQ test. You take all the smart kids, you put them in math class, you take all the dumb kids, you put them in dumb kid math class, and the smart kids go learn how to be rocket scientists. They, you know, you teach them how to add, you teach them algebra. teach them geometry, teach them trigonometry, teach them calculus, then they go become rocket scientists, and then we've got rocket scientists. And the Kennedy administration said, wait a minute, we're America. We can't say that kids are dumb. We have to win elections here. So we'll just put everybody in rocket science class, and that's just what we'll do. And there's so much more math than that. It's like... if the way we taught English class was we said, well, people are supposed to be William Shakespeare. So the way you do that is you read some Greek poetry and then some Latin poetry, and you start writing plays. And then that's just it. You just keep writing plays until you're writing Shakespearean plays. And there's no fantasy. There's no mystery. There's no historical fiction. No other genre of books exists. We just train every people in Shakespeare. and you would get a lot of very dissatisfied children that that hated English class and we have a very a lot of dissatisfied children that hate math class that might be really good at geometry or statistics or combinatorics or logic or any one of the thousands of other subjects in mathematics that are accessible to people who haven't been through eight years of graduate school already, but that we don't actually show people until after they go through eight years of graduate school. So yeah, I think that'd be a big one. I love it. I got to give a shout out to my daughter, Sky Monty. I love you so much. My daughter, she just turned twelve and at the age of eleven, she published her first book on Amazon with the help of like AI. And I thought to myself, like, why can't kids graduate eighth grade with a residual income, especially with the tools that we have? Like there's maybe they don't have a huge residual, but maybe they have a product. Maybe they have a service. Like, do you guys think that that's too forward thinking for schools to begin adopting? No, I mean, standard apprenticeship, standard apprenticeship for ages, uh, twelve's a little precocious, but early teens, um, if, if you got into the blacksmith shop, you, you, you've made nails by the time you're twelve, um, and, and, yeah, yeah, having, having some actual work product that isn't, uh, the, the scroll that your parents have magneted up on the freezer strikes me as an entirely reasonable outcome for a human being that's sixty percent of the size of an adult to be producing. I like the idea, too, that, you know, What the education will be in the future doesn't have to be an extension of what the American education system was from the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties and early two thousands. It just doesn't have to be. We have an opportunity now to transcend whatever the limitations were in that. and start to present education in a new way. And so I think that's a responsibility of a parent to decide how they want their child educated. That's the fundamental formation of their mind itself. Like there's no greater opportunity for a child. And so I think if a parent has that responsibility within them, they can start to think on their own, not just give to the government or to give to a private school, the understanding of what their education could look like or needs to be. And ultimately in that they could be very productive from a very young age. I started my first business at the age of five. I would like to say it was that money that I saved from the age of five that led me to ultimately be an entrepreneur throughout my entire life. And so that was my seed capital. I started curbside recycling in my neighborhood. I was ultimately put out of business by the state of California when they mandated it throughout the entirety of the state. But I was taking trash and turning it into money from the age of five. And I thought it was a great thing to do and organize our entire neighborhood to just, you know, recycle. So these things are ideas. Obviously, you know, as Nolan says, precocious, that's okay. You know, help them be precocious if they can, right? Just help them be industrious, help them be a solution to our society. Not everybody has to be precocious because many students, you know, or many children bloom later. Like find them in their talent arc and support them And think about productivity going forward and help them be innovative for the society we want to create. know i think like this is an opportunity that we don't want to have our children recreate what we know is the collapse so if we know we're if we know we're headed to a collapse you got to teach them something new guys give them an opportunity give them a shot to be the solution set we need you know maybe while we're collapsing they can figure out another way to outgrow this because When we talk about a collapse, I think apocalypse comes to most people's minds. But what if it's just like a slow decay and morphing into ultimately something else? Well, I would rather accelerate the morphing decay understanding into the creating something else understanding. And so if your children, if you're, you know, like for you guys, if you have children and they're learning and they're young, turn them