We long to live in the real world because that's what we are a part of.
We are not physical entities as the physicist would define us to be right.
We are not what science says.
We are.
We are corporeal entities that live in a real corporeal world that have
souls that are not subject to the constraints of space, but are subject
to time that ultimately harking back to a center on Ava eternal realm.
That is the source of intelligence and intellectual as distinct
from reason and rationale.
Right.
Reason and rationality logic, these things like go and sequence, right.
But intelligence happens instantaneously.
Welcome to Lucas Skrobot show I'm Lucas Skrobot.
And this is where we uncover purpose, pursue truth and
own the future episode 282.
It's a palindrome today.
And it is actually recording on April 12th, but we'll be releasing this episode
a little later in middle of may sometime.
And today it's a little bit of a different episode.
We haven't had guests on the show very recently, but today we have Dr.
Richard Smith, who is a PhD mathematician, and entrepreneur.
He studies cycles and builds financial tools for people like you
and me who don't really trust the big financial situ or, uh, industry
or, uh, institutions all the time.
But we, we know that we need to figure something out.
So we're gonna be talking about his financial entrepreneurial
side towards the end of the show.
You do not want to miss it.
We're going to be talking about that inverted yield curve.
We've been talking about.
We're going to be talking about where we are in the macro
economic cycle of the globe.
But before that today, we're going to be discussing Wolfgang Smith's work.
Uh, the vertical ascent note Wolf gained Smith was born in Vienna in 1930 and
at 18 he graduated Cornell university.
He actually, he actually met, uh, he actually met Einstein as a boy and he
studied next to John Nash, who was the, the mathematician from a beautiful mind.
Brilliant genius, who took all of his.
Mathematics and physics and he blended it in with philosophy
in how we viewed the world.
And so Dr.
Richards, Dr.
Uh, excuse me, Dr.
Wolfgang Smith started the phileo Sophia Institute philosophy
philia Sophia initiative.
And now that is being run by Dr.
Richard Smith.
Who's nestled away in the mountains of West Virginia, where I'm sure
we all wish wish to be Richard.
Welcome Dr.
Smith.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you, Lucas.
It's great to be here and thanks for having me.
Uh, I just want to add, yes.
Wolfgang graduated at 18 with three degrees in mathematics, physics
and philosophy at 18 years old.
And by the way, no relation, we're both Smith's uh, but,
um, we're not, uh, blood kin.
Uh, hopefully spiritual kin, but, uh, but not blood kin indeed.
What was the, since we're going to be talking about the initiative affilia
Sophia initiative and walking's work specifically in the beginning half of
the show, but what is the vision and the heart behind phileo Sofia initiative?
Why does it exist?
What does it do?
Who are you?
What is it about?
It exists to promote the work and understanding of Dr.
Wolfgang Smith.
Um, and that work in particular is really about restoring our sense of the
cosmos and restoring our humanity and correcting the misunderstandings that
dominate and pervade society today.
That what Wolfgang Smith calls, scientistic belief.
So he wrote his very first book back about 40 years ago and it was
called cosmos and transcendence just recently republished by Philo Sophia.
So we're actually, re-publishing all of his books and he's going through
each one, uh, he's 92 years old.
Now he's still amazingly prolific at 92 years old, every day he's
working, he wakes up, you know, and, uh, and starts thinking and writing.
And until he goes to bed at midnight or two in the morning.
And, uh, um, so it's, it's really amazing to watch him work.
So, but the subtitle to his first book was breaking through the
barrier of scientistic belief.
So, and so science scientism is distinct from science scientism, and
we'll get into, this is an ideology.
That is, uh, the ideology of the metaphysics that scientists have adopted,
um, in lieu of traditional metaphysics.
So what, he's not breaking past the barriers of the scientific method per se?
No, no, he's a, he's a scientist.
He loves science.
What he doesn't love is the overreach of science, which is
a limited, a piston Knology a limited process, a method, right?
A modus operandi, a way of knowing our world, but not, it
doesn't know the whole world.
It knows the world in part.
And to then elevate that to essentially.
Call what the scientists know all of reality, right.
To try to cause scientists are involved in reduction, right.
Trying to get down to the Adams and then we got to Adams and then they
found that those weren't quite solid.
And you add into the quantum world, et cetera.
Right.
And then trying to recreate all of reality from that.
When in fact, you know, the power of the scientist is looking
through a narrow slit, right?
Narrowing your view.
But then to throw the baby out with the bath water and say that everything
else about life is an illusion, right?
That's only what the scientists sees is real.
Um, we'll get into that.
So breaking through the barrier of scientistic belief, you know, is,
is kind of recognizing the power of science and the value of science, but
also calling it out for its overreach.
I mean, even that free reading our humanity, that free scientific belief,
scientists, scientistic belief, it's almost as if he's hinting that
science has become its own religion.
That science has no longer been about the scientific method or understanding
what we can see and believe in testing and developing a hypothesis and thesis
is, and coming to understand how the world works in a better way, but
then it's moved beyond that, into.
