Transcription
[Music] Hello everyone. I'm about to claim that I have proof that we live in a simulation. Now, I know it's a lot to live up to, so either I just shot myself in the foot, or I have something that is truly enormous and profound for you. [Applause]
But first, let me unpack what's the biggest impediment to what I'm trying to communicate. It's not in the merit of what I'm trying to say; no, what I found is real. It's that the way we can observe it is outside of the domain of what science deems to be credible. How do we deem what's real? How do we decide what, in fact, is real? I would claim that this question is very complicated. The way we decide what's real nowadays is through the scientific method, and it's a really good method. The scientific method essentially states that if you can observe something over and over and over again, and you can reproduce the results, you can ask the right questions, and you can theorize the right things about the process, you will get something fundamentally true.
The problem with that is that we're looking at it through the senses, the way that we perceive them. What if I told you that in order to see a portion of reality that we so far have not been seeing, the only way to do that is to be in an altered state? Now, this is not a new statement all by itself. People have claimed this many times: that when they do certain substances, or they go into a trance, or they have certain meditation experiences, they seem to see another portion of the world that we don't usually see.
Now, that's a deal breaker for science right there because they deem those states incoherent. I mean, obviously, by definition, you're confused about what, in fact, is going on. Well, I beg to differ, and I'll tell you why I disagree. I'm not saying that the scientific method is wrong; it absolutely is the most valuable thing we have. But it's time for us to venture into new territories of observations in order to discover what, in fact, is there.
Obviously, we don't see the majority of the electromagnetic spectrum. We only see what is the tiny sliver of visible light, and we know that other things are out there. But we know that because we built instruments that can sense this part of the electromagnetic field, and we built other instruments to interact with other fields that tell us that they're there. We also build models or theories that allow us to probe into the more speculative nature of the bigger pictures in the universe, and those models are taken more seriously simply because they rest on very heavy mathematics that seem to match with other predictions that we can measure.
All of that is a super valuable and a super valid way to look at the world. In fact, there is no better way of coming at a problem as far as we know today. But here's why I'm making my suggestion: I'm about to claim to you that I found a way to stabilize a signal from those altered states that allow you to see something that is as real as a table, as a chair, as anything that you want to define as real in this three-dimensional space.
How do I know that? Well, that's a tricky question, but the short answer is I know that using the same criteria of determining what is real that I use every single day. This is where the new kind of observation idea comes in because by seeing this, I realize that certain things hold a quality that we don't know how to talk about. Everything in our physical world is just defined as the physical world, and therefore we don't think of it in any special terms.
The fact that things don't just disappear, the fact that they're always there no matter when you look at them—unless you move them, of course—and there's a certain other quality that we don't usually think about. But there's a certain rigidity; it's almost like an insistence of the object to be itself. It's a very, very elusive quality that I don't think we have a word for, and I honestly didn't come up with a good word for it yet. But I think the best way I found to describe it is that it's epistemologically sound, which I know sounds loaded, but essentially all it means is that it has this quality of realness. It's very clearly there, or at least the way that your brain is simulating it is not the same as you being bamboozled by, let's say, darkness or shadows.
It's not the same as walking in the middle of the night and looking at a tree and not being sure if the tree is a person or not. Even when you're having that experience at night and you're not sure if it's a person or a tree, it's clear to you that you don't quite know. It's clear to you that you're in a confused state. What I'm claiming to have found is like a chair sitting in front of you. It's very coherent; it's right there. It is not the same as the experiences that people report, even though they feel real. Those spaces are very big, and they're shifting constantly. They have a lot of colors, and they have a lot of light. People are confused by the space, but it feels real.
But you can't take it home with you. You can't say anything outside of, like, "Hey, I had this experience, and it felt real." For the most part, I fully agree. If all you can come up with are these esoteric stories that you have in altered states, no matter how many of those stories compile together, it will never amount to true proof of anything. And we're not going to have any way to talk about these things objectively until maybe we have some more advanced tools, like Neuralink linking our brains or projecting our thoughts onto a screen, which will make it more feasible to think about ways in which we can agree on what is actually being observed.