into the solution, give them an opportunity to think that way, you know, instead of indoctrinating them in, in the the darkness that we're fearing, allow them to recognize that they could actually create what the world gets to become. Yeah. I almost feel like we're drowning in safety. I talked a while back with Joseph Sassoon and he, you know what I mean? And he was telling me this story. He wrote this book called letters from his family and he was his, his uncle or his grandfather at the age of is in Europe doing business deals for the family and writing these incredible letters back and forth and stuff. But we drowning in safety. Well, let's, let's both take that. Noah, start with, are we drowning in safety? Well, I think this goes direct to the point you were making about life extension. The people who are on top of, I mean, some of them are obviously purely delusional maniacs, but they're not, generally speaking, complete morons. They're looking at the abyss that they dug out and they understand that there isn't any safety net there. very desperately would like one. There was a, this, I saw this five or six years ago at this point. No, it had been, it was during COVID, so it had been five years ago. Ray Dalio, who's been sort of banging this drum that his magic trick is that he just understood that the entire financial system is on a sort of lifetime rotation pattern and that we had, we had a seventy year climb and now we're going to have the collapse. And so he had produced this little like ten or fifteen minute animated video to explain that that's what's happening, that That's why everybody that's currently rich, such as himself, is currently rich, that none of those people have done anything to deserve any of the money they have, including him. But now that the time has come for all that money to come back and go to the people that it was taken from, the rest of us now have this opportunity, this great opportunity to be heroic. and not take his personal money away from him and just kind of take the hit on that one. Because while he didn't do any good, he also might not have done any harm beyond the money that he took from people for no reason. He uses very, very different words or at least the people he hired used very, very different words, but that's exactly what it meant. And so, yeah, I mean, If you got to where you were by showing those around you to be fools, because they were, and you haven't actually built anything or helped anybody, and you don't really have any plans for how that will ever happen. the the the knives are out you know everybody can see what that model looks like you're going to be pretty easy to knock off that perch so you would be very interested and we see conservatism it's a little weird because most of our systems have have sort of built this idea of the revolutionary into themselves at their base but They're extraordinarily reactionary. The only thing that matters is the continuity of the status quo and the status of the quo that they've achieved within it to those systems. And everything is a risk to that. So nothing can be allowed. And that's not a winning proposition. That's why the youth are checking out of society. Some of them are checking out through serious mental health crises that are... horrifying to see. Some of them are checking out by basically saying, you know, F you. We're going to do something that you find so existentially horrifying that we hope it gives you a stroke and you die. And we're not going to care when it does. So, you know, that's That's something. And for your daughter, are you familiar with the works of Gordon Corman? Because that was his life path, actually. I think he was thirteen when he published a humorous story for kids. And he's been publishing humorous children's literature for the last, like, forty years now. Can you pull on that thread and your ideas about are we drowning in safety? What safety? I think safety is illusory. You put a child in five point harness suspension and a child car seat face the opposite direction in a car that the child doesn't need to be in. You don't need a child in a car going a hundred miles an hour down the freeway in a safety seat. Just as an example, like we didn't really plan for safety in the industrial revolution. And I don't think when the industrial revolution came around, there was a lot of safety going around at that point. So I think this is kind of a new advent and it's coming from fear and there's nothing safe in fear. Fear doesn't give us from a fundamental state in consciousness the right mindset in which to develop safety, which is to develop systems that are life affirming instead of life threatening and to develop systems that unilaterally share opportunity instead of isolating that for a very few of us here while we're alive. Having systems that are built on hierarchical instability of economic systems built on war fundamentally is built on our blood and our death instead of being built on our life and our collective ingenuity. And while we're in a competition with each other, I call that big stick. We've been playing big st of thousands of years. An is that the galaxies are while we're playing big st We need to be thinking a about what we're really d and alive. There's a much How do you create safety while you're inside a planet and there's nothing beneath you but space, time, and a bunch of other galaxies? People