Uh, faith system.
And then that faith system begins to color the way that scientists view the world
or physicists view the world, because you were talking about reductionism
and that in science, we keep on looking for the smallest Adam, what makes up
the world and how the world works.
And it sounds like your argument is that by focusing on the parts we missed
the whole, that's a big part of it.
Yes.
So I guess what book is along his way, his latest book is
the vertical ascent, correct?
Correct.
And so in it, what is the overarching question that he's begging us to ask
that he then answers in the book?
What is the overarching theme?
So.
Just going back kind of through his work, right.
He first published cosmos and transcendence where he introduced
this idea of scientistic belief.
Um, and then, uh, not too long after he wrote a book called the quantum
enigma and the quantum enigma, um, Wolfgang having a background in physics,
you know, was focused on physics.
And the quantum enigma is the measurement problem in quantum physics, right?
Where you have, um, quantum mechanics, right.
Where you have these wave forms, the Schrodinger wave equation.
Right.
But then as soon as you measure a quantum system, you have, what's called
the, uh, wave function collapse, and you get a particle instead of a wave.
Right.
And that takes place only when an instrument.
Measures or detects something in the quantum world.
Okay.
There's particles in the quantum world.
Right.
Particle only happens when an instrument, the text interacts with the quantum world.
Right.
And so that is the quantum enigma.
And that's been in science now for nearly a hundred years.
There's not really a resolution of this still today.
And so Wolfgang explored it from a, an ontological perspective and, uh, and,
um, had a, quite a breakthrough and his book, the quantum enigma, which
leads us to, we talk about, can we talk about this, this concept that you
just threw out you throughout this?
I mean, I understand it because I've, I've read about it before and it's
quite fascinating, but I know there's many, many people who have no idea what.
Just like sure.
Quantum ontological.
It's just, can you describe what what's happening in this experiment with a
wave collapsing down to a particle?
How does that work and why is that significant in the conversation
that we're about to have?
Can you like tell it in like almost story form for us?
Well, let's take a step back for just a minute and the most important
distinction that people need to understand to understand Wolfgang's
work is the distinction between what he calls the corporeal and the physical.
Okay.
So the corporeal world is the sensible perceptible world.
The world that we live in, right?
You can touch it, you can smell it, you can taste it, you can see it.
It's got color for.
Right.
It's the world that we all live in and have our being in.
Okay.
It's a world that I can see you and you can see me.
I see that your desk is brown and your shirt jacket is plus, and it's a world
of both qualities and quantities.
Okay.
So physics starting back with Galileo, right.
And then going through Descartes and to Newton, it is dealing
with the physical world.
Okay.
So what is the physical world?
The physical world is what you can measure.
So if you can put a ruler on it, you know, if you can measure it in centimeters
or in grams or in seconds, that act of measurement is what the physicists do.
Okay.
In fact, I think it was Lord Calvin that Wolfgang quotes often said
physics is the science of measurement.
Okay.
Gotcha.
So think of all the things you can measure, right?
You can measure your height, you can measure your weight, you can
measure your blood flow, your blood pressure, et cetera, right?
Yeah.
You can't really measure love.
You can't measure care.
Yeah.
You can't measure purpose kindness.
So there's all these things, kindness, you know, all these qualities, right.
Qualitative things that actually are the most important things to us.
Right.
You talked in the beginning of your show about purpose and truth to a scientist.
Those are not measurable, right?
They're not quantifiable.
So the physical world is the world, you know, roughly as
defined by the physicists.
Okay.
It's it's what we can measure.
And it's, it's quantitative, right?
You are stripping out the qualities and you're only focusing on the quantities.
Okay.
Right.
So you have the corporeal world, the world that even scientists live in, right.
Scientists don't look at their children and say, oh, come, come here.
My little, you know, quantum bundle, let me give you a hug.
Right?
Right.
No, you know, science, uh, in its quest to kind of limit truth to only what can
be measured, what can be objectified.
Right.
Um, and then to try to recreate all of reality, you know, from those parts.
Uh, that's a mistaken ideology and it's not the ideology that
scientists live in their daily lives.
Right.
It's uh, that is scientism, right?
When you say that only things are true, that can be measured and quantified and
objectified, and that we can all agree on.
Right, right, right.
Um, that are outside of us.
And this is, uh, kind of was formalized by Descartes.
Who said, I think, therefore I am right.
And that was his famous dictum.
And he divided the world into two parts, one, he called res Extensa or things that
have extension things that are measurable.
Right.
And the other one was Rez Koji tantees, which are the things that are inside of
us, our thoughts, our feelings, right.
Our emotions, our soul, and, and Descartes actually made reference to God.
Um, but that idea of the Cartesian bifurcation.
Okay.
Breaking the world into the kind of objective, measurable things in the
subjective non-measurable things.
Right.
And then the world went on this kind of, you know, for the past
four or 500 years has been on this outward focused measurement control
technology science direction, which has led to incredible power.
Right.