But what if I told you that without any Neuralink, you can actually produce the same observation over and over and over again? The same exact one, in fact. No matter how many people stand in the room at the same time, they would see exactly the same thing. So here's the secret. You ready for this? I want to be clear: I'm not condoning anyone doing drugs, but it just happens to be the case that if you smoke dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and then you project a 650-nanometer refracted laser, I will show you exactly what it means at the end of the video.
Of course, be very careful when because you are in an altered state, and you project it on a wall or on the door. If you do that and you look into the laser, you will see something very interesting inside—not in the light itself, but behind the light. You will see patterns, but more than that, you would see numbers running. Now, the thing here is that it's not like because you're in a psychedelic state you see all those patterns moving around, and any random pattern will transform into random things, which psychedelics absolutely do. You will see something very coherent, and if you move the laser, you will notice that it's not moving with the laser. The laser, in fact, is moving across a sea of information. It's like it's shining through; it's showing us what's behind.
If you look inside, you will notice that it's a different frame of reference. You actually—it's on a different plane. So this is the end of the door; the laser is shining right here. Whatever is inside is not moving when you move the beam of the laser. It has real coordinates in space. It's very clear; you can identify the motion, you can identify the qualities, and you can talk about it in just as real terms as you can talk about a table or a chair in the room.
Now, I showed this to many people at this point, and this is how I have the confidence to say that this is actually there. What is the actual nature of this? I have some strong speculations, and also I've gathered some extra information that tells me a little bit more about what I think it is, but I can't pretend like I fully understand. I'm putting it out for the world because I've approached a few researchers with this. Some got interested, but for the most part, I feel like it falls on flat ears.
Now, it's completely understandable because, I mean, at the end of the day, you think about the claim—the claim is crazy—and I would probably react the same. In fact, I would never entertain something like this as true unless I would see it myself. But also, it might be because of the lack of clout. Let me see; I simply—I'm not an official scientist anywhere, so I don't really have credentials running in front of me. Why would anybody take my emails seriously? I completely understand that. I understand that this is a big claim, and it will require way more than, you know, a few dozen people seeing it.
But this is why a bigger research is required, and I think it's important that we understand this thing quicker because it points to something in reality that is actually there, actually real. And there's no better place than the internet to just put it out to the world. Now, I understand the problematic nature of a video of this sort. I understand that essentially if and when this video is going to get some traction, and people are going to try it and see that it works, and they're going to comment, and it's going to, you know, grow in popularity, eventually we'll get to the attention of some serious scientists.
And the main problem there would be, "Well, guess what? Confirmation bias!" Now you've implanted this meme, this idea into the world that this weird code is running behind a laser when you're on some psychedelic drug, and now we can't study it because now everybody knows about it, and they would expect to see it there, and therefore we can say that our brain manifests it. I understand, but my contention is that when people will see it, they will understand what I mean by it's very clear that it's not produced by your brain.
So I'm going to take the chance with this. I'm just going to run with it, and hopefully, we can have a real, honest adult conversation about what it is. I'm not claiming to have some kind of big answers about the larger structure. I have some firm contenders for what it might be, but I'm not claiming to understand fully. And that's also why I'm putting it out there, because I want people to all investigate, all look, and then put in their five cents about what they think this is, and we can all come together and start having a real conversation because something very big is going on here.
The larger claim is that, well, either we actually live in a simulation, and that's what this is—the source code that is running the place—or we get to peer into this parallel dimension that has this code running in it. Whatever it is, it's there; it's 100% there. And I think it's time for science to start loosening up a little bit their ways and methods of doing things and experimenting with new ways of trying to understand the world. Because if there is an entire sliver of reality that we simply can't see because of how we're constructed—there are certain bandwidths that we can't actually absorb—then no matter what instruments you're going to build, you're not going to see them, even with those instruments.
