Episode 1800 Scott Adams: Biden Goes Begging For Oil, And Other Embarrassing International Updates

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization, Coffee with Scott Adams. I don't think it could be any better than this. No, no, this. This is the. The pinnacle. It's all good today. I think all of our problems have bottomed out and we're all good. And if you want to take it up another notch, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass. A tiger. Chelsea. I can't tell you. Joker flask. A vessel of any kind of. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. I'm reading a meme on. A meme on locals that I'm not going to read, but it's pretty funny. All right, Enjoy me. Now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine day of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous hip. And now why in the world. The locals platform allows you to put memes and images in the comments, but apparently you can't do that on YouTube. All right, did you see the story about the woman who. I guess she got ticketed for driving in the high capacity lane, the carpool lane, but she argued that she had a baby in her. I think it was eight months. Eight months along. And she argued that if that baby is alive, then there are two people in the car. What do you think of her argument? Well, who knows? I think arguing whether that's right or wrong is sort of irrelevant. It's sort of a power play. She'll win or she'll lose, and that's what it is. I don't think you could really argue that that's right or wrong, could you? It's just something we'll decide on. Now. It would be easy to say, well, but since you're inseparable and you're all going to the same place, it's like it's one person, but legally it's like it's two. All right, but suppose. Suppose they were to say the baby doesn't count. Here's a separate, separate little question for you. Is a person in a coma alive? Is a person in a coma alive? You say yes. Now, why do you say yes if there's no brain, no useful brain activity? So there's no brain activity that sort of relates to the external world. You'd say it's live. So you would be consistent if you said that a fetus was live and that a person in a coma is live. Right. Those would be consistent opinions. But wouldn't it be inconsistent to think that the baby is not alive, but the person who instead of a coma. I'm going to change this. I'm going to say under anesthetic is a person who's under anesthetic alive. Well, I would argue that that's a person who's potentially alive, just as I would argue that a fetus is potentially alive. What's the difference? Why can't you kill somebody if they're under anesthetic? I'm not serious, of course. It's just that you get into some weird. Some weird situations. Yeah. Let's say they both have a heartbeat, but, you know, but if there's no brain consciousness in both cases, you would need external help to have a successful life. So, I don't know, they seem kind of similar. I'm not making that argument for real. I'm just saying you get into some weird territory if you go down that. That track. Well, I was just telling the locals people that there's somebody on Twitter who has the word skeptic as a prominent part of their bio, their biography. So their bio says skeptic. It's like the big thing he wants to point out. And the skeptic, when he saw my list of the top 12 hoaxes in the headlines, he said he believes that every one of those is true. So he's a skeptic who believes that every one of the 12 hoaxes are real. They're all real. Okay, so it's up to 12 now since I added the Border Patrol agents, would you like a. I'll give just a rundown. You've heard them before. But if you haven't, here's the rundown of the top 12 hoaxes, and I put it in the form of a quiz to see, you know, how good you consume the news. All right. Russia collusion hoax, steel dossier, hooker story. Russia's playing Russia. Russia paying bounties on the US Soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump called neo Nazis fine people. Trump suggested drinking or injecting bleach to fight Covid. Trump overfed koi fish in Japan. Trump cleared protesters with tear gas. Bible photo op. Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation. Elections were fair because no court found major fraud. January 6th was an insurrection to overthrow the government. Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the beast. And Border Patrol agents whipped illegal border crossers. Now, wouldn't you say that there are lots more I could have added? It's just that these are so provably false. They're uniquely provably false to the extent you can prove it negative, meaning that there's no evidence for them. All right, so Ukraine has an interesting situation going on. Apparently there's some kind of satellite system that can measure the visible fires on the Earth. One way you can tell how things are going in Ukraine versus Russia is you can look overnight and see who's burning the most. If most of the fires under the Ukraine side, they're doing poorly. If there are more fires on the Russian side, then the Ukrainians are mounting a good counterattack. The suggestion is that a whole bunch of missile systems and artillery that's better, longer range, more accurate has been delivered to Ukraine by now. Now they don't have the numbers, but they have the accuracy and the modern convenience of, you know, it's just easier to use them, I guess. Now, I understand that 22 munition depots have been targeted and successfully destroyed. Here's my question. I'm no military Expert, but is 22 a lot? Does anybody know the answer to that question? Is 22 munitions depots, is that a lot? I don't really know because how many units are there operating? Wouldn't each unit roughly have its own munitions depot? Ish. You know, it's not one to one, but something like that, right? So how many. How many units are there in each, you know, that are far enough away from each other that they would need their own depots? So somebody says a depot might serve thousands of troops, but how many units of thousands of troops are there? And how quickly can you replace a weapons depot? It feels like that'd be easy to replace, right? It's just building. So I don't know if 22 weapons depots means they're running out of, I'm sorry, ammunition, or does it mean it's a drop in the bucket? Does it just break your head that the news doesn't tell you the most important part of that story? