Man with 200 IQ on the Human Singularity | Chris Langan

Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the  human singularity versus the theological, sorry, versus the technological singularity? The tech  singularity. Well, the human singularity, it's all about how it's all about human destiny and how  responsibility for human destiny is distributed.

All right? If there's a tech singularity, if  there's a human singularity, we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and  where it's going and how to realize it. All right?

That distributes the whole thing over humanity as  a whole, and no one gets left out. If we have a tech singularity, everything will be controlled  by the people who own the technology. Those are megacorporations, okay, run by people who are not  typically very nice or public-spirited people.

They're highly acquisitive. Okay? They tend to be  narcissistic, Machiavellian, sadistic sometimes.

Basically, these are not all good people. I mean,  there are exceptions. There's some people, you know, that have a lot of money or are in charge  of various kinds of technological enterprise that aren't totally bad people.

But when you put too  many of them together, they start getting the idea that they're elite and they should be in charge,  and they start deciding that people are useless eaters. There are too many of them, and for the  good of the planet, and really because they're a nuisance, we have to get rid of them. All right? 

This kind of talk has been going on for centuries, all right? A lot of people aren't aware of it,  but the elite tend to form these ideations when left to their own devices. Okay?

So if there's  a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology, that technology will be used  against the human species. It's almost certain. That is called a parasitic divergence, where they  become a parasitic subspecies of the human race, and the rest of us become their host.

Now, the  human singularity, it's one that you advocate for, something that we should have instead of the  technological singularity. What is the human singularity? Well, it's been laid out by others. 

For instance, Teilhard de Chardin. You're probably familiar with him. He was a Jesuit priest who came  up with this idea of the Omega Point.

Okay, we're approaching this quickening of consciousness,  where we're going to realize what we are, who we are, our relationship with God and reality,  and fulfill our destiny. And this is going to be this huge worldwide global event, and it's going  to save us and allow us to pass through the Great Filter and realize our destiny. That's what it  is.

He used that term Great Filter, or did you just come up with that? Great Filter? No, Great  Filter is a term that's been around for a while.

It's basically every species, you know, as it  develops technology and starts killing itself with pollution and overpopulation and all this,  every species comes to a point where it either has to grow up and live sanely and sustainably in its  environment, or it dies. Part of the technological singularity, one of the reasons why people are  venerating it is because there's the potential for minds to be uploaded into classical computers.  Oh, really?

And whose theory is that? Right, right. This is what I want to ask you about.

There  is no theory. It has no underlying theory. Why do you laugh?

Why is it absurd? And let's  imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to, but some other,  maybe quantum computer. Why is that outrageous?

Because that's not the way reality is structured.  Reality exists on other terms entirely. You're not going to build a machine.

It is not mechanical.  It is metamechanical or protomechanical. You might be able to call it that, but you're not going  to be able to use a universal Turing machine, or for that matter a quantum Turing machine, to  simulate it.

It can't be done. All right? It does not satisfy the requirements for existence.

There  is no theory. There is no theory of transhumanism, how this whole thing is going to occur. All  right?

Unless you can point me to a theory. Now, if you can do that, I'll change my mind. I'm an  open-minded person.

I don't think there is such a theory. You just mentioned mechanical. Is this  because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telecausation, or is this unrelated  to that?

Telecausation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is.  Mechanical causation is incoherent. You have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be  bolted together in the right way that the machine works, performs a function the way it's supposed  to, but they don't work coherently in the sense of quantum mechanics.

Telerecursion is coherent  in the sense of quantum mechanics. All right? So, you know, everything is superposed on each  other.

All of the possibilities interfere within these quanta of causation called telons,  which are just configurations of telors like you. Do you have any thoughts as to entanglement speed?  So what I mean by that is some theories predict that there's a maximum speed of entanglement. 

Right now, as far as we can tell, there's no speed to it. It's just instantaneous. I'm curious  if, in your models, it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere  simultaneously, or if there is also a speed associated with it.

Well, you're just talking  about some kind of terminal lag. In reality, entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain  where things are metasimultaneous. It is not appropriate to try to schedule them the same way  things are scheduled in the terminal domain.

But there could be a little bit of a lag where, yes,  there is some measurable amount of time that it takes for things to become entangled once  their wave functions hit each other. That is a calculation I have not yet performed. How does  one solve the liar's paradox in your model?

The upper amenities paradox? The one that says this  sentence is false. Right.

Well, you simply exclude that kind of sentence from reality. You say, oh,  that is a pathological construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain. Unless you  can find me an instantiation.

