🚨BREAKING: A cognitive scientist from MIT has mathematically proven that evolution guarantees we see zero percent of true reality, that most consciousness in the universe exists without a body, and that non-human intelligences with a wider window on reality than ours can reach in and manipulate it the way... a programmer manipulates a video game. Donald Hoffman (Donald Hoffman) is a cognitive scientist at UC Irvine who has spent 40 years building a mathematical theory of the observer. His work was cited by John Wheeler in the "It From Bit" paper. He studied under Marvin Minsky at MIT, spent two decades secretly meeting with Francis Crick to study consciousness, and has nine specific mathematical conjectures on the table that would derive general relativity, quantum field theory and the Big Bang from a single framework. The top high-energy physicists in the world, Nima Arkani-Hamed and Nobel laureate David Gross, are already saying spacetime is doomed. Hoffman thinks he knows what replaces it. This interview is the first time he has publicly laid out what his mathematical model explains about alien life, embodiment and the structure of reality. It already derives time dilation and quantum wave functions directly from differences in observer window size. Physics has spent a century failing to solve the measurement problem because it has been looking in the wrong place. The observer has to come first, and no physicalist framework can get you there. A consciousness with a larger observer window has access to the underlying structure of our reality in ways we can't perceive or counter. A craft going Mach 40 instantaneously in our headset could be a leisurely maneuver in theirs. The implications for UAP and alien life are immense. Embodiment, being locked into a body with fingers and toes as your only interface with the world, is a probability zero anomaly in the full space of possible minds. He also says current large language models are dumber than cucumbers. His new framework, the recursive trace logic, is a completely different architecture, and some of the biggest names in frontier AI have already come to him about it. The framework has no ceiling, and the implication is a single unified consciousness exploring itself through an unbounded number of perspectives, each one capable of waking up. Death, in this framework, is just the closing of an icon on the desktop. Full conversation is live now.show more

Full episode out now:

Isn’t this also an argument for God — an infinite, omniscient discarnate consciousness existing outside of space and time?

Call me dumb, but isn't a zero probability likely to result in zero actuality? Last time I stubbed my toe on a stone, it hurt. So I take it that I do exist. Samuel Johnson thought so too in 1763: "After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'" (James Boswell). Which means I'm in smarter company than my own. I wonder if Mr Hoffman has read Plato, the Baghavadgita, Kant and Schopenhauer? Nothing said here is new, just old ideas dressed up in mathematics. Another physicist or "cognitive scientist" playing the game of baffling us all with jargon to gain attention. Show me. My honest request for all the fantastical imaginings of religion going back to the Stone Age and up to the latest religion of aliens. Show me one piece of independently verifiable, hard evidence. One I can stub my toe against... oh! But I suppose I miss the point ... all the gods, goblins, ghosts and interdimensional, disembodied beings can never be seen or touched. We just have to believe and drink the KoolAid after handing over some money. Oh, OK...

Probability zero. Yet here we are. In the anomaly. Stubbing our toes and burying our parents and falling in love with things we know we'll lose. Maybe the restriction isn't the punishment. Maybe the narrow bandwidth is the whole curriculum. You can't grieve what you were never attached to. You can't love without the risk of loss. You can't be changed by something that costs you nothing. The body isn't the worst interface. It's the only one that makes any of it matter.

Three PhD students sat on a weathered pier overlooking a channel. In the distance, a bell buoy rocked with the tide, its hollow tone carrying across the water. The first student listened to the bell and said, "I can imagine swimming out to that buoy and back. I can feel the cold water, the pull of the current, the burn in my shoulders, and the exhaustion of the return." The second student smiled. "I have already completed the swim in my mind. I can imagine touching the buoy, turning toward shore, and feeling the satisfaction of accomplishment. I can feel the weight in my arms and the pride that comes from finishing." The third student stood without a word. He removed his shoes, stepped from the pier, and began swimming toward the buoy. The water was colder than he expected. The current was stronger. The distance was farther. Before he reached the buoy, he disappeared beneath the surface. The bell continued to ring. The tide continued to move. The channel remained exactly what it had always been. The two students sat silently on the pier. For the first time that afternoon, neither had anything to say. At first glance, this is a joke about philosophers. It is also a warning about reality. The first student understood possibility. He used imagination to explore an experience without exposing himself to danger. The second student imagined success. He enjoyed the reward before paying the price. The third student acted. Unfortunately, action alone is not wisdom. The channel did not care about his intentions. The water did not care about his confidence. Reality rarely negotiates with belief. Modern society often divides itself between those who only think and those who only act. One group mistakes analysis for achievement. The other mistakes movement for progress. Both can fail. The lesson is not that imagination is useless. Every great accomplishment begins as an idea. Nor is the lesson that action is dangerous. Nothing meaningful is ever accomplished without it. The lesson is that reality remains the final examiner. A business plan is not a business. A strategy is not a victory. A belief is not a fact. A simulation is not an experience. The map is useful. The journey is necessary. But neither changes the terrain. The bell buoy continues to ring whether we understand it or not. The channel remains what it is. And sooner or later, every philosophy encounters the water.

Yes ... hence why it has been hidden in the Vatican libraries amongst other places

will do literally anything to not say religion. it’s sad really

@disclosureorg He didn’t “prove” it. He assumed it, and created a mathematical formula around it.