And so all of those things that are part of are just kind of considered
second class citizens, if you will.
Right.
So this is a very, this is, this is the key distinction that
anybody wants to understand.
Wolf King's work.
Has to understand the distinction between the corporeal.
Again, what all of us regard as reality, and then the physical, which
is basically what they card started with Rez, extensive, the things that have
extension that can be measured, right?
It can be quantified.
And that, that somehow is the truth, right?
And that we're going to reduce everything to that.
And then we're going to build everything back up out of that.
So to understand, to cart in the physical, this is the physical realm,
deconstructed everything into its smallest part that he could know, and
scientists are still working defined.
What is the, what is the smallest quantum that the universe is made of?
And we get string theory and you know, I'm nothing but a density wave that is
slightly different than your density wave.
And there's other density waves between us.
But that really makes us.
We're not distinct from one another in that regards.
And then they try to rebuild up the parts into the hole without
putting the hole back together.
So just a series of disjointed parts.
Yeah.
And it's a lot, like say, um, an anatomist who is going to, uh, kill a frog, right.
Dissected study it's anatomy, measure it.
Right.
And then try to recombine those things and bring the frog back to life and see what
frog the frog doesn't come back to life.
Right.
And you take it apart.
You know, you, you kill it.
You destroy it's life.
Right in science.
Has not produced life.
They've recombined parts of life.
Right.
But they have not produced like, and you know, so today you have
artificial intelligence, et cetera.
Right.
And my PhD work, I worked at the Santa Fe Institute for a little while I
studied complexity, science, et cetera.
Right.
I studied in a field called artificial light and the idea of artificial
life, it's in a computer, so it wasn't building Frankenstein.
Right.
But, uh, but you're going to mix and match the right kind of, um, uh, algorithms.
Right.
So you're going to have, um, little, you know, entities in the computer.
Right.
They forged, they gather food, they have a metabolic tax.
They make, they reproduce, you know, you're trying to set up certain
conditions that mimic life and then look for so-called emergent behavior.
Okay.
So, um, the emergent behavior doesn't mean.
Right.
You combine all these things.
You can make it faster.
You can make it look more and more likely lifelike, but you do not get intelligence.
You do not get life.
You know, you get algorithms, you get mechanism.
Um, you do not get the corporeal world, right?
You get the physical world, you get a world that's
strictly a quantitative world.
And it lacks the qualitative attributes that most of us regard, as, you
know, the essence of life, things like purpose, truth, et cetera.
So understanding the corporeal and the physical is the key distinction.
Right?
And so what Wolfgang has shown is that this bifurcation, this Cartesian
bifurcation, dividing the world, you know, into the things that
you can measure and defining truth as an act of measurement, right?
Uh, that takes you down a certain path, a certain metaphysical path, right?
A certain ideological path that you're going to then, you know, regard
religion, a superstition, you know, and qualities as just, well, you
know, we don't know what they are, but they take place inside of us.
And, uh, we can't really measure them.
And so we're going to regard them as, you know, just something that we put
in the background and don't really pay a lot of attention to, right.
While we go build stuff and do our technology and, and, uh, try to break
things down further and further.
Okay.
So that insight is what led him to kind of address or understand this problem in
quantum physics and quantum mechanics, the so-called measurement problem, you
know, as actually arising from the limited way that scientists understand the world.
Right.
And that that's not the whole.
Right that we have this corporeal world that we live in and we have the
physical now quantum mechanical world that the scientists have identified, but
there's a discontinuity between them.
There's a chasm, you know?
And so, you know, I don't want to get too deep in the physics.
I'm not actually a physicist myself.
I come at this from the mathematician side and then my PhD was in systems science.
Um, but suffice it to say, there's a huge gap between the quantum
world in our corporeal world.
Right?
And when an instrument, which is a corporeal object, you
know, it's a device, right?
It's not purely quantitative it's corporeal when that interacts with
the quantum world, which is non, which is purely physical, right?
It's not boreal.
Um, that creates this wave function collapse.
And that's the so-called quantum, uh, Nicholas.
So, correct me if I'm correct me, if I'm wrong.
When, if I remember what the quantum enigma is, which is it's Heinz Berg and
uncertainty principle, is that correct?
Where there's a way it's being shot out.
Exactly.
And you're seeing that the wave that there's probability of where the
electron will hit, but the moment that you observe where the electron is
going, instead of hitting the screen in a way form, it's just sitting in
the exact spot that you observed.
So the moment that the electron is being observed, it changes its behavior
to do exactly what the observer saw that it was going to do rather than
acting as, uh, a way probability wave Fred when it's not being observed.
Is this, is that kind of what we're talking about?
Where that wave then all of a sudden collapses, because that is one of the.
Fascinating things to me when it comes to physics and science or
quantum physics, it's a mystery.
It's like, how, how does this happen?
What is happening here?
Exactly.
And it remains a mystery a hundred years later, right?
It still has not been explained.