Now, what if the only, at the moment, the only instrument to see this thing is to alter our brain, and then using this laser helps us to actually, just like a telescope looks at light that comes from very far away, this laser somehow—the refraction itself—allows us to peer into that space. Somehow, the information carried from that space is sifting through into our space through that wavelength. But in addition to that, we might need to be in a different state to actually be able to see it. Now, that's something that at the moment science doesn't come close to entertain that notion or that idea, but I think it should.
I believe that this is the beginning of the biggest discovery of humankind. Given it's very possible—and even much more plausible than not—that this video is going to be ignored for a very long time, I'm going to keep trying to talk to researchers and individuals and explain what I found. And I think it's up to all of us to make that discovery together because it's way too big for one individual to handle. Either it says something about our brain—my contention is that it's not in our brain; it is real.
And it's also why specifically with DMT it feels so real, because we go to a real place. The difference between any other claim that was put on the table on the subject before and what I'm saying is that this is the first time we have a tool that potentially can help us talk about this thing in objective terms. I want to be very clear: every time I tell it to somebody, and I tell them, "Hey, I think we either live in a simulation or this is a parallel dimension," and their response is, "Well, yeah," I immediately know that we're not on the same wavelength. Because if it's obvious to you, then there's something off about your reasoning. This should not be obvious to you. That's not an obvious thing; that's not anywhere proven.
This is not something that we know about for sure. This is a lot of speculation that a lot of people come up with that I personally heard many times and experienced this place, but I couldn't say with any amount of certainty that this is anything outside of real. Something really interesting about my brain: this is the first time that we can look at something together and agree that it's there. And again, you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So because of the size of the claim, this doesn't amount to anything that meets the criteria of what extraordinary evidence would be, but this is a very good place to start.
This is a real conversation we should start having. This is why I'm putting this video out there, because I think we need to have this conversation. It's maybe also important to say how I reached this conclusion. A few years ago, I had some of those ultra-realistic experiences with DMT. A lot of people have different kinds of experiences on dimethyltryptamine, and some report those like ultra-realistic, like very real encounters with beings. Things look like it's a real space, so this is very common.
But then I asked myself, "Okay, wait a second. If this is a real space, there must be some answers here. There must be some way of determining whether it is a real space or it's not a real space." So therefore, I decided that there must be some part of it that, if the space is real, we should be able to all see it somehow. We should be able to stabilize part of the signal in a way that we can all agree on. And it took me years of thinking about it, and then something very interesting happened.
And this is the part where, you know, I'm going to sound crazy to you—like 100 percent. There's no way around that. If you can sit through this part, then we're good, but I'm going to sound bonkers. I started getting hints from somebody—like, you know, this whole numerology thing, which I'm really not big on. For example, I was walking on the street in the middle of the night, and I was thinking about this. And then I looked down, and I saw, you know, those watering power marked numbers on the floor.
At the same time, I was also working on an edit. I'm an editor; I was having a hard time with this one scene where the color just wouldn't match. So I looked at it, and at the same time while I was thinking about this subject, I saw this number on the floor. And I was like, "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if this would match some kind of LUT number that will help me fix the color problem?" So I took a picture of that, and then when I got back home, I just put that number in Spotlight on a Mac—not even in a Google search—and what came up was astonishing.
The number—the only thing that it matched with, because it also searches through the web—was a number of a paper that was put out by CERN about the discovery of the Higgs boson particle, about some specific decay of a particle. And what I was thinking when I saw this number was the possibility that light might be able to carry some of that information in the fringes of the halo that it creates. It matched so well what I was thinking about and the paper from CERN. I mean, think about this: the number matches one paper and one paper only with that number in the entire internet. That's what it found.
Pause on that for a second. That was more than just some kind of random coincidence of like, "I saw the number 111 somewhere," right? So I kind of started going down that rabbit hole, and I started uncovering more and more clues like that that happened in the right place at the right time. And eventually, I arrived at this conclusion that somehow—I don't remember the exact trajectory of that rabbit hole—but I arrived at the conclusion that a 650-nanometer laser is what you want.