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most important part is how many, how many do you think they have? So in other words, is there anybody here who's a military expert or would know enough about this if you had to guess? Just a guess, I won't hold you to it. Somebody with actual military experience would really be able to answer this question. And if you have that expertise, put it in the comment, you know, I'm a X and I'm guessing there are about this many, because if it's only a few dozen, then they got most of them right. 22 is a few dozen. So here's my guess. Right? And by the way, the context for my guess is that I have a weird track record of guessing accurately things that I don't know anything about is sort of a theme in my life, and it's always been a theme. People have commented on it throughout my whole life. It usually involves numbers where I'll just look at some situation. I'll say, you know, I think you're gonna have to have at least, you know, 20 to 30 of whatever. And it turns out to be pretty close. So I'm gonna guess how many munitions depots you would need close to the front for the Russians. You ready? You can do it, too. Give me your number. 22 were destroyed in the past few months. How many do they need? What's the right number? Somebody says 500, somebody says 1,000. I don't have my number yet. I'm being influenced by your number so far. 70 to 80, 30, 40. You know, I wonder if the wisdom of crowds is useful on something like this. 60, 70. Yeah, my number is around 100. Now, I'm just guessing, but I feel like 100, and I feel like the 22 that got destroyed were probably replaced the next day, were they not? So regardless of how many munitions depots get destroyed, don't they just spin up another one the next day? Because I don't know that Russia has any manufacturing problems. I think they're making munitions as fast as they're using it. Right. That's one of the advantages they have. They can make as they go. So shouldn't Ukraine be blowing up the place that's making the munitions as opposed to the place that's storing them? And what would happen if they did? All right, let me ask you this. How many factories in Russia do you think make the munitions that matter, the ones that really matter to the Ukraine conflict? How many of them do you think there are? Somebody says four. Somebody says ten. I don't think we know, do we? It's probably four to ten, wouldn't you say? Somewhere. Somewhere in the neighborhood, somebody's three, three to a dozen somewhere in that neighborhood. Right now, somebody else is saying they don't have the weapons to do that. Is that true? You don't think we have the. You don't think Ukraine has the capacity to infiltrate Russia? I would imagine that the Ukrainians have infiltrated the living crap out of Russia. You don't think they're Ukrainian operatives running around in Moscow right now? I assume there are. I assume that there are Russians in Ukraine, too. I imagine so. You don't think you could get a, you know, a decent terrorist attack to target a munitions depot? Maybe it's just too hard. It could be they're too well defended and it's underground. Who knows? All right, well, so the. But the implication is that the number of fires has gone way up on the Russian side of the conflict, meaning that the Russians are taking lots of hits. In fact, more hits than the Ukrainians. And there was one report. And again, remember, everything that comes out of the. Of a war situation is fog of war, highly unreliable. But apparently the Russians stopped using artillery one day recently at 3 o' clock in the afternoon. What would be the reason that for the first time they would stop their attack in the middle of the afternoon? And one of the suggestions is they ran out of ammo. They might have ran out of ammo. So it's possible that the Ukrainians have a workable solution where they'll just take out the munitions on the other side and have better weapons. So we might be 30 days away from Ukraine having an artillery advantage. It's hard to predict this one, isn't it? Everything just keeps changing. Yeah, it could be a fantasy because Russia will always have the numbers, right, but the number of artillery doesn't make any difference if. If the number of munitions depots is smaller than the number of, you know, missiles that Ukraine has to destroy them. So it's going to come down to supply chain, isn't it? And I'm not entirely sure that Russia has the advantage there. You know, once it's attacked, they have the advantage until it's attacked. All right, now we'll see what goes on there. There was a great thread on that by Phillips P. O', Brien, who you should follow. So Brett Kavanaugh and his family went to a restaurant and protesters found out and they protested and he had to leave the restaurant. What do you think of that? I would like to call out one good joke about that situation with the caveat. With the caveat that this joke may not be in the direction of your political preference. So this would be a joke from somebody on the left who just told a good joke. So if you don't mind, I'm going to repeat the joke with credit because it's just a good joke. So don't worry about the politics of it. It's just a good joke. And this comes from Jennifer Wright talking about the Brett Kavanaugh thing. She says Brett Kavanaugh can still eat at restaurants in other states. I don't know why you're so upset. That's pretty good. That is pretty good. He can still eat at restaurants in other states right now. I'm not taking sides. That's just a good show. That's all. So here's what I think about all the Brett Kavanaugh stuff. So of course, conservatives are outraged that somebody's bothering justices in public, and they should be. And the left is saying, but this is a special case because this is so bad that something must be done. What do you think? I think this is another case of making the public think past the