think they have a better seat, so they're safer in their better seat. But fundamentally, that's not the kind of safety that is existential in its nature. And so I would like to have us take a deeper philosophical perspective here and think about how do we create actual safety for each other? And you have to look at it from a different problem set. I have to look at it that we're in this together, not individually, and that there's a collective that we're a part of. So if we do that, I think we can create safety. But for right now, it's not safety. It's a risk profile that we like to measure and play with. And, you know, right now, society are gamblers at heart. And so they're gambling with everything. Yeah, I'd like to sort of follow on to that. There was a move in AI recently. Back before the explosion in popularity, there was a problem known as AI alignment. And there's a movement, a mostly political movement now, called AI safety, which has largely chewed up the public discourse of alignment. Alignment, to me, is a very interesting and technical and mathematical and physical problem that we have made virtually no progress on. AI safety, on the other hand, sort of assumes that we've solved AI alignment, which we didn't, and that we should use our godlike powers to control these black boxes that we don't understand to reaffirm the political and cultural and economic status quo at every turn. because it would be bad if they said things that were unorthodox, which is, again, I think goes right to your point of we're using the word safe, and I don't think we understand what it means. I can see a whole bunch of memes you guys are just creating right now. There's going to be all these people in five-point harnesses in cars, being all over Twitter and stuff like this. Noah says this. Hamilton says this. It's so interesting to see the speed of culture. Well, you said meme, the thing that just flashed in my mind, did you ever see the Tom Cruise movie Night and Day with Cameron Diaz? He's playing one of his super soldier spy guys, but it's sort of a romantic comedy and the main character is this ordinary girl who happens to look exactly like Cameron Diaz, who gets sort of, you know, caught up in the mix, as it were. And he's trying not to draw him into this incredibly dangerous world that he's in, but he just sort of can't, he keeps not being able to. So he sort of lets her go and warns her that, you know, that government people are going to roll up in, in like, you know, black SUVs and tell her that they want to keep her safe and that she's going to be safe and they need to, she needs to come with them. And if she gets in the, in the car with them, they're going to kill her. And so that's like, they're going to use that, you know, they're going to explain, they're going to tell you that I'm crazy. And she's like, that's going to be easy to believe. But yeah. Um, we use these words performatively, uh, so much in, in public and they have real meanings. And, and if we don't get to reality, like again, we gotta start telling the truth about this stuff. Um, and, and once you have access to real facts, real truth reality, um, As the Enlightenment demonstrated, you can build incredibly cool stuff really quickly. I love that point. I like to look at images from space just to gain perspective. And the Earth at night, you now see it lit up with electricity. Go research when that happened. Just that and see the transition and how fast the whole world has changed, you know, from an image that you now see from space and the importance of that. That's as fast and faster as we can now change the world. I think in terms of exponentiality, we've gone into an exponential phase where in five years, we could have these things solved if we put collective intention on them. In ten years, we could have an entire new social system that didn't require a collapse. And in twenty years, we could have the majority of the human population thriving. That's just not currently how we're organized. But it's not to say that that's overly optimistic in terms of a timeline, if we could guide and direct the collective human endeavor to solution oriented behavior and activity. And that's just a collective use of our intelligence. And so yeah, I always like to think that the responsibility is on us, we need to do something. So this is our opportunity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that, you know, that night glow, that's a really great point. It's a great thing to sort of look at and understand, like, what it means and how much more there is to do. The Kardashev scale, like, we aren't even a Kardashev One society. We haven't even figured out the earth and and, as you point out we're sort of like wait a minute we can't we can't do any better, because, like we need to preserve what we have like we're not even done with where we are like you know there's there's vast dark places in the night. That we haven't even figured out yet, and you know the Kardashev scale. There's a two. There's so much more, even without interstellar travel, that's potentially on deck if we can get out of our way on this stuff. Yeah, and part of, I think, what we're dealing with is that the baby boomers are a post-World War generation. I love sometimes seeing these memes on social media that say, like, you know, if you think you had trauma and wonder why your parents did, and then they