All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2025 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
34:53
Rethinking Reality
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much and feel too little.
More than machinery, we need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy.
Silence!
The great and powerful Oz knows why you have come.
You've got to say, "I'm a human being!" God damn it!
My life has value!
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature!
Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder!
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
Yeah, thank you.
You're beautiful.
I love you.
Yes.
You're beautiful.
Thank you.
Aha.
It's showtime.
And now, Reality Rate with Jason Bermas.
And who loves you and who do you love?
Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here and I'm just asking questions.
If you watched last night, I did this watch along with Robert Lanza on quantum mechanics, theory, biocentrism, and much more from like a decade plus ago.
Now, I did show a little piece of the second half of that, and I also talked about the possibility of playing that second half in full.
We're not doing that.
Now, I'm not saying that's not worthwhile.
I would actually encourage people to go check that out because there's a comment about nuclear weapons, etc.
I think just that alone is worth that lecture.
But instead, I wanted to check out some of the more modern stuff this guy has been talking about.
After all, quantum mechanics, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, they've all gotten a much broader audience.
I actually came across this podcast that I'm really interested in listening to within the past couple of months.
And now I'm really going to do my best to either myself reach out to him or have my producer for Making Sense of the Madness reach out to him.
I think he'd be a really great fit for either of the shows.
However, there was a lecture he gave all the way back...
In 2019, with this same group of science and non-duality, it's called Rethinking Our Insanely Improbable Universe.
And really, after watching the whole thing, which is just under 20 minutes long, we're going to watch it here, there are only a few points of contention that I might actually have.
One of the things that he discusses is the nature of life and death and time themselves and observation and whether or not they can exist at the same time, right?
So this actually is a much more modern and updated, I would say, lecture into quantum mechanics and the nature of reality than the last one there is.
Some overlap.
But with that being said, we're going to get into it in a moment.
I do want to thank everybody that has been supporting the broadcast through the Buy Me A Coffee and the other links down below.
5, 10, 15 bucks.
It does mean the world to me.
Could not do it without you guys.
Also consider giving me a follow across.
Social media, including over on X, as we really can't grow on the YouTube platform, but we still want you to thumbs it up, subscribe, share, ring that bell, let people know about the show and all that jazz.
And this document, one of the things that I would do getting him on is discuss this document right here, Analysis and Assessment of the Gateway Process, because it is very in line.
With this lecture that we are all about to watch.
So without further ado, this is from 2019. It's not as grainy as the one we played yesterday.
Again, I'd encourage you to check out the whole lecture from yesterday without me.
But I know you guys also enjoy the commentary and kind of being part of these watch-alongs.
So here we go.
So when I was young, I remember staying at my neighbor's house.
And between the tick and the talk of their clock, I laid awake thinking about the perverse nature of time.
And the O'Donnells are gone now.
In fact, Barbara, she died just a few weeks ago at the age of 98. And, you know, when we watch our aged ones age and die, we assume there's this external entity called time and that it's responsible for the crime.
But while lying awake that night, I realized that time belongs to us, to the observer.
Rather than to the observed.
In the decades that followed, I developed a theory that builds on quantum physics to describe our human relationship to time and space.
By adding life to the equation, my theory of biocentrism explains how we influence reality.
The result is a rethink of everything we thought we knew about life and death and our place in the universe.
Biocentrism starts by acknowledging that our existing model of reality is looking increasingly creaky in the face of recent scientific discoveries.
Science tells us with some precision that over 95% of the universe is mostly composed of dark matter and dark energy.
But we must confess that we don't know what dark matter is, and we know even less about dark energy.
Indeed, concepts such as time, space, and even causality itself are increasingly being demonstrated as meaningless.
I got to stop it right there.
So key.
Think about that.
He talks about dark matter, dark energy, and the inability not only to identify it, but describe it, let alone measure it.
So much of this theory that has been pushed upon us as accepted science just really falls apart with just the slightest bit of scrutiny.
One of the real reasons I'm liking this guy more and more.
All of science is based on information passing through our consciousness.
But science doesn't have a clue what consciousness is.
Studies repeatedly establish a clear linkage between subatomic states and observations made by conscious observers.
But science can't explain this linkage in any satisfactory way.
Biologists describe the origin of life as a random occurrence in a dead universe, but have no understanding of how life began.
Or why the universe appears to be exquisitely designed for the emergence of life.
Biocentrism isn't a rejection of science.
Rather, it challenges us to fully accept all the implications of recent scientific findings in fields ranging from cosmology to quantum entanglement.