And then I think another piece of information came in: the Tombi wall—you also have to refract it. So something about the refraction itself actually allows you to see that. I haven't gotten to the bottom of why it works, but it does. I happen to have some more information about this that is less solid than this, just simply because I can't prove it to you because it rests more on my account of what, in fact, now the experience that I'm going through when I'm smoking.
It's something shifted, by the way. So after I built it, my experience is very different, and I will not say different in what way at the moment because this will make anybody who listens to this just disregard my video because I'm going to sound completely crazy. And if and when we're going to start having the larger conversation about this, then I can deliver more details. But for now, there you have it. Now you know.
Now I'm going to show you what the laser looks like, and I'm going to show you how you can build one. So this is the first prototype that I built. This is Mambo; his name is Mambo Number Five. This looks very complicated, but it really isn't. All it is is one of these little lasers.
Okay, so let me show you. This is a newer version of this; it's a little bit more compact. So you see the battery pack is right here. I just basically put it on a tripod so I can put it anywhere in the room. And these specific lasers that I'm going to leave the link in the description to—make it clear I'm not making any money from these lasers or anything. There's just a link to Amazon or some store in Alibaba you can buy. I'm not selling this, but these lasers are particularly good because they never create a short.
They're relatively—the pace with which they exert energy is actually very, very steady, and they're not as strong, so there's less risk of, like, you know, doing something to a cornea, which is good because you're in an altered state. And then basically, when you turn it on—I don't want to aim it at the camera, but let's see it on my hand here. So right there, as you can see, it's an X. As you can see the next, and you put it on a wall or anything really, on the door.
And I'll also leave the link in the description for how to build the circuit for it. Of course, you can use any laser as long as it's refracted; it doesn't really matter. This one just comes with the refractor already inside, so all you got to do is build the simplest circuit. And this is essentially just like the official original model that I built because I also added a microscope lens here, which kind of amplifies it a little bit and helps you see, but it's not necessary.
I also—it kind of looks, you know, kind of weird like that because I thought I'm going to put extra lenses to play with, but I ended up not doing that for a while. This one was just a little more, as you can see. So same idea, but essentially that's all you need. And if you happen to be ingesting DMT, then you'll see what I'm talking about.
The only thing I would add as a caveat is that you do want to try a few times. There's a substantial amount of people that I notice that it takes them a little—like sometimes it takes some, like, some sit with it. Like they have to take some—a little second to see it, but when you see it, you can't unsee it. From that point on, you see exactly what it is; you know what to look for. You don't have to be on copious amounts of DMT either. You don't need a lot to see this; you can be right on the surface.
I would say that in the beginning, before you saw it for the first time, you would need a little bit more just to—because it amplifies it; it's more visible, easier. So it's easier to find. After you find it, you don't need that much to actually just—you kind of ride it out. That's also why it's better to do it with a vape. Of course, you can do it in any other way, but it just becomes very convoluted when you're trying to sit in front of a door and staring at a laser and, you know, having like a bong or something.
It's just very convoluted. You can have your own experience; you can, you know, lunch or whatever, and that's a separate part of it. So it's not—I'm not so much doing this video for, like, the self-growth part. It can be tremendously beneficial; I want to stress that. Also, it's not for everybody because it is a pretty crazy experience, and some people can even be traumatizing. So that's a serious disclaimer: if you have some, you know, mental issues or things like that, don't even come near this.
Only the people who feel like they're emotionally stable or have some experience with the molecule, let's say you, if you're already doing it, you can do this as well and see what I'm talking about. But I don't condone the use of drugs, and this is purely in the name of science because I think we have something enormous here. So I would never put out a video like this otherwise.
That's it for me, really, for this one. We'll see how this one does. If it actually becomes, you know, popular and people ask questions and try and see that it actually works, we'll have a larger conversation. For now, that's all I can say about this, and that's all I'm interested to say on the subject. I'm not trying to start anything but a real search for the truth.