And it, the absence of an explanation has led to things like string theory
and like, to the multi-verse right now we're postulating that, uh,
there's not just one universe, right?
There's a universe of universe.
Right.
So within our universe, wouldn't that just be what?
No, like in parallel to our universe, right?
That there's separate realities.
And this is a, this is a very unscientific idea because it's pure theory.
There's no possible experimental evidence that can establish the reality of a
multi-verse because you can't get any signal from one universe to another.
There's no way of verifying the idea of a multi-verse it's
a purely theoretical idea.
Right?
So talk about the distinction between scientism and the
scientific method, right?
The scientific method is an empirical verifiable, measurable,
you know, process and method.
Right.
But if you're going to talk about a multi-verse where you
can't have any communication, it's a purely speculative idea.
And you're going to call that science when it can never be empirically verified.
Now you are in the realm of ideology, right?
You are trying to fill gaps that you can't fill through your scientific method
now by displacing traditional cosmology.
So going back to, what is the vertical ascent about the
vertical ascent is Wolfgang rediscovering, traditional cosmology.
That explains, you know, what our nature is, what the nature of the universe is.
And, um, and to distinguish it from the cosmology of scientistic belief,
this cosmology that's built up strictly from the idea that everything real is
measurable and quantifiable, and that out of this investigation into the measurable
and quantifiable, we can then recreate the whole universe and life itself.
Right.
Which is.
That's, uh, it's not true.
I mean, it's not the true nature of the cosmos.
It's not the true nature of reality and traditional religion and early
Greek philosophers, et cetera, all agreed that the cosmos is tripartite,
that it has three different, um, ontologies, if you will.
Okay.
There's the corporeal world that we live in and breathe in.
And this corporeal world is subject to constraints of, of time as well as space.
Okay.
Um, and that's really, you know, the world that we're perceiving that we're
sensing, so where the senses reside.
Right.
But then there's the so-called intermediary world and
the intermediary world is.
Subject to time, but not to space.
Right.
Okay.
So it's subject to the constraints of time, but it's not subject
to the constraints of space.
Things that, you know, seem to be in two different places can be in
the same place at the same time.
Right.
Space goes away in the intermediary worlds.
And then beyond the, when you're, when you remove space and you remove time, you
have what a Thomas Aquinas called the Ava eternal world, which is really Wolfgang
used the image of a circle, right?
As that he calls the cosmic icon.
The outer boundary is the corporeal world subject to space and time.
The middle area is the intermediary realm.
And then the center, the point in the middle, right, is the Ava turtle.
And this permeates every, uh, aspect of the intermediary.
And.
Corporate world.
And it's actually the source of the intermediary and the corporeal worlds.
Right?
And this is the traditional cosmology of Play-Doh of Christianity, of, uh, into
ism and the Vedic tradition, et cetera.
Right.
And so Wolfgang is rediscovering and re-introducing us to this traditional
cosmology, which we have forgotten.
We have lost track of lost sight of, because our cosmology has been
defined by the scientists as being only those things that can be measured and
quantified and that we can all agree upon.
And then we don't have to get into any fights over.
It seems like what we've been told from science is that we
are just a bag of chemicals.
We're a bag.
Electronic impulses and it really takes the soul or the
purpose out of human humanity.
It takes, why would it matter if I did something?
Like why, why does it matter that I keep my word?
Why is it important to us that you broke in from a child?
If you break your word to a child, it really means something to them.
Yes.
And so this might be a dramatic, a tangent of a question, but it seems
like right now in, in culture, that, that idea that we are just tangible
Addams floating around through space.
And then when you die, you just go back into the Dustin.
So what does it matter?
You're, you're just a sack of chemicals.
It seems like, and it could be totally wrong on this, but it seems.
When we carry that to its conclusion is, well, since I'm a sack of chemicals,
how do I know what I'm experiencing and knowing is actually knowable
and therefore nothing is knowable.
And we're almost undermining that entire scientific schism with
absolute, uh, post-modern or postcard, deconstruction, uh, relativism are
those are those interconnected because that's where I'm seeing culture going.
They're saying we're nothing but a sack of chemicals.
It's all science.
And then the next sentence is, and so nothing's knowable anyway.
So why does it matter?
There is no such thing as morality.
Absolutely.
And you know, you were just all part of the.
Right.
We don't have any personal responsibility, no personal accountability, no purpose.
You know, it's just particles, wandering endlessly, ultimately
headed to an entropic death.
And, uh, and Hey, you know, that leads into the culture that
we're in today, where anything goes, nothing really matters.
And, and the only, um, force is power and influence and celebrity.
Right?
And so, and, and the truth is what the authorities or the influencers say it is.
And there's no more critical thinking.
There's no more taking personal responsibility and
thinking for yourself, right.
We're told what to think.
We're not taught how to think.
And there was an incredible, I don't know if you listen to Jordan Peterson,
but I'm still, I remember he interviewed this young woman from that escape
from North Korea and she escaped by being a sex slave through China.
Right.
And, uh, and then she made it to South Korea and she attended
some universities there.