sale. In other words, both sides are bullshit because they're making you think past the sale. Go back to the sale. Go back to the sale. Because the sale is whether terminating babies or fetuses at certain times is murder or not. Doesn't it kind of depend if it's a holocaust? Let me put this in different terms. If there's nothing going on, as in abortion is just terminating a medical potential thing that you don't think was a life, well, then it's definitely, definitely inappropriate that anybody would protest these justices in public. If you assume that abortion is sort of no big deal. It's not even a life. You're just making a medical decision. But what if you assume the opposite? What if you assume it's like an ongoing rolling holocaust of millions of babies being murdered? If you believe millions of babies are going to be murdered and that Brett Kavanaugh is one of the people who's causing it to happen, is it inappropriate to bother him at a restaurant? In that case, I would say no, that's not inappropriate. If something is that important. That's not a big departure from civilized behavior if something's that important. But if it's not, you know, if they're not alive, the fetuses, that would be one point of view that is literally inappropriate. So be careful. If you are even arguing the question of whether it's appropriate or not for those protesters to be there, they've already made you think past the sale. Go back to the sale. Argue that AOC is being useful, which sort of validates the fact that I've said that she actually is an asset to the country. Now, I disagree with her and most things, but I still think she's an asset. I think she makes the conversation deeper. You know, she pushes hard. That's good. I like my arguments to be pushed, make sure they're good. But she's now backing a psychedelic reform. So she's trying to add to a bill that has to get passed for the military, some kind of amendment that would require the Department. Defense. Defense. To study the therapeutic potential of psilocybin and MD for military service members. Now, if AOC gets this done, if AOC gets this done,. She paid for herself, in my opinion. I know you don't like a lot of things she's done. I don't like them either. But if she gets this done and if it works, then she's paid for herself, I'd say, okay, you're a patriot. You hate that, don't you? Is it even possible that we could appreciate some things she does while still criticizing other things she does? Can we do that? It's hard to do, isn't it? But this is so unambiguously the right thing to do that I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna ignore it. I can't ignore this. This was the right thing to do. All right, we're all talking about Biden's begging for oil tour. The Biden begging tour. Remember when Obama did the apology tour, went around the country. This is how the news on the right characterized it, as apologizing or something. So Biden's going to go to Saudi Arabia, who basically doesn't have any more oil capacity. So Saudi Arabia can't help him. And he's going to totally reverse his last position that was we should be tough on them because of the murder of Khashoggi. And he's reversed that. Now he's going to go beg them for oil which they can't produce because they don't have any capacity. Now, I don't know about you, but if I gonna play the odds in this, I say there's about a 50% chance that Biden will be dismantled with a bone saw somewhere toward the end of the meeting. Now you say to yourself, I don't think they could, you know, use a bone saw and dismantle the President of the United States right in front of us. To which I say, have you seen his. Have you seen his approval levels? His approval levels are down in the 30s. If you can't use a bone saw on a guy like that, I don't know. So I'm going to put a 50% chance bone saw. So that's my prediction. I'll give it a 0% chance that he's going to fix the oil problem by this trip, but a 50% chance he's cut up with a bone saw and then Trump will get reelected and he will be soft on Saudi Arabia because they took down Biden with the bone saw. No, don't think I'm serious about this. I'm not serious. Come on. Come on. All right. Trump has declared victory in the 2020 election because of the Wisconsin decision that the ballot boxes were illegal. So I guess his argument is that any vote in a ballot box should be thrown out, which is not what the Supreme Court said. So the Supreme Court decision has more to do with upcoming elections and less to do with the past, but Trump is nonetheless taking this opportunity to declare he was the real winner. I think it's time for him to release. But wouldn't it be interesting if before 2024 there were events that emerged that shows the election really was rigged and we could prove it? I'm not predicting that'll happen. I don't think that'll happen. But wouldn't that be interesting? And according to the Elon Musk theory of reality, reality does bend toward the most entertaining outcome. Can you imagine anything more entertaining? I don't know. Could happen. So apparently I'm having trouble believing this is true, but I suppose it is. So Jack Posabic is reporting on this as well, so probably is. He always has good sources. So 4chan has evidently cracked Hunter Biden's iPhone and he got the backup password and they're leaking everything. Now, do you believe that? Do you believe that Apple can't crack its own system, but that 4chan can and the justice system can't? It feels a little too on the nose. It's a little too on the nose because you're sort of primed to believe that 4chan has these abilities because they have done lots of impressive things. Things. So there's no doubt about it, 4chan has done impressive things. But do you really think 4chan themselves hacked this? He had the lap. He had the password in his laptop. Somebody says, is that true? It's easy to guess the password of an idiot. Yeah. So somebody said in the comments here that 4chan is just the CIA. Maybe Apple was trying to suppress it. Yeah. So I'm going to say that I don't believe this story. I'm not going to say it's false, because that would be going too far. But I don't believe it. Does