And I don't think you can, because it's a paradox. So it's akin to  naïve set theories moved to ZFC, where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements  of themselves. A set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves.

It's akin to that. You  just negate it. You say that's not a possibility.

It is a possibility. You just can't involve  the negation part of it. You can't involve the self-negation part of it.

You can have sets that  are self-inclusive. We've got self-inclusion all over the place. Fractal geometry.

There are all  kinds of things. Consciousness itself. All kinds of things that are self-inclusive.

But you can't  allow this misuse of the negation function. Okay, you can't allow that to intrude on them and render  them paradoxical. That's what I'm saying.

Is there a realm, like the pre-infocognitive realm, this  primordial place, unbounded teslsis's place, where, as far as I understand, paradox roams.  It's fine. It's just in our experience, our world of the terminal.

Right, right. It  can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form, which is sufficiently well-formed that you can  apprehend it, or think you apprehend it. But in reality, it is incapable of instantiation.

You  can formulate it, and then you can envision it in the non-terminal realm. You cannot, however,  achieve an instantiation, an actualization, because it violates the terms of existence in the  terminal realm. Physical existence.

What happens after death? So there's a couple ways to interpret  that. What I mean is, let's talk about what is death, and what does it mean to die?

That's  the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this  present time. When you are retracted from this realm, you go back up toward the origin of  reality. You can be provided with a substitute body, another kind of terminal body, that allows  you to keep on existing.

With the same memories, or. . .

This is what religions. . .

Excuse me. With  a modicum of your memories before, or a complete eraser? You can have.

. . These memories can be.

. .  Nothing goes out of existence in the conspansive method.

Your memories can always be pulled back  out, if that's. . .

But there's no reason to do that, usually. Why cling to memories of a world  in which you are no longer instantiated? So there are certain automatic psychological things that  happen on death, at the moment of death.

And also, you mentioned what happens after death.  That's not quite appropriate, of course, because that's a temporal preposition, and  when you're extracted from the terminal domain, you're no longer time-like. Now you're basically  metatemporal.

However, you exist that way right now. Arguably, all of your lifetimes, if you were  to be reincarnated again and again and again, all of those reincarnations are metasimultaneous.  There is a sense in which they all occur at once, in the non-terminal.

So when people talk about  heaven, which I know you have your own views, a specific differentiated view, I haven't heard  before, as to what heaven is, and even hell. When people talk about heaven, usually what they mean  is something like re-instantiation of this body, with probably a better hairline than I have.  You've got a great hairline.

You should see Bernardo Kastrup. I should put you in touch with  him. Have you heard of Bernardo Castro?

I've heard of Bernardo, yes. As a matter of fact, I think he  was on an email distribution. I think it was one of Jack Sarfatti's email distributions.

Who's  that? Jack who? Jack Sarfatti.

Jack Sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics. Aha. Is  he related to UFOs?

Does he study UFOs? Yeah. As a matter of fact, I think right now he's  working on metamaterials that will allow us to build spacecraft that emulate Tic-Tacs.

Remember  those Tic-Tacs? We're going to talk about that, man. I mean, yeah, he's a Gonzo physicist,  right?

But he's been around since the 1960s, and he and a bunch of other guys, you know, like  Sarag, and Nick Herbert, and Fred Allen Wolfe, and other people like this. There's a guy named  David Kaiser. I think he's at MIT.

He wrote a book called How the Hippies Saved Physics. And these  were the guys, these were, you know, non-locality, and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes  came from these guys. But in reality, they have a lot of very productive thoughts.

And in a way,  the world we're living in now is an outgrowth of some of what they were thinking and doing  in those days. Huge update. I just launched a substack a few weeks ago.

It was somehow awarded  the 2024 Featured Publication Award. If you enjoy these videos, remember that they're usually  available several days or even weeks ahead of time on my substack. Click the link in the  description to head over there now and subscribe.

The writings there are currently about language,  ill-defined concepts, the behind the scenes of the highs and lows of meeting Roger Penrose.  That one went semi-viral, by the way. As well as some of the other mathematical details. 

There's much more being written there. It's content that isn't available anywhere else.  It's not even on Theories of Everything, the YouTube channel.

It's not on Patreon.  Also, full transcripts will be placed there at some point in the future. Several people say  to me, Curt, you've spoken to so many people in the fields of theoretical physics and philosophy  and consciousness.

What are your thoughts? Now, while I remain impartial during the interviews,  this substack is a way to peer into my present deliberations on these topics. Head  over to substack.

com and subscribe.