And then she went to Columbia university and uh, cause her
father wanted her to be educated.
And so she managed to get herself into Columbia university.
And Jordan Peterson said, well, how was that?
And she said, it was the worst thing I ever experienced.
It was no, it was like, it reminded me of North Korea.
Y you were just there to be told what to think.
You weren't there to be taught how to think.
And Jordan Peterson was like practically in tears.
And he's saying you must've had at least one good professor.
You know, and she said, no, no.
The whole thing was a total waste of time.
Right?
So that is where we've arrived at from this degradation of our
individual humanity of our, the very nature, an idea of a soul, right.
That your soul matters and that you have a soul, no, in this, because
the soul is a resident of the intermediary world, the soul is not
subject to the constraints of space.
It's subject to time, but it's not subject to space.
And so the soul actually has its home in another world, not in the corporeal world.
Right.
But with this, and, you know, science has moved past the
corporeal to the physical, right.
The strictly quantitative.
Right.
So, and science, you know, is the scientists are the new priests.
Our world today, right?
Science.
So scientism, right?
It's not like if we look at the pandemic that we've just been through and the
public health response to it, right.
It was just, Hey, just trust the science, just trust the scientists, right.
Experiment for yourself.
Just do what we tell you to do.
Okay.
And if you don't do it, we're going to vilify you.
We're going to, you're going to lose your job.
You know, we're gonna, um, uh, what's that called?
You know, when you get wiped off of doc social media, you're gonna
cancel you write, cancel culture.
And, um, so this is all part of this authoritative centralized,
you know, uh, propaganda based what I call Fiat reality, right?
We live in a Fiat world today, you know, and you want to talk
about finance a little later on.
We can get to.
Into that some more, but that is where this metaphysics, this
religion that scientists have created, which is scientism.
Okay.
And it's not the scientific method again, you know, when you're getting into
things like the multi-verse and super determinism, these are not scientific
propositions that can be falsified.
They're not falsifiable.
Right.
They're really meta physics, almost metaphysics.
Yeah.
It's almost as if the wrote a science fiction book and then they say
here's a science fiction book up.
Now it's the Bible.
Here's, here's a fiction of what I think might, could be.
And then we're going to build a bunch of theories around
that and call that science.
And since there's no way to deny it, there's no way to prove it.
And therefore, this is truth.
Absolutely.
Yep.
And they have the.
Right there, the authors of that fiction.
And so, and we're to just believe what they say, because they're the
scientists, this is the exact thing that the scientific method was
first inspired to oppose, right?
Because they didn't want to be told what to do just by the priests.
Now they are the priests who are just telling everybody else what to think.
And they're making up fictions to displace the traditional
understanding of human nature.
Right.
That human nature is gone.
We're not humans anymore.
We're just little electrical impulses that now we're going to live in the metaverse.
Right.
It's all going to be digital.
See the digital technology world is actually the scientists and the
technologists, the techno crap.
Recreating the world in their own image because the digital
world is a closed system, right?
The digital world doesn't suffer from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
or the quantum enigma, let's say completely controlled, closed system.
Right.
Where everything, you know, the parts do add up to the whole.
Right, right.
You don't have irreducible wholeness in the digital world, you just have parks
and then they get to define the holes.
Right.
Correct.
The WHQ Les, they get to define the narrative.
Correct.
And so now everybody's moving into the digital world as if
this is some kind of liberation.
Actually it's a, it's a captivity.
Yeah.
It's deliberation from, it's a liberation from the unknown.
It's a liberation from God.
If you will.
It's a liberation from morality, it's deliberation from, you know, even
in the intro of our show, we talk about, you know, truth, what is truth?
And I get pushback.
Sometimes people will say like, well, you know, that's, you know, that's not
truth, you know, that's just your opinion.
Or that's just, you know, talk about something scientific, not something
that's a metaphysical, but it's almost as if you and me something
measurable something measurable.
But what you're saying is that the truth is more than a bunch of small
parts that then are, uh, uh, divided and subdivided to its smallest
form, then put back together.
But it's, it's something larger than that.
And in many ways, going to that net averse is a means to escape the
actual reality that we live in and the consequences of that reality that we.
Yes.
And it's getting, uh, there are fewer and fewer people who know how
to do much in the corporeal world, you know, to, to move things around.
Right.
I am I out here in the woods of Virginia, my neighbor next door has a, uh, a heavy
construction equipment business, and he's got highway contracts, et cetera.
Right?
He can't find people to work.
You can't find trucks to buy fuel has gone through the roof.
Crazy.
He's got a business in the real world, right?
Moving stuff around.
It's not bits and bytes.
It's rocks, you know, and snow.
And, uh, and people, you know, moving stuff, driving stuff, right.
It's not all automated, it's not robots.
And, uh, those businesses are suffering because we've lost
touch with the corporeal world.
You know, we've denied.