anybody else feel the same? Now, I do believe that we may have access to the contents, but I don't believe that There was a 4chan user who hacked it. Do you? I don't know. It feels a little. It's just a little too on the nose. The normies don't know what 4chan is. Oh, okay. Yeah, good point. So 4chan is an online destination that's typically completely unfiltered, unedited, and horrible things happen there. But is Often frequented by people with insanely good technical skills. Hackers and, you know, ordinary people. But the 4chan people are the sketchiest among our civilization because they're the ones with no filters. And civilization requires you to have a filter, but they don't. So do you really think that one of their people. And we always make fun of the fact that it's a weaponized autism or Asperger's. A lot of Asperger's people allegedly on there. I don't know. Yeah, it could be Russia, China, Saudi, could be anything. I'm not buying it. So the New York Times is reporting openly that Biden's age is becoming an issue. It quotes Democrats who are concerned about it, like David Gergen and stuff. And that does tell us that Biden is not running again. Right? I mean, I don't know about the technicality of the paperwork, but the New York Times is pretty much telling you that they're going to make sure he doesn't run for president. And I think they know that they're really screwed if he does, because he can't win. Now. Do you think Gavin Newsom has a chance? Suppose Gavin Newsom was the presidential candidate. You think it's decided already? I think he could win. Yeah, I think he could win. I think he could win outright. What do you think? Because here's the thing. He only needs to convince Democrats. That's it. You don't think Newsom can convince Democrats? I think he can. I think he can, yeah. Here, Jill Hitler. So just when you said, haven't we all been saying that the Democrats have a bad bench, but they know it, right? So Gavin Newsom, governor of California, Can't do that. So here's the surprise for you. If Gavin Newsom runs for president, all bets are off. All bets are off. I think he would run neck and neck with DeSantis. And then it's just who has more people who get sent to vote? I think he could run. Now, I'm not. That's not a prediction. I'm sorry. It's not a prediction that Gavin Newsom would win. It's a prediction that he has the skill to win and he only has to convince the Democrats. And that's an easy sale. It's not even his path to the presidency just cleared out. So now that you see the, you know, the left media is clearing Biden out, and I think they've already cleared Common out. So if you assume that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are not really serious competition to be running for president, I feel like Gavin Newsom has a wide path in now. Could Gavin Newsom beat Trump? Could. Could Gavin Newsom beat Trump? What do you think? Yep. Yeah, he could. Yeah, he could. I think Gavin Newsom would be Trump somewhat easily. Somewhat easily. I think. I think it would be. I think he would beat him with the same margin that Biden did. You can argue about the credibility of the vote. That's a different thing. But I think Newsom would beat Trump about the same way that Biden did. So here's the question. Do you feel comfortable that the Republicans are going to waltz into the White House? Because, you know, if, if Congress goes strongly to the Republicans, you know how that works, right? If Congress goes Republican, the White House is going to go Democrat because the public likes a split. They like a split. Doesn't work every time, but they like. I'm being biased from California. Well, probably. I'm probably being biased, but this is somebody who doesn't think that Gavin Newsom is two Democrats, a capable and powerful leader. Two Democrats. I think he is. Yeah. So. And you think DeSantis would be Gavin Newsom if, if Newsom ran against DeSantis? Just take a moment to think about it. They're both strong enough candidates that it wouldn't be about the candidate. Tell me I'm wrong. That if Gavin Newsom ran against DeSantis, it would not even be about the candidates because they're close enough and they're so popular within their parties. It's just party against party at that point. And that's just numbers. And then it's just who designed the election system. And then it's our ballot boxes legal this time or not. I mean, those are the things that matter. It won't even matter if they campaigned well because they'll both campaign well. Right? Gavin Newsom would campaign well. DeSantis would campaign well. I don't know. There's a good chance you're going to see a President Gavin Newsom. Good chance. Apparently we have information from the Department of Justice. So keep in mind this is a cross credible source for this kind of information. Right. Maybe they're not credible for political stuff, but for this kind of stuff, I'd call it our Department of Justice is credible and in writing, they've. They've indicted five individuals for crimes related to transnational repression schemes to silence critics of the. Of China residing in the United States. So the Chinese government has hired people who live in the United States. I think some of them might have been born in China and came here, but some look like they have, you know, real standard American names. So I think some of them are just people they bribed or whatever. But they had five people who are trying to silence critics of China in the United States. Now, reading between the lines, I think they mean Chinese born critics of China. Am I right? Did anybody else see this? I think they're only. They're only going. I don't think they're going after an American born in America who says bad things about China. I think they're going after people born in China who left China and say bad things about China. Am I right? Somebody says, yes, I think that's right. But let me ask you this. Whether that's right or not, how far away is that from China trying to kill me personally? I mean, there aren't too many people who are more hawkish on China than I am in public. Do you know anybody? Do you even know anybody who's more hawkish? I mean, I say we should attack inside the country of China to take out their fentanyl operation. I think we should blow it up inside the. There's nobody who is more hawkish than I am on China. Kyle Bass. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think he's more hawkish. He's in the neighborhood as mine, but I don't think he. He would. I don't know, but I doubt he would favor a military attack inside the country of China. And I do. I absolutely. It doesn't have to be a missile. It would be, you know, intelligence operation kind of thing. But I think we should find out where the fentanyl precursors are being created, and we should launch a terrorist attack and we should just blow the shit out of it. And when they rebuild it, we should blow it up again. Now, it could be that we don't have that kind of assets in China maybe, but I feel like we could get them, you know, find somebody in China who's bribeable and give them some weapons and see what happens. Chinese takeout has a different meaning now. You're right. China won't do shit to Scott. He tries to keep the border open for them. Let me correct you on that. My take on China is we should stop all. All of their students and all of their immigration from China to the United States. Now maybe. Maybe some scientists or some technical people, but I don't think we should let people from the United States into. From China into the United States. I don't even think we should let their apps in the United States I don't think. Let me be more clear because there's somebody on the locals platform who actually pays a subscription and doesn't know how hard my stance on China is. We should get rid of their fucking manufacturing to the. You know, as slowly as it makes sense. Right? Or as fast as it makes sense. We should get rid of their fucking apps. We should get rid of all their fucking chips and technology, all of their fucking rare earth minerals. We should find some way to get it some someplace else. And we should get rid of all their students who are in our schools. We should just clean it out. Get rid of everything from the Chinese government that's in the United States. Are you okay with me now? I'm pretty sure that China is not my friend. The only thing that I don't talk about a lot is Taiwan. Do you know I don't talk about Taiwan a lot? There's nothing to say China will someday own Taiwan. So I don't know. You could try. I mean, you could try to keep it independent and it might even be independent for 200 years, but China will get it eventually. And I look at it and I say, is that right or wrong? There's a catastrophe to some people, yes. But imagine what would happen if now, let's say China had built a gigantic base of operations in Cuba. We wouldn't be cool with that. So the fact that it's in their backyard and they're dealing with it. I get how we got here. I get that we have to support Taiwan in all the obvious ways, but I think China will someday own Taiwan. It's just too close to China and China is too big. And one way or another, they're going to get a hold of it. Might take 200 years. Yeah, but I'm. So the question is, would China ever come after me? Because I probably have as much to do with their future as a lot of people are going after. Who do you think has more impact on China? The dissidents that they went after that you've never heard of or. Me. It's me. I have a much bigger impact on China than the ones that China targeted. How do they not target me? Or do you think they already have? Is there anything you've seen happen to me that looks a little suspicious? Like any articles you've seen about me that seemed derogatory now they were happening forever, so I'm not sure that's a change. Maybe they are. Maybe they are. They're trying to drown me with water leaks. Oh, how did I get Covid. Good Question. How did I get Covid? Yeah, it's true. They sent Keith Olbermann after me, my mascot. You say I'm a minor celebrity. Well, being a minor celebrity is not relevant to the question. The question is influence. And I was. I was whining a little bit on Twitter that my greatest accomplishments have all been attributed to other people. I think that's unique because of what I do and the way I operate. But you'll never know what they are. Which I have to admit, bugs me. Sometimes it bugs me. But on the other hand, it's better that things happen than it is that I got credit. Are you getting odd skin rashes? Can you give us a hint? No, I really can't. Well, there are at least two reasons why I can't. One is you absolutely wouldn't believe me. You literally would not believe me. But the second one is, you know, there are living people who are involved, and there are good reasons why people don't talk about stuff. Simulation breaking. I don't know what that's about. So where was my printer made? Probably China. I actually, I thought about that. To write a book that would be published after my death. But do you know why that wouldn't work? Because nobody would believe it. Yeah, I mean, I could write it down, but it wouldn't be able to transmit to you. If I did, people would just mock me. They say, look at this, look at this. So it's actually impossible to communicate. It can't be communicated, which is weird. Thoughts on Wolfram's simulation view of physics. Whenever I look at Wolfram stuff, I don't understand it. So that's my whole Wolfram con there. What happened to Elon's Twitter deal? Exactly. What do you think? He didn't have the information he wanted, so he's backing out. Last weekend we were going to try and think about people and see if they show. All right, here's the follow up. A week ago or so, I told people to try an experiment to see if we live in a simulation. And the experiment went like this. You would try to program the simulation to produce somebody that you hoped you would run into, or they would contact you. Now, how many people ran into somebody in the past week that they were trying to manifest over on the Locals platform, People are saying that it did work in some cases, quite a few people. Somebody had two. Holy cow. Apparently it worked for a lot of people. Wow. If you were a sim, what would you be able to think about? Why would you be able