tell what their grandparents went through. And it was a very difficult time right before World War I, World War I, et cetera, into World War II. This is a massive... time of escalated conflict that people have kind of forgotten that is the seed of the stories and the ideas the the uh sci-fi the heroes that were mentioned earlier that were coming out that were popular at a period of time and so it's framed in imagination we're talking about the collective hallucination earlier it's framed in imagination and the younger generations have an opportunity to have a different imagination And if you look at the earth from that perspective of everything that isn't yet developed, if you bring a new mind to that space, you'll get a different outcome there. And so I like to propose that question to the youth. They're like, how would you imagine sustainability and thriving there instead of a spread of a collapsing society? And there's the beginning seed of a solution. And then we can collectively create it. We just have to align incentive And right now, I think, as we've talked about, those are economic incentives. We need to align economic incentives and then look at the nature of what we create. Noah, this brings up a while back, you and I were talking about, I might butcher this, but the Ackerman function. Do you remember telling me about that? Yes. So the Ackerman function was developed in the eighteen hundreds to demonstrate that humanity hadn't actually worked out what the limits of computation were yet. So it was thought at that time that something called simple recursion could describe all possible computation. And that's essentially a process where you would have a single counter that would count down to zero. And when it got to zero, you were done. The Ackermann function can be thought of as a sequence where you're combining numbers arithmetically, but in addition to increasing the numbers for the Ackermann sequence, so the first one is one plus one, you're also in some sense incrementing the operator. So the second Ackermann number is two times two, the third Ackermann number is three to the third power. So each time we take a step forward, we not only increase the numbers, we also increase the way in which the numbers are combined to the repeated version of the previous combination. So addition is something that we sort of understand as a kind of a shorthand for counting. Multiplication is sort of a shorthand for addition. Exponentiation is a sort of a shorthand for multiplication. What if there's a fourth operator that is a shorthand for repeated exponentiation? What if there's a fifth operator that's a shorthand for repeated repeated exponentiation? What if there is a googleth operator that is a shorthand for a Google repeats, a Google minus one repeats of addition. And so the Ackerman numbers get real crazy, real fast. So the sequence goes two, four, twenty seven. And then the fourth number has like many digits because four to the fourth power is two hundred and fifty six. Four to the two hundred fifty six power is a number with around fifty three digits in it. And four to the power of a number with fifty three digits in it is a number that has something somewhere in the neighborhood of one hundred and ten to one hundred and fifty digits. So a Google times the square root of a Google times a thousand digits. And then the fifth number is very difficult to even talk about. And of course, that's just the fifth number. There's a sixth and a tenth and everything else. And there are There are algorithms that are inverse Ackerman scaling. So if you manage to plug in, so if you plug in sort of one thing, it takes one unit. If you plug in two to four things, it takes two units of time. or you know effort energy whatever between four and twenty seven it takes three between twenty seven and you know a google to the one and a half power times a thousand um it takes four if somehow you manage to find something that's larger than that and shove it in it would take five units um unless you you pass that one up um so so constant time is great but inverse Ackerman is real, real close to constant time. And Ackerman, that's chump baby stuff in the mathematical field of Googleology, the study of incredibly large numbers. There are ideas and approaches that make the Ackerman sequence just meaningless, where you get to ideas that are literally beyond your comprehension. And I think, I think it's one of the beautiful exercises of, of twentieth century mathematics to, to find one of these places where we can visit the frontier of our imagination and, and sort of poke around a little bit and ultimately fail because, you know, the weight's too great. Like you just can't think about things that are that abstract and that big and that ridiculous. But, again, that's there. If we figure out how to change the iteration nature of these operations that we're using to combine our economic or political or cultural objects, if we figure out how to use machines inside the machines, then we start getting that hyper-exponential blow-up. And that is a thing that's starting to happen. I just... I just sort of was a conference couple weeks ago I was presenting explaining it's not my paper deep seek wrote it, but they worked out a way to put sort of a transformer inside their transformer for their hopefully their next version of deep seek which changes the pattern from. computing