The primacy of the corporeal and we've bought into the narrative that the
measurable and the physical is where it's at and that the academy, you
know, and the scientists, uh, everybody needs to get an education, you know,
be, be, have a higher education.
Um, but, um, no, but Dr.
Richard Smith, but you don't understand is in the metaverse you can push snow
around too, but just on your digital tractor, I literally, I have a colleague,
he works with me and my business and, uh, he told me digital land is going to
appreciate faster than physical labor.
Right.
And right now it is right.
Like I follow the web three in the metaverse and I have some
authentic interest in it, you know, and we can talk about that.
I think there is validity to it.
I think there's validity to Bitcoin, into blockchain and to these ideas.
I think that they do, you know, potentially.
Help move power from the financial digital world and the digital
world is natively financial.
Okay.
So everything in the digital world is a transaction.
Everything you do online is a transaction and that's getting more and more
explicit, especially now that you have watching technology where you literally
can have an exchange of value around data, and you can have sovereignty
over digital assets, which is amazing.
It is amazing.
It's amazing.
And it holds the potential to get our digital selves, right?
Because we do have kind of digital analogs.
If you will, it sounds like an oxymoron, a digital analog, or a digital avatar.
Of our corporeal existences, right.
Everything we do that is digitized is kind of a piece of our digital selves.
Right.
And right now we don't control that.
Right.
That's in all the walled gardens of apple and Facebook and Google
and Amazon and the governments.
Right.
All these institutions and centralized entities that are, um, you know,
essentially, I mean, it sounds dramatic, but sucking our digital
blood, you know, that's true.
Definitely true.
So the, you know, the idea of Bitcoin is that you, that was the first instance
of having sovereignty over a digital.
And the potential there is that we can actually start to own our digital
footprint, our digital selves, right?
Just like, you know, we take our corporeal bodies and we walk into a
store and we pull out our cash and decide whether we're going to spend money.
We have control over that in the digital world.
We should have control over that too.
Right.
We should have sovereignty and assess that can, you know, go into a store
and leave it and not necessarily have to leave anything there.
Right.
But instead they know more about us than we know about
ourselves in the digital world.
Right.
So, um, which is why Bitcoin is not going to become the new world currency.
That's a big conversation.
Okay.
That's a big, big digressive conversation.
I first, I want to say, I resonate with that.
I feel, uh, recently, especially over the.
Really the last four years, but then with COVID, uh, the last two years, it
felt like most of my relationships and most of my work has been become, as
I've described it, Mehta relationships everything's being mediated, just like
our conversation right now is being mediated by 1, 2, 3, a lot of screens.
I don't know how many screens I have in this room.
Uh, and I was growing tired of the fact that every everything that I'm doing, even
when, you know, writing or copywriting consulting, brand consulting, it's all
being mediated by something digital.
Even as you said, anything in the digital world, world, a keystroke is
as micro transaction with the digital.
Absolutely.
It is.
And they're being captured.
Yeah.
You know, as computing power expands, um, they're being
mined and that, that has led.
In ways to begin to start businesses in the corporate Capernaum.
Yes.
It's led me to move out into the woods over the weekend.
My kids were out tapping Birch trees to get sapped out of the Birch
trees to make syrup so amazing.
You know, and think about that experience like two brothers out in the
woods, wiping out how to get SAP out of trees, as opposed to sitting down,
um, killing, killing in video games.
Why is that something that we long for?
Why, why is that?
Because our nature is corporeal.
Yes.
We, we long to live in the real world because that's what we are a part of.
You know, we are not physical entities as the physicist would define us to be.
Hmm, right.
We are not what science says.
We are.
We are corporeal entities that live in a real corporeal world that have souls
that are not subject to the constraints of space, but are subject to time that
ultimately harking back to a center on Ava eternal realm, that is the source of
intelligence and intellect as distinct from reason and rationality, right?
Reason and rationality logic.
These things like go and sequence, right.
But intelligence happens instantaneously as what Wolfgang
Smith calls vertical causation.
Right?
And this is how he is before the fit, before the vertical ascents, he
wrote physics and vertical causation.
And what he says about the quantum enigma, this is where he first introduced the
idea of vertical causation that this quantum world that the scientists have.
Um, mathematized.
Okay.
The quantum world is a purely mathematical world, right?
It's only when there's an interaction with a corporeal instrument, some corporeal
detector that you get a particle, right?
The wave function collapses, and you get a particle that, that is actually
hacked of the corporeal world.
The quantum world is an, is a world of pure potential.
It's a world of potential.
Okay.
It's not reality.
It's not real.
It's just a mathematical world.
So it doesn't have any corporate realities.
So when the tech sector SI say backup, I'm gonna pause you say that again, that the
realm of physics is around of potentially.
But the, the realm of, of the world is actually reality where those
potentials become realized yes.
In the quantum world, you have mere pure potency, pure potentia, right.
And this is an Aristotelian idea, actually.
So you have pure potency, right?
And then it's when a corporeal object of some kind interacts with
the quantum world that a particle emerges and you get actualization
and that's the vertical causation.