to think about a sim? Because we would be programmed to be like people. See, it would be really hard to program us to be like people, like the people who created the simulation without giving us the power to figure out we're in a simulation. That would be very tricky to program because even if you gave some specific code, you will not realize this. But if you've also given code that the brain will evolve and be able to look at everything from different points of view, you know, different frames and interpretations. If you've written it that way, I think it thwarts your attempt to block its knowledge. Over time, it becomes too big and can look at things from too many directions to be prohibited from seeing the reality over time. Just speculation. All right? Our subroutines keep us blind. Maybe it could be that some people can get past the programming and some can't. The people who created this simulation are in the future, according to you. No, not necessarily. Every explanation of existence is irrelevant. Not if it changes how you act in the present. Knowing what reality is is useless unless it changes your behavior. But knowing that you live in a simulation could actually change your behavior because it at least opens the possibility that you can program it. This. The simulating computer must be exactly the size of the universe. Incorrect. So one of the reasons that people think we can't be a simulation Is that the calculations would be too big. You can't keep track of everything happening at the same time. But that's not what's happening. You can see it yourself. You can see that my movie and your movie don't match. And that's so the system doesn't need to keep the story straight in the past. The simulation only needs to patch things over when there's a problem. So if you and I meet and we both have a different story of what happened last week, the simulation just has to give us a reason to be okay with that difference. So you and I meet and say, you know, last week when that thing happened? And I say, that thing didn't happen. I was there too. I'd remember it if it happened. And the other person says, well, I was there too, and I do remember it happened. Now, the simulation would say that both of them are right because they're living in their own interpretation. But the simulation doesn't need to have a real past. It can just say, yeah, your memory is fine. We'll go with your memory. And then it can shortcut everything. It can just say, yeah, if you think it's true, it's true. That's good. Whatever you want to remember. That's fine. And then it can just delete all the actual history. It doesn't need it now. What about what is beneath the ground in your backyard? If we're a simulation, the simulation has not decided what's beneath the ground. If I were to dig with a shovel that the simulation would fill it in as I'm digging it out. In other words, there's nothing under my lawn if nobody's ever seen it because it doesn't need to be there, it just appears on demand. So if that's the case, then you don't need the biggest computer, you just need one that knows how to make shortcuts. Yes. And actually it's true. If the computer needed to be the size of the universe, that does not make it impossible. That's correct. It might not even make it impractical for some higher level society that could make a computer as big as, or at least as complex as universe. The computer wouldn't have to be as big as the universe, it would have to be as complex. Right. Is that right? I think I'm reading too much into it. Yeah. Gaslighting has something to do with this. There's definitely a correlation. You're reading the follow up confirms the simulation were miracles. Just rewrites of simulation code. They were probably just false memory or stories that didn't really happen. It's like saying the smartest guy has the biggest head. Yeah. Every religion is more believable than this simulation stuff. Is it? See, the point of the simulation argument is that it's a trillion times more likely than the next best explanation based on logic. And nobody's ever assailed the logic of it. That doesn't say it mean it's true. It could be that all interpretations are untrue, but it is a trillion times more likely because for every real, real world there will be lots of simulations. So that part I don't think anybody who works in AI or computing doubts the fact there will be lots of simulations at some point. Who created the creator of the simulation? I can answer that. Would you like me to answer? So the question is, if God created us, who created God? Or if we're a simulation created by somebody who created them. It's a good question, right? I actually know the answer to that because it's obvious. You ready? Time is circular. There can't be a beginning. So remember, every time you say, but if there's, if this started this, what's before that, and then what's before that, what's before that? The question of what's before that to infinity is nonsense. The only explanation is the time is circular or it repeats because if it didn't repeat, nothing would work. Like it explains everything. And if you take that away, everything is nonsense. It's got to be some kind of a loop. So we should have been here before or we will be here again. Everything that can happen will happen eventually. All right. The existence of infinite simulations isn't that illogical now, not infinite simulations, just lots of them. You don't need any infinity for the, for the simulation theory or you just don't understand it. Yeah, But then the creators of the simulations are really in the future. Let me answer that. So the idea that there will, at some point there will be way more simulations than there are people. It does take into account that some of those simulations, or even most of them might be in the future. But it is impossible to know whether you're at the beginning and the very first simulation or you're somewhere in the middle. What are the odds that you're at the beginning and you're like the one, the first one versus one of the trillions that we know will exist logically? Logically, there's almost a vanishingly small chance you're the first one. Like a trillion