By listening to what the science is telling us, it becomes increasingly clear that life and consciousness are fundamental to any true understanding of the universe.
We think of life as a big accident of physics, but a long list of experiments suggests exactly the opposite.
Amazingly, from a biocentric perspective, the biggest puzzles of science go away.
For instance, it becomes clear why space and time, and even the properties of matter itself, depend on the observer.
In his papers on relativity, Einstein showed that time exists relative to each observer.
My theory of biocentrism takes this a step further by suggesting that the observer literally creates time.
If you wave your hand through the air, if you take everything away, what's left?
Nothing.
The same thing applies to time.
You can't put it in a bottle like milk.
Now I used that terminology before, but think about that.
Time is created by the observer, therefore cannot exist without us as conscious beings.
Space and time aren't objects.
Look at me, the podium.
Everything you see right now is a world of information occurring in your mind.
Time is simply the summation of what we observe in space, much like the frames of a film occurring in the mind.
So working with Dmitry Podolsky, who's a theoretical physicist at Harvard, I've been developing some of these ideas further.
We start with the premise that in the real world, coffee cools, cause breakdown.
Yet to the bafflement of scientists, the fundamental laws of physics, when reduced to equations, work just as well for events going forward or going backward in time.
If the laws of physics operate without regard to time, then why do we experience reality with the arrow of time going strictly from past to future?
Last year, Dimitri and I published a paper in Annalyndra Physique, the same journal that published Albert Einstein's theories of special and general relativity.
In that article, we explain how the arrow of time, and indeed time itself, emerged directly from the observer, that is, us.
Our paper argues that time doesn't exist out there, ticking away from past to present, but rather is an emergent property that depends on the observer's ability to preserve information about experienced events.
Experienced events And again, it's those experiences...
Within our existence, within our humanity, within our shared, I want to say consciousness, but I think it even goes beyond that.
And one of the things he's going to do later is he's going to smash the million monkey typing theory, which I love in this lecture, but let's keep going.
In the world of biocentrism, a brainless observer doesn't experience time.
The key to the nature of time is something called quantum gravity.
During the last century, it became clear that the world of relativity, which of course deals with large distances, and quantum mechanics, which deals with small distances, are incompatible with each other.
The problem of making them compatible remains one of the largest unsolved mysteries in science.
One of the most puzzling features is something called wave function collapse.
To understand the problem, consider the light in this room.
Common sense tells us that the light is either on or off, but not both at once.
Yet in quantum mechanics, it allows these bizarre states in which the lights have been neither turned on or off.
Indeed, they exist in something called superposition of the two states that is both on and off.
And when two or more objects are put into quantum superposition, it's something called entanglement.
Quantum states are then shared among multiple objects, which remain connected until they are measured or disturbed.
The particles are linked in a way that measurement of one of them instantaneously influences the state of the other, even when they're separated by great distances.
Spooky action at a distance is how Einstein described it.
Experiments confirm that entangled states exist at microscopic scales at the size of atoms.
But the laws of quantum mechanics, if the laws of quantum mechanics are universal, then why don't we observe entangled states surrounding us?
The famous Schrodinger's cat experiment suggests that even cats and people should exist in an entangled state.
So here we get into life and death, etc.
And I'm going to be honest, some of this is a little over Jason Bermas' head.
But I'm not the smartest guy in the room all the time.
So, here we go.
That is, they should be both alive and dead at the same time.
If so, why in life do real live cats appear to be either dead or alive?
The answer is something called decoherence.
The light becomes either on or off, or Scrodinger's cat alive or dead if we measure its state.
However, our paper shows that quantum gravity in matter alone can't explain this.
Indeed, it's necessary to include the observer.
And in particular, the way we process and remember information.
Our paper suggests that the emergence of the arrow of time is related to the ability of observers to preserve information about experienced events.
Thus, time only exists in our head.
It has no intrinsic meaning to nature.
We create the arrow of time by the way our mind works.
And of course, without the arrow of time, nothing we observe would exist.
Of course, we aren't taught this in school.
Life and consciousness according to the current model are neither central to the process of creation or to its sustenance.
They're afterthoughts.
Life is as inconsequential to the universe as Saturn's rings.
We're flukes.
Of course, biocentrism couldn't differ more.
As its name implies, life and awareness are indispensable cosmic attributes.
So this is where he really starts to go against the grain of the idea of random chance and saying no, no, no, no, no.
Without our consciousness, none of this exists.
Having dispensed with space and time, there's one other major player in the current standard It's randomness or chance.
We're told that the random laws of chance produce everything we observe.
Atoms slammed into others.