It's actually the corporeal acting on the physical or the quantum.
Okay.
And it's incorrect to think that this world, the quantum world, which is
a world, it doesn't actually exist.
Right.
It's a pure mathematical object that doesn't have any corporate reality to
say that you're going to create reality.
How did that quantum world that leads you to.
You know, speculative fictions, like the multi-verse, which is
not scientifically verifiable.
So the vertical causation and the inspiration for
the vertical ascent, right.
Is this idea that the higher, well, that there is an ontological hierarchy, right.
And that the higher actually actualizes the lower, not the other way around.
Wow.
So meanwhile, you know, at this point, look, ultimately
people have a choice, right?
And to me what's been what Wolfgang has shown me.
And I believe in why I care about his work and why I want more people to know
about it is because I think it does ultimately bring us back to a choice.
Right.
And it's, it's, it's ultimately an issue of faith.
Right.
I believe that the scientistic world is a faith based religious worldview, right.
Uh, that has, that is attempting to define truth as only the
things that are measurable, right.
That we can touch, smell centimeters, Rams, seconds, time, space, right.
Or we can, uh, affirm what tradition has affirmed for millennia, right.
That we are, um, that we live in a corporeal world, that
it is the real world, right.
That we have a soul and a, and that there's even, um,
something beyond the soul.
And then there's something beyond that.
What and Wolfgang being a Christian and a Catholic would call the kingdom of God.
And so we have to choose what metaphysics we want to affirm.
We have a choice.
And when I look at it, I'm not that impressed with the
scientistic metaphysics, with the technological metaphysics, right.
That as you say, reduces, you know, strips us of our humanity and makes us just
electrical impulses, interchangeable, you know, actually burdens on the planet.
Right.
And, uh, you know, we're like, uh, contributing to global warming now.
And, uh, you know, we, we should kind of be no plan on
we'd be better off without us.
Absolutely.
Okay.
So, um, if that's the future that you, if that's the message you want
to give to your children, right.
If that's what you want them to believe, then you've got the right metaphor.
But we have to acknowledge our metaphysics, right?
We have to acknowledge where this science, scientistic ideology and metaphysics has
taken us and where it's gotten us to.
And now that we can see that it is a metaphysics and that it is an ideology
and that it's not falsifiable and it's reached overreached, the scientific
method, we have to begin to question its ethics and its consequences and
whether or not that's what we want to affirm with our free choice.
Right?
And so this is where, you know, look, I grew up in Los Angeles, you know, in
the eighties and the nineties, I went to Berkeley, you know, went on to get a PhD.
Uh, I was not religious, but having been through the academy.
Right.
Having gotten to the PhD level, sought the truth, realize that no, they
just want it to be the new priests, tell everybody else what to do.
Right.
And that this world that they're going down, you know, this path that
they're going down is one of in, in humaneness and narrative and control.
Yeah, absolutely.
No.
Yeah.
So more of us are waking up a little bit, realizing that we have a choice
that we have a responsibility and then we can return to our religious
traditions and we can revisit them and we can reconnect with them and try to
understand them better and see the value that they have in them for Catholics.
Like me now is the time it's lent and we're coming up on Easter, right.
There is such richness in that tradition of like how to, what
to do during lint and how to.
See yourself better and know yourself better and become a better person, right?
These are all wisdoms, right?
Wolfgang calls them the CEPI essential traditions say the essential
essentially means wisdom, right?
That enrich our qualitative lives, connect us with things
like purpose and truth, right?
Technology world.
They don't want to have anything to do that.
Just binge watch your Netflix, you know, binge watch your Hulu, get onto
some kind of in some kind of metaverse video game world, and just be part of
the endless transactions that we're going to monetize by the way, you know?
And, uh, don't go out in the woods, you know, can't make, we
can't make any money off you.
If you're out in the woods, don't take personal responsibility
for your own health, you know, just do what we tell you to do.
Don't worry about your immune system.
You know, go eat crap, drink crap, just get the vaccine.
It's all going to be okay.
No, God says, no, this is no way to live.
You know?
And the escape from that is the rediscovery of traditional cosmology.
The re-ignite knowledgement of what it means to be a human being.
So you, and you use the word rejection of this scientistic ideology, which, uh,
cannot even acknowledge our humanity.
So you talk about, uh, you faith, spirituality, uh, the phrase,
a cosmic, what was that phrase?
You just use it lost it.
Traditional cosmology, traditional cosmology, besides, besides the fact
that you are coming from a Christian Judeo worldview and Christian Judeo.
Um, you know, I, I could see how some worldviews, you know, Hinduism
or Buddhism, for instance, where everything's just an illusion.
It's just, you know, we're in a dreamlike state and one day we'll
wake up from this Maya, this illusion, and we'll integrate with Nirvana and
I'm probably mixing up both Hinduism and Buddhism right now, I think.
Uh, but they're, they're close so I can see how that is a complete denial of the
corporeal world to say that we're walking through a dream is a complete denial.