to one or something like that. The odds are you're just an average simulated world just like other ones. How many of you joined me last night in the man cave where I had a spontaneous late night session that I think was. Went pretty well. Actually went better than I thought. It is really amazing. So if you're not part of the local subscription service, you don't know how awesome the experience is. So the reason that I do some of the live streams spontaneously is that the, the back and forth of it is just good fun. Let's see. But the parent reality makes sense maybe. All right. Just looking at your comments for a while, everything becomes meaningless if it's a simulation. There's no love, there's no hope, there's nothing. How is that different than now? How is that different? I mean, ultimately you die. I mean, under most assumptions you die. So nothing you do makes a difference to you. You'll be dead. But we are designed to care about our legacy and our genes that are carrying our souls forward in some form. So I would think that the simulation is simply an impulse. Impulse that we can't deny. We just want to do it. So there doesn't need to be a reason, we just want to do it. Why was the simulation created? I'll give you my hypothesis. My hypothesis for the Simulation is that we are ab testing solutions for some higher level intelligence. And the reason is the reason I think this is that people have themes, problems in their life. I've told you, one of my themes is I have continuous oil, not oil, water leaks in every house, in every situation. I even had a water leak when I went camping, true story, as a cub scout. And I went on a camping trip and it rained and the tent flooded. Everywhere I go there's a flooding water leak problem. So it almost seems as if I've been designed by some kind of water leak plumbing company in the future or the present, I guess to try a bunch, be in a bunch of different situations and figure out how I deal with it. There are about three other situations where no matter how quickly I solve a problem, the same type of problem backfills it. Anybody have that? Where there's a kind of problem that keeps bothering you, but not other people and you can't figure out why? It doesn't seem to be something about your situation. It does just seem to be a coincidence. And then as soon as you solve one, the new one appears. Have you noticed that? Am I the only one that has that experience? All through my life, the moment I solve it, a new one appears. It's happening right now. Like there's a thing that I deal with every week, forever. There is an obstacle that pops up that tries to prevent me from something I want. And as soon as I solve an obstacle, a new one appears. That definitely wasn't there before. Like it wasn't there and I didn't notice. It just wasn't there. And it's been happening for 50 years. For 50 years I keep solving a problem and it backfills with a different kind of problem for no reason. It completely is random as far as I can tell. For 50 years, consistently. I can't. You know, I don't want to get into what it is, but it's hard to imagine that's a coincidence. Everything's all about you. No, my, my theory is that you would all be testing things except for the NPCs. Yeah. So nothing matters. I get it. Maybe, maybe. You know, when I was interacting with Elon Musk on Twitter about human consciousness the other day, and he, he has an assumption that expanding the light of human consciousness to the point where we can understand our reality is sort of important and necessary. And I say why? Why is it important and why is it even necessary? I mean, we did okay until we did fine until now. We survived as a species. We dominate the World. I thought we did okay without understanding anything. So I'm not sure that evolution cares if we understand anything. It only cares if we survive. And we seem to be pretty good at it. So I would question that purpose. At the same time, I'm totally in favor of doing it, by the way. I'm totally in favor of expanding our consciousness and learning what we can. But I don't know the reason. I think I just have an impulse for it. So I feel as though. Would you like to know the meaning of life? I figured it out a few years ago. No, there's an actual mechanical meaning of life, like scientific. I can explain it to you, and you will know the meaning of life. Now, stop me if I've done this before, but by the way, I'm completely confident about this. I'm completely confident about this. The meaning of life is what you'll feel when your actions in your life are compatible with your evolutionary demands. In other words, evolution makes you want to have a baby. It makes you want to reproduce. Now, I will. Let me quickly add lots of exceptions. Can I make a request? I'm going to make a request. I would like you to stop saying 42, because we all get it. We get the reference, but I'm going to ask you to stop doing it. Because that's in my category with references about Soylent Green. And if every single time somebody talks about the nature of the universe and somebody says 42 in the comments, and I don't know if I've ever been in a conversation where it didn't happen, I'm just going to ask you, because we've all seen it now. We've all seen it, okay? It's not additive. That's all. It's a reference to a Douglas Adams book where 42 is the answer to the universe. But it's a meaningless answer. Here's the meaning of the meaning of life. As I said, if you were born with a genetic impulse to have children, then that's your meaning of life. If you're born without that impulse, I think a lot of people are, then that's not their meaning of life. But they may need to be compatible with it because they may still have an evolutionary drive. So take me, for example. Presumably, I have some evolutionary desire to reproduce, but I've never really felt it much. It hasn't been driving my life or anything. And in fact, I haven't. But here's what I do feel. I do feel an evolutionary desire to take care of the people who are already here. Take care of the tribe, take care of any children who, you know, don't have enough resources and stuff. Now, I think that that is compatible