Billions of lifeless years passed with the cosmos set on automatic until at least on one planet life began.
That's the story.
Everyone has heard it.
Yet everyone can feel how empty and unsatisfying the narrative is.
We can't fathom how lumps of carbon and drops of water acquired a sense of smell.
Subscribers to this dumb random universe model, meaning almost everyone, except for you folks, state that absolutely everything appears by chance.
It seems reasonable.
Chance makes it seem plausible that a cosmos as numb and insensate as Sheol could come up with hummingbirds by randomness alone.
The dumb universe paradigm requires that we explain the complex physical and biological architecture we see around us by some means other than God.
And chance is all we have.
So the dumb universe model sinks or swims on the life raft of randomness.
Randomness is also a central key to evolution where, of course, it works splendidly.
Darwin wasn't whistling in the wind with natural selection.
It's obvious that giraffes developed long necks because those giraffian predecessors who received random mutations for longer necks had a survival edge.
They could grab leaves and fruit from higher branches over time, and it doesn't take terribly long to select longer-necked animals, gave them a leg up.
Evolution works, and it's based on random mutations coupled with natural selection.
That being so, we make the mistake of applying thinking that chance is the explanation for everything.
This includes the entire universe from the laws of nature themselves to the arising of life and consciousness.
Chance is a process that is misunderstood.
The most famous illustration is the monkey and typewriter thing.
We've all heard it.
A million monkeys type randomly on a million keyboards for a million years.
You'd get all the great works of literature.
So would this be true?
About ten years ago, some wildlife caretakers actually put a bunch of typewriters out in front of some macaques to see what would happen.
The animals typed nothing.
Instead, they threw some of the machines on the ground and used them as toilets.
They didn't create any written wisdom whatsoever.
I think this is brilliant.
Because he's going to take it even further than just that example.
And really, when you're talking about Darwinian evolution, natural selection, we also have to realize that the people in charge are social Darwinists.
They believe that they should rule because they do.
And they believe they are at the top of that food chain.
Are really the highest form of this evolution.
And unfortunately, look down on the rest of us.
And these models right here where we are interwoven, you know, it doesn't jive with their belief systems.
Okay?
So, this...
Million monkey thing.
I mean, he elaborates even further.
Robert Lanza, really worth watching these without my jackass re-involved as well.
Thumbs it up, subscribe, share.
Let's get back to Lanza.
Ha ha, but let's carry out a thought experiment.
So could a million monkeys typing a million years truly create Hamlet?
Believe it or not, such a problem is entirely solvable.
Keyboards have a lot of places to push.
There are 58 keys on a typical typewriter.
So let's consider the difficulty of creating just the 15 opening characters of Moby Dick.
Call me Ishmael.
How many random tries would be needed?
Given 58 possible keys, it would take 283 trillion, trillion attempts.
But remember, we have a million monkeys working, and let's say they type 45 words a minute, and they never stop to rest or sleep.
How much time would it take for one of them to type, call me Ishmael?
You know, the answer is 36 trillion years, or two and a half thousand times the age of the universe.
So a million...
Supposedly.
And monkeys, typing furiously, would never reproduce the opening three words of a book.
So forget the dumb universe thing.
It's bogus.
So back to our question.
Can you get a cosmos, the cosmos that we see, with the complex biological designs of the brain and the trumpeter swan by random collision of atoms alone?
If randomness takes 36 trillion years to type a single three-word passage, the answer is obvious.
Not a chance.
But even if we ignore this, there's a more serious problem.
It turns out that our universe has an exquisite set of properties that are Godilocks perfect for life to exist.
We live in an extraordinarily fine-tuned cosmos, a place where any random tweaking wouldn't allow life to exist.
And these numbers again.
They really hammer it home that there is something more that we don't understand that is not visible, that simply is not random scientific chance.
If gravity were 2% different, or if you change the power of the plank length or the atomic mass unit, we would never have the sun or life.
So by any stretch of wishful thinking...
A cosmos that allows life is inconceivable by chance alone.
Randomness is not a tenable hypothesis.
Truth be told, it's close to idiotic, right up there with the dog ate my homework.
So let's sum up the most basic do-or-die physical conditions for life to come into existence.
First, you need two fundamental forces, electromagnetism and the strong force.
They must have very specific values.
Electromagnetism keeps the electrons attached to atomic nuclei, allowing for the existence of atoms.
But atomic nuclei wouldn't hold together without a perfectly tuned strong force, which allows protons to cling together.
Without multiple protons, the only element that would exist would be hydrogen.