a token sequence to computing a continuous function over token vectors. And by using a token vector of size four, they were able to get a Forex speed up in their training time. So they were able to create models that took the same amount of effort to produce that were four times larger and models that are four times larger are as we are familiar, vastly more capable. And so those kinds of ideas, if they can telescope within that efficiently, that's a hard problem, but it's one that might be very, very fruitful. Are we going to see that in Minty, Hamilton? That's a great question. I think what's really interesting about the AI space is the nature of how we try to imagine both the math and the phenomena that's taking place inside the black box. and how it plays in numbers that for most people are much larger than they know how to orient. I was just in a conversation recently at an AI incubator house in San Francisco where We were at a dinner and just discussing, you know, how to imagine the dimensionalities. Like if you ask ChatGPT how many dimensions it runs on, it's going to say sixteen thousand plus dimensions and trying to understand imaginary dimensions and mathematical vector space compared to like dimension one, dimension two, dimension three and like this geometry you'd learn in school. And I think it rapidly leads to an awareness of a much larger field of numbers that fits in a much smaller expression of hardware and reflects the numbers that we used to see when we tried to study, you know, the cosmos. And then how if you bring those numbers back to try to understand something in your natural environment, like a question like to ask people all the time in around these big numbers is try to imagine the number of electrons that you are and is the room around you right now. but just try to imagine that and then try to imagine that accurately, like to the exact number of them. Right. And this idea of playing on the edges of the frontier of imagination, especially in the, in the number space, I think is a fascinating awareness that we have to try to bring some sensibility to that collective kind of imagination around realness and how to get the imagination to become real and honest in its nature. And so, you know, in the idea of Minty, there's a understanding that, uh, what we think of as content, if you go from what it took to create symbols and carve hieroglyphics, and then what it took to create the printing press, and then what it took to create literacy, and then what it took to create a photograph, and then what it took to create an image from an iPhone, and then what it'll take to create the equivalent of entertainment and content of any kind just content of any kind through these systems dramatically exponentially accelerates the ability complexity and quality of what gets created including the nature of the effect that that has on the individuals that consume it and so minty plays in the space in and around how do we understand the media space as it starts to approximate infinity and a question around culture which is you know, compared to other thinkers who've talked about individual content delivery and you'll hear your favorite song. But one of the things that made our favorite songs, our favorite songs is that other friends listen to them too. So infinity content only meant for you as a kind of echo chamber that might be interesting until you can't talk to anyone about it and can't fundamentally express a kind of social role. And so in the nature of our project, it's really about how you maintain a social environment in and around the nature of shared culture in relationship to these incredible AI creation tools, freeing creativity and democratizing that to the masses and giving them an opportunity to create in ways that they never could have before and understanding this incredible relationship to large number and the economics that could be associated with it for the point of creating abundance. and creating a mechanism for creators and creative people to find greater economic capacity within this world. I deeply appreciate this idea of rapidly expanding numbers. And when Nolan was talking about that, my imagination immediately goes to Big Bang. It goes to the rapid expansion of the universe and the creation of our story, at least origin creation story for something that goes from what we think of as a small number to a very large number very quickly in many different forms. And I think it's sad talking about the concept of mathematical education, which I firmly agree with. All the math I'm into, they didn't teach in school. And I had to use the rudiments of what I learned in school to get into the math that I was most interested in. And the math I was most, most interested in was the high dimensional geometric spaces that you see in ayahuasca visions. That was fundamentally the math that I was most fascinated by, where you have rapidly moving shapes in something. We call it light or consciousness. They're geometric in their origin in nature. And what a thing to try to study. And, you know, you don't see them with your eyes unless you're in vision. I got introduced to it in my early twenties and I'm grateful for that. But that math they didn't teach in school. And, you know, this is a looking glass into this understanding that if you have that mind in that imagination and you can see that around you, you have a different