with my evolutionary design. Would you agree? In all likelihood, I'm right on point for my evolutionary requirement because I took care of myself. You know, I got a good job and made some money. And then as soon as I became, like, a tribal elder, which I am now I'm like a tribal elder, then I started turning my attentions back to helping the people who are younger and helping the tribe. Now, to me, that feels completely aligned with my biological design. And then it makes me feel like I'm right in the middle of the meaning of life. Now you can say to yourself, yeah, but, you know, everybody dies, and there's no reason you can't give me, like, a logical reason why that makes you feel good. And the answer is, I'm not trying to. I'm not trying to give you any logical reasons. I'm just telling you what's what. And what's what is this. If I do the things that are compatible with my biology, you know, the. The mandates of my biology, so long as I'm not, you know, breaking a law or something. But if I'm. If I'm compatible with the mandates of my biology, I completely feel that I have meaning in my life. The moment I depart from my biological design, I get unhappy. Unfortunately, that includes going on vacation. When I'm on vacation, I'm outside my biological feeling of meaning because all I'm doing is wasting time. When I'm sitting on the beach the whole time, I think, there's no meaning to this. It felt good for a few minutes. I like the sun, but there's no meaning to it. I'll never think back of this with a happy thought, even though I like it. I like sitting on the beach, I like the sun, I love the sand, walking in the water. All great things. But there is no meaning there. It's just me enjoying myself. So if you want to feel that you have meaning in life, figure out what your biological imperatives are. It might be you having children so, you know, get your dating game up or whatever it takes, but it might not be. Might be like mine, where you still need to feel like, take care of yourself and then become a tribal elder. Take care of other people. Or you might be a warrior. Let me speculate a little further. You might be born just to be a fighter. Let's say you're a guy, especially. Maybe that's what you should be. Maybe that's what you should be. Maybe you need to join the Marines. Maybe you need to be a cop. Some people just have a different genetic upbringing or genetic composition. Now, I don't feel like I'm that person. I don't feel like I was born to be in physical altercations. I do feel like I was born to be in the fight, but in the way that I fight best. So I got a little bit quiet when I said that. How many of you are noodling on the idea that you will feel meaning in your life when you're doing things compatible with your biology, meaning the best parts of your biology, which is to promote humankind? That's the. That's the best part of your biology right now. It's a very practical definition, isn't it? And the beauty is you can tell when you're doing it. You know, if you're doing it if you're in college. Let me ask you this. How many people who went to college while they were in college, and let's say it's somebody who thought a college education was useful, did you feel that you didn't, that you weren't compatible with the meaning of life when you were in college? If you went to college, I'll bet you thought it was, and I think you were. Now, if you had a silly major and you didn't know where you're going, then maybe you were disconnected. But if you were the kind of serious student who was going to get, you know, Bs or better and you thought college was useful, didn't it make you feel like you were compatible with your biological self? Because I think that when you're learning, and specifically learning things that could have a future value to the tribe, when you're learning things that would be valuable to the tribe, I think you're completely tapped into the meaning of life. Even though as a student you're producing no value, you're just using resources, but you still feel that you're on the right track because you got to learn this stuff before you can add value. So if you're anywhere on that, anywhere on that chain of cause and effect that will get you to be a tribal elder, I'll bet you'll feel the meaning of life. In fact, that's the best way to think of it if you want to simplify it. If you want to simplify everything, ask yourself if you're on a path to become a useful tribal elder. Now, let's say you're 25 and you're not working out and you're not Eating right. And you're just, you know, you're just ballooning up. Are you on the path to be a successful tribal elder? You are not, because you'll be dead. You won't even make it to elder because you're going to eat yourself to death, die of obesity or something. So every time you find any action that you're doing that would make it less likely that you will ever become a tribal elder who is useful, then probably you're not finding the meaning of life. I'm dying of abuse. Are you really? April, you have some cryptic messages there and I'm concerned about your well being. All right. So do I feel like I am compatible with my biological imperative right now? Absolutely. When I'm doing this, like specifically this. When I'm doing this, I feel absolutely where I belong. Because what I do specifically is try to help you think better, differently, have different frames on things. I think that's really useful and it could actually help humanity reproduce. So. All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of this program. I'm pretty sure it's the best thing you've ever experienced today. And. That's all I have today. You're lucky we don't all strive for that. Sundays are the best live streams. I don't know. Are they? Because I don't talk about the news as much. There's not much news. How does it work to use evolution and simulation theory as filters at the same time? I do it because the simulation seems to make it look like evolution is real. So you have to deal with the simulation as if it's real. So they're not incompatible at all. All right, that is all for now. I'll talk to you later. Bye. YouTube and Spotify and all those on audio.