I’ve listened to a lot of Hoffmann podcasts and read his main book. He is undoubtedly brilliant and his arguments are impressive However I think there are a few leaps of faith where you have to buy into his thinking to then buy into these 100% proof mathematical models But I can’t help thinking he is just a good old fashioned Gnostic thinker in a quantum cloak

The start of the first sentence of this post is a contradiction in terms: “A cognitive scientist from MIT has mathematically proven that evolution guarantees we see zero percent of true reality…”. If we can’t see reality, there is no way to make this statement describing reality

This is modern day Jerry Springer. I love these Q&As about how nothing is real and we all live in a cosmic [insert new loon toon theory 🤪]. My universe seems pretty real: -at the gas pump when prices are up. -when housing isn't affordable or available for young families. -when the Epstein class is totally free. -when politicians blatantly lie to the populace and the enrich themselves while in office. Maybe we should have more theories on some of the things I just mentioned. 🤔

Let me explain why he is wrong.

The human brain is a "reducing valve" wrote Aldous Huxley in his "Doors of Perception" in 1954. Jesse, Huxley wrote our "brain screens out the most wondrous part of man’s potential experience without his even knowing it”. Survival requires this, at least for now.

this. is. definitely. something. spock.

Vedic philosophy explicitly states that pure consciousness (Chit or Atman) is the fundamental, eternal reality that transcends and illuminates the senses, which are merely unconscious, physical instruments. The senses only function because they are backed by the light of a supreme, transcendent consciousness. According to the Upanishads (the philosophical culmination of the Vedas), the five organs of sensory perception (Jnanendriyas: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin) belong to the material realm and are fundamentally non-intelligent or unconscious (achetana) on their own. According to the Vedas and Upanishads, the absolute reality is Brahman. The twist in Vedic philosophy is that Brahman is not something "yet to be perceived" in the future, like a distant planet or an undiscovered scientific particle. It is already present right now. However, it cannot be perceived as an object because it is the ultimate subject—the very awareness reading these words. The texts explain that humans fail to recognize this absolute reality because of two fundamental concepts: 1. The Paradox of Perception, and, 2. Why it seems unperceived: Maya (the Veil)

@BrianRoemmele I assume it’s unavoidable for algorithm reasons but every time I see “breaking” in all caps I feel like the Ben Affleck cigarette meme

It's obvious. In fact, for humanity to progress as a species disclosure of EVERYTHING is paramount. It's that simple. Humanity is a group entity. Anything that limits consciousness goes against our Creator. We must aspire to all knowledge as does our Creator.

This post repeatedly confuses a mathematical model with empirical proof. Hoffman's work is an interesting and highly speculative theory about consciousness, but it has not proven that physical reality is an illusion, that most minds are disembodied, that death is survival, or that UFOs are accessing deeper layers of reality. Those are interpretations and extrapolations, not established scientific findings.

Some very interesting overlap with @muellerberndt and team’s ideas from Oberver Patch Holography. Here’s a detailed @grok comparison:

I took his psychology class at UCI Definitely fascinating stuff But I think he’s tapping into what theologians have been saying for centuries

All of it is wishful thinking. Our understanding of reality depends on our relationship with God.

@BrianRoemmele Well this looks interesting

I like to think this is the case. We’re energetic entities having a human experience and when our bodies die, our souls reunite with the web of consciousness that connects us all.

Let me translate for everyone: "I made up a bunch of sci-fi technobabble and I am totally full of shit, and I am also a silly idiot, but, because I talked like I know things, many idiots will believe me." Don't believe nonsense because the guy saying it pretends to be smart

I agree with major aspects of the esteemed Dr. Hoffman's work. However, you can never "prove" experiential phenomena with logic. Logic is mentation removed from experience. The more abstract one becomes, the farther one is removed from experience, and the only way we know consciousness is by experiencing it.

This is one episode I'll actually watch. It aligns with Jacques Vallee's work. Cybernetics, Systems Theory, and Information Theory as a whole support this line of thinking.

Could we possibly harness enough energy and compute to “break the code” wired inside our brains”??? i.e., to build the bridge between our limited state of consciousness and transcend into a superior state beyond which we may unveil “the truth” about the universe… the doorway to that goes beyond what we are capable to observe today??? If we’re in a simulation, that being the God given environment that protects us from our inherent fragilities… to “break the code” would be, according to @elonmusk, the path to meet with The Creator. Though some believe it to be the path to replace Him.

Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.

This is Gnosticism given the cloak of Post-Relativity Physics. The ancients were saying this millennia ago.

He is called God, sorry you lost 40 years trying to find Him

Hoffman's “proof” rests on a theorem that samples every mathematically imaginable fitness function, not the ecologically constrained ones biology actually faces—so it's a fantasy landscape, not a discovery. There is zero empirical data backing his radical metaphysics. No novel predictions, no testable physics, no reputable journal that takes his “derivations” of relativity as more than post‑hoc curve‑fitting. He hasn't proved perception can't track reality; he's shown that if you assume a universe stripped of all structure, you can get trivially unveridical optima. The rest is just an unfalsifiable, unparsimonious just‑so story that mistakes formal symbols for evidence.

Proven? The video itself within the first 45 seconds, says “how do we then try and triangulate and figure out what true reality is? To date science cannot answer that question.” Within 1:45 he says “if we prove those conjectures are true, then I think it’s a game changer.” 😂

How many realize this is the same as mystics have tried to tell for thousands of years? Of course it is not a battle about ”being right” - what is interesting ss how we are remembering and forgetting in cycles. The cycle itself is like a higher dimensional being breathing… the universe itself. There are so many ways seeing this, and the higher dimension is always projected on a lower level ne when explained = one truth, many songs. Very cool. As long as it doesn’t turn into the new dogma… which it will 🙃 Endless possibilities for interpretation, and the dogmatic view will always be one side of the coin.

With all this theoretical BS and mental gymnastics, it's amazing that "scientists" still would never look at, or question the spiritual realm/angels and demons. When you read above, the spiritual possibilities seem much more plausible and possible than what is being discussed.