And while no one is anti-hydrogen, it couldn't produce any kind of organisms, even if you waited eons until the cows came home.
Then you need a third fundamental force, gravity.
Not to be too weak, not too strong, or you wouldn't have stars.
And I could keep on going, but suffice it to say, there are almost 200 physical parameters that must be exactly what they are within a percentage or so in order for stars to undergo nuclear fission and create their warmth, for planets to form, and for all the elements to be created.
In short, yes, it's a perfect universe.
And we haven't even gotten to the life creation business with its own crowded stadium of requirements, such as worlds that are not too hot or cold, or radiation-filled, or specific properties of key elements, such as oxygen and carbon, that need to exhibit just the characteristics we observe.
Even here on Earth, life would be near impossible if we didn't possess the massive nearby moon.
That's because the Earth's axial tilt would wobble wildly, sometimes aiming straight into the sun, producing impossibly hot temperatures.
Our planet manages to avoid going through such chaos because of our moon.
And he gets into the moon here, but let's just talk about the sun for a moment.
I mean, it is the life force of the planet.
And obviously...
Has dictated a lot of hidden history, right?
Now, I know there are a ton of different theories about the moon out there.
You know, there's the hollow moon.
There's the Death Star idea.
There's a bunch of them out there.
But again, if you just go with the quote-unquote...
Scientific explanation that's most agreed upon.
It seems absolutely ludicrous.
He's going to point this out.
And how did we get the moon?
By a perfectly timed collision of a Mars-sized body coming at a very specific direction, at exactly the right speed, not too fast or massive to destroy us, and not too small to fail to do the job.
Direction matters, but unlike the other major moons in the solar system, ours is the only one that orbits around the planet's equator.
If it orbited normally, we wouldn't stay in our orbital plane and exert its torque in a sun-vector alignment, which stabilizes our axis.
Yet another accident.
This is an extremely unlikely universe, so unlikely that even the most diehard physicists concede that the cosmos is insanely improbable in terms of its life-friendliness.
This hyper-unlikely nature, on strictly a physical level, makes physicists sigh with discomfort and that will admit that some sort of scientific explanation is badly needed.
And by the way, when we talk about...
The uninhabitable universe, the vast majority of what we know about everything outside of our planet is that it reeks of death.
It's not sustainable for life at all.
At least not the biological life that we know about and that we see and that we observe.
It's a death trap.
You know, I'm a big Rob Ager fan.
I'm a big Stanley Kubrick fan.
Coalition of Learning.
He does a lot of Kubrick breakdowns.
And, you know, when I heard him talking about 2001 A Space Odyssey, one of my favorites, he's like, you know, overall, I think that movie is just about the absurdity of space travel and how science fiction it really is.
Okay?
That's a side note.
We're going to continue with this.
About three, four minutes left.
And then, You know, just to kind of reiterate what this guy is saying about the mysteries of the universe, I'm going to play this clip of Wernher von Braun, the Nazi war criminal slash NASA pioneer, the Saturn V rocket guy himself, talking about the existence of God and his soul.
If we apply Occam's razor, that is, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, biocentrism offers the most obvious explanation for our improbable life-friendly universe.
Why?
To me, the answer is simple.
The laws and conditions of the universe allow for the observer because the observer generates them.
So, what are the implications of all this?
The acceptance of biocentrism would have a positive psychological outcome on our mindset.
Most of us seek a meaning to life in the search for what's real.
The biocentric paradigm goes a long way towards aiding our understanding of the cosmos, including our underlying unity with nature and the observer, with all of its implications, chief among them the unreality of death.
Science's assumption of a dumb, random universe in which life arose by chance has the secondary effect of isolating us from nature.
It makes most people feel inconsequential and lucky even to be alive.
This, together with the growing abandonment of religion, has led to a sense that in a cosmos ruled by accidents, we need to exploit the environment and grab what we can.
It has set up an antagonistic outlook, man against nature.
The current paradigm has proven more than merely incapable of producing any picture of reality that makes sense.
It has fundamentally alienated us from nature.
And this part is so key.
And you can tell he's getting a little angry here because he's so right.
He's like, the scientific community has essentially tried to divide us as humanity from nature of which we are a part of.
And without both, neither could possibly exist, let alone thrive.
And this idea, again, that they are constantly pushing, especially the transhuman idea, is that you don't matter, that you're zeros and ones, that actions don't have consequences, that we're not in a biological reality.
Notice biocentrism is right in the title, right?
That's why they're selling you on a multiverse.
It's not what this guy's selling you on at all.