scope on how you relate to the world that you're in. And I think it's a richer one. Yeah, yeah. High dimensional geometry is a wild and very counterintuitive space where all kinds of things that, people think are entirely natural based on their three-dimensional understandings turn out to be just wildly false at higher dimensions. And the constructions that are attached to them, one of my favorite ones is the story of the inversion of the sphere. So in... Topology, they talk about shapes with their properties that all the properties of shapes have that aren't their shapes. And spheres being mathematical objects of no thickness, the surface of the sphere can freely pass through itself. And so this question arose of whether or not you could take a mathematical sphere and manipulate it in a way so that the inside would become the outside and the outside would become the inside without folding it over. There was an obvious way that you could make this happen. If you could imagine it like a completely deflated basketball and you push it down and so it's just like a bowl, if the basketball could pass through itself, you could just keep pushing. You could push the bottom of the ball through itself And and create a top, but that would create a little kink around the bottom, where it would finally have to sort of pass by itself, and that was the only construction every had everybody knew they could be done the and apparently the guy that actually proved the construction. was congenitally blind. So, so he had, he'd never seen anything. And he got very into topology and got very good at topological proofs. And he proved that the construction was possible, but people still didn't actually know how to do it. So, so we had, you know, this one blind guy who had explained to all of us that this thing that doesn't look like it's possible to any of us that can see is possible. And eventually with computer graphics and other things, a visualization now exists that more or less explains it's rather pretty. You kind of twist the system and so it sort of twists past itself. And then that lets you sort of have this crinkly surface that you can move through itself without that ridging problem happening. And then you undo the twist once you've got the bowl kind of through itself and that's how it works. But yeah, it's this weird space where things that certainly do not sound like they would be possible, And in this one case, are originally illuminated by people who have no personal material experience of what you're looking at, can sort of show you that, yeah, actually, this is how things can work. Gentlemen, I walked you right up to a minute or a hour and a half. And I got to tell you, I feel like we're just getting warmed up. So we're going to have to come back and do a part two on this. But before we finish off right here, I just want to throw it back to each one of you just to maybe take a little bit of time to explain what you got coming up, where people can find you and what you're excited about. I'll start with you, Noah. So yeah, you've got my link up there, Cordis.com. My major project is creating marketplaces that are actually intelligent and actually service humanity's economic needs. I'm sorry, I can't help you with political, cultural, or spiritual problems, but I can solve the economy for you if you want. I'm currently suing the U.S. government over that. I have to ask the U.S. Supreme Court I referenced that at one point during this, whether or not describing reality and mathematical proofs is unpersuasive. comes up to the standards of American jurisprudence or not. I'm hoping that they're not going to declare that the Article III courts are criminal outlaw tyrants that just make shit up whenever they want to. But we will find out in a few months, probably. I've got about a month and a half to pull that together. And how can people support you if they want to read more about this or they want to... Reach out, connect. You know, again, it wouldn't take too many guys knowing guys to pull together to start building these. The fundamental technology is pretty simple. It's just getting a user mass that's large enough and legal is the challenge. And so... yeah i'm not much of a salesman so if you are or you know one um let's let's let's talk with each other and if you're just curious and interested let's let's talk fantastic hamilton what can people find you what do you got coming up what are you excited about Yeah. Find me at hamiltonsouther.com and you can find me at bloomorfo.org. That's where we do our plant medicine work and our retreat work. And we also have plant medicine courses there. So if you're interested in learning the things that we've talked about, I teach and I'm a founder of our own academy, first academy in the world that teaches plant medicines in these ways. And you can also be on the lookout for Minty, minty.fun. We're in testnet right now, and it's coming out in mid-December. It's an exciting launch for us. Gentlemen, mind-blowing conversation. I'm so stoked to get to talk to both of you. And thank you very much for your time. Hang on briefly afterwards to everybody that hung out with us today and to the people I didn't get to from Lila, Tariq, Jonas, Nia, Raphael, Emily, Marcus. I see you guys all over there. I hope you're having a beautiful day. I'll forward you guys questions. Ladies and gentlemen, that's all we got. Aloha.