And I don't see—like, if we're going to go through the regular channels of science, this is going to take decades because not only that, you don't really have the willingness by most scientists to look at it this way. I see that there's almost like a marriage to the other side of it, which is even the experts that study DMT, like in Johns Hopkins. I heard this interview on Lex Friedman, and Matthew Johnson, I think his name is—he's, you know, he's one of the leading experts in the world.
And Lex asked him point-blank, "Do you think that those entities are real?" And he answered in a nice way, but he basically, essentially said, "No way." Like he said, "It's possible," but, you know, it's possible that—I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something along the lines of, like, "It's also possible the moon is made out of cheese." Like, it's not what he said, but something along the—essentially what he meant is he doesn't think it's possible.
So even the biggest experts who are closest to the subject, they don't think of that state as something that we can extrapolate real information from. They know that it's helpful; they know that it's healing for people; they don't know exactly why, but that's as far as they go. If we're going to go about this in those terms, it's going to take 20, 30 years, maybe a century, because the conversation has to also involve then redefining ontology itself. It's like, what is the actual pool of information we're willing to sample from?
And I would say we're at the point now that we need to reassess that, and I'm backing it up with something—not just what I'm saying. What's also interesting is that when you talk to people who are on the other side of this debate—essentially the people who have some experience with the molecule on a professional level, like shamans and people who are facilitators and people who are very well-versed and experienced with the space—they have a different resistance to it because they have their own story about it.
They already—they, as far as I can tell, they're tainted by the allegories and the myths around it. And for them, it's, you know, the god and the spirits, which again, everything is possible. But I think in the name of progress, we want to adopt a little bit more of a modern attitude towards this. If there's a real truth there, we should be able to talk about it in real terms.
There seems to be this giant divide between the scientific side and the people who believe in spirituality to different degrees, and I think it's one of language, really. I can't tell you how many times I hear—you know, I've been to this conversation one time; it really illustrates it well. I was in a conversation on Clubhouse in which people were talking about aliens, and Eric Weinstein came up, and he was talking about it.
And it was—he was expressing his personal trajectory through the space in which he said that he never considered it, and now he's starting to adopt it because of certain new information that comes in. And he feels frustrated that scientists don't take certain bits of evidence more seriously because they now start pouring in. And then a lady came up, and she started saying, "Well, first I want to say that, of course, it's obvious; we all know that when you go into the fifth dimension, and this happens."
And within three seconds, Eric was out of the conversation, which I don't blame him. I mean, this is not—this is a very—I know it's couched in this pretend humility, but it's not. When you know that these things are not obvious, don't say they're obvious. You first have to acknowledge that, "Hey, what I'm saying might not be everybody's cup of tea. Hey, what I'm saying maybe sounds a little crazy." But I never hear that said from the, you know, from the side that makes those claims.
But also from the scientific perspective, I don't see more openness to real evidence when they are available. Even without what I'm telling you now, there's enough on the table from these spaces that is worth considering and worth considering seriously. There are now thousands of accounts of people who are saying, "Listen, this doesn't feel like a drug; it feels like you're entering a real space." At a certain point, this should be taken more seriously.
Now, there are organizations, I must say, for example, like DMTx, that are dedicated to studying this in a more serious manner, which is collecting all the accounts of different people and then seeing if we can build a map of the space. And I actually spoke to them, and they said that they will try and incorporate this into their experiments, so kudos to them. But other than that, I'm not really familiar with a lot of people who are serious scientists who are taking this more seriously, and they really should.
Because if you don't make yourself—if you don't expose yourself to information that is available, you're not doing real science. You just kind of silo yourself, and that's frustrating on that side. Now, as understandable as both those positions are, digging your heels in and deciding that whatever you already think you know is the thing—again, no matter how many years you went to school—that's not scientific. That is exactly the kind of dogma that science is great at combating.
So that's quite a lot. Go out, experiment in the name of science, in the name of progress. Sending much love to everybody. Happy science! So that information went there—that refraction—I can actually read things in it. Well, read is a stretch. [Music] [Music] Let's figure it out.