He's selling you on the idea that you are special, you are consequential, you are part of this infinite consciousness that has yet to be acknowledged by mainline science.
On a personal level, what benefits might specifically accrue?
Of course, truly seeing that we're one with nature, that consciousness is correlative with nature, immediately helps lessen our war with the environment.
There's also satisfaction in having a worldview that finally makes sense.
All the nagging experiments that point to the importance of the observer, all the bothersome reasons a materialistic picture of reality doesn't hold water, it would be good to jettison all the conflicting oddities that most people shrug off as not being smart enough to understand physics.
We want our science to work, with biocentrism it can.
Importantly, there's no ethics or morality associated with the current scientific worldview.
However, in time, biocentrism will lead to a view not unlike the Navi in the movie Avatar.
Of course, the impact of a new paradigm takes time.
The more people who understand the basic premise, the more humanistic society's inclinations will be.
For instance, we think there is an enclosing wall, a circumference to us.
We suppose ourselves to be a pawn, and if there's any consequence to our actions, if there is any justice, it must accroach upon these shores.
Biocentrism explains the union that the one man and creature have with the other.
The criminal and the victim are one and the same.
Justice is built into the fabric of nature.
Make no mistake about it.
It will be you who looks out the eyes of the victim or the recipient of kindness, whichever you choose.
Nature's justice is inescapable and absolute.
This is, therefore, the indispensable prelude to justice in its highest form.
We are forced to recall the words of John Donne, Never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
Science is just beginning to grasp the nonlinear dimensionality of nature.
The late physicist Hans Pagel once said, If you deny the objectivity of the world, Unless you observe it and are conscious of it, as most physicists have, then you end up with solipsism, the belief that your consciousness is the only one.
Pagel's conclusion is right, only it isn't my consciousness that's the only one, it's ours.
According to biocentrism, our individual separateness is an illusion.
There is no doubt...
That consciousness, which was behind a youth you once were, is also behind the mind of every animal and person existing in space and time.
There are, wrote Lauren Isley, the great anthropologist, very few youths who will pause coming from a biology class to finger a yellow flower or to poke in friendly fashion at a sunning turtle on the edge of the campus pond and who are capable of saying to themselves, we are all one, all melted together.
Thank you.
We are all one, all melted together.
All right, I promised you this Yvonne Braun clip, then we're going to wrap it up.
Remember, if you haven't, thumbs it up, subscribe, share, check out the links down below to support the broadcast, or watch the documentary films.
You're missing out!
Here we go!
Today, more than ever before, our survival, yours and mine and our children's, Depends on our adherent to ethical principles.
Ethics alone will decide whether atomic energy will be an earthly blessing or the source of mankind's utter destruction.
Where does the desire for ethical action come from?
What makes us want to be ethical?
I believe there are two forces which move us.
One is belief in a last judgment when every one of us has to account for what he did with God's great gift of life on the earth.
The other is belief in an immortal soul, a soul which will cherish the award or suffer the penalty decreed in a final judgment.
Belief in God and in immortality thus gives us the moral strength.
And the ethical guidance we need for virtually every action in our daily lives.
In our modern world, many people seem to feel that science has somehow made such religious ideas untimely or old-fashioned.
But I think science has a real surprise for the skeptics.
Science, for instance, tells us that nothing in nature, not even the tiniest particle, can disappear without a trace.
Think about that for a moment.
Once you do, your thoughts about life will never be the same.
Science has found that nothing can disappear without a trace.
Nature does not know extinction.
All it knows is transformation.
Now, if God applies this fundamental principle to the most minute and insignificant parts of his universe, doesn't it make sense to assume that he applies it also to the masterpiece of his creation, The human soul?
I think it does.
And everything science has taught me and continues to teach me strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death.
Nothing can disappear.
Nothing can disappear.
Think about that for a minute.
It's pretty wild, right?
But it's in line with what we just saw there.
Folks, if you want to know more, I would encourage you to also go check out the Gateway Process Analysis and Assessment of the CIA document.
It is on their own website.
Very, very easy to read.
Only 29 pages.
We've gone over it here on the broadcast before.
Remember to give me a follow over on X and on the other platforms.
And if you can, $5, $10, $15.
It means the world to me.
There's some other links down below.
I'm a documentary filmmaker.
I think they stand up today.
Invisible Empire, A New World Order Defined, Shade the Motion Picture, Fable to Enemies, and Loose Change Final Cut.
Remember, folks, to this guy, it is not about left or right.
It is always about right and wrong.
We're going to continue to delve into the nature of reality.
I absolutely love you guys.
▲
Export Selection