So I can, I can clearly see how some major re religious worldviews
really go in line, especially when you see new, the new age movement
that's spreading across the globe.
Um, new ages, really just spreading.
Uh, you know, this, the blending of yoga and those spiritually connected,
excuse me, the spiritually connected, um, meditations and traditions.
But what is it that has led you to say that?
Well, it's the Christians you day a worldview through Christ.
That is the, the right world view.
That's kind of an audacious thing to say with, I can't just allow that without
any like backup of, of what brought you to that point, or why do you think that
why not another worldview or religion?
Why the Christians, your day a worldview?
Well, for me, uh, that is my native worldview, right?
That is the air that I, and my.
You know, ancestors over the last thousand years have lived in, breathe in.
It is our land.
It is our spiritual land.
Right.
And it is a wisdom tradition.
So leaving aside for the moment, the question of, uh, is it the Supreme wisdom
tradition, which is a very difficult and subtle question and one that can
lead to misunderstandings very readily.
Right.
And especially when it's oversimplified.
Right.
So would I be a Christian Catholic if I didn't think it was the,
uh, the correct worldview, right.
The Supreme worldview?
No, I wouldn't.
I'd be something else.
So obviously I believe it, but I also.
Uh, Wolfgang himself, you know, one of the most striking things about
him is he spent considerable time in India with yogis in his early life.
Right.
And it made a deep and profound reverential impression on
him that never left him.
And that awakened in him a spiritual interest in his own tradition, which
was the Christian Catholic tradition.
Right.
And so Wolfgang will be the first to tell us that we have much to
learn from the Hindus and from India and from the yogis that they
take their spirituality seriously.
Right.
And that we need to rediscover that same fervency and that same elevation
of the spiritual that he witnessed in India in our own spiritual traditions.
So, you know, that is what I would say.
That for me, after being on many different spiritual paths, you know, starting from
the Lutheran church into Berkeley to, uh, uh, scientism, you know, 12 step stuff.
That was an amazing experience seeing, you know, the 12 step world.
And I felt like I had discovered the real churches in America.
Right.
And then spent some time in meditation and into wisdom, spend some time.
And, um, this, uh, world called the fourth way.
ultimately, I longed for, uh, my roots and to bring that those
experiences and that wisdom back to the tradition that I was born into.
Right.
And also to give me a language to.
Have spiritual conversations with my own family and my own children.
Right.
That's an incredible thing to be able to actually have a spiritual
relationship and a spiritual language with which to, you know, make sure that
your children don't get lost in this physical, you know, unreality right.
To elevate these qualitative aspects of life, to something
of importance and centrality.
Right?
So that is our tradition.
Right.
You know, could I have gone down into path?
I was going down Hindu path for awhile.
You know, I didn't want to indu name, I didn't want a guru.
So my choice was to go back into my own wisdom tradition, and I
think we can't get away from.
And we should embrace it and we should rediscover it and
we should uh, revivify it.
Hmm.
As a fascinating answer.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Um,
yeah, I do think,
I do think that there is, and we don't talk about it enough here on our show.
I try to bring it in as often as I can, but there really is a
spiritual realm that we live in.
There is a spiritual reality that it feels like in Western culture.
At least, I don't know if bifurcated is the right word.
You've used it a lot.
So I feel like I should use it, but it feels like it's been bifurcated.
I feel like it's been divided where we do a lot of things.
Almost irrationally because we do believe in this spirit realm we've
seen, we've seen dark fig figures.
We've had the dreams we've woken up in the middle of the night
with a weight on our chest.
We can't be able to breathe.
You know, people have had these, uh, spiritual experiences and we
had experiences of light where we feel the presence of God.
We, we, we see miracles, things that are undeniable with our eye or,
or even interactions with people.
And yet we put that to a side in culture and we almost act
as if those things don't exist.
It's almost as if in a real life we, we operate as if we believe in
the spirit realm, knock on wood, for instance, or whatever other
superstitious behavior you might have.
But then when we have rational logical conversations like these, like these.
We throw that out the window.
And we talk intelligently where we say, well, well, I mean, we know that
all that doesn't exist, no matter how many horror movies I watched on
Netflix, I know that that's not real.
And yet that's what I engage with.
And so it just feels like this very self-sufficient industry schizophrenia.
Yes, yes, yes.
It's schizophrenia.
It's schizophrenia to say that we can't perceive reality.
And yet we're living in reality every day we are perceiving it.
Right.
But going back to the first preface to your book, it was like my objection
to the scientistic worldview is that it regards the world as unperceivable.
Yes.
And it presents it as a Mirage.
It's the real world speaking.
It's the real world.
Speaking of the real world, we live in a real world and I love
that you do work in real world.
And oftentimes I personally, I can tend to bury my head in the sand in
the real world, because I don't know if I'll actually actualize my potential.
I'd rather stay in my dream state world that, you know, something
that's happening across the globe, whether it's in Ukraine or whether
it's in the wall street, stock market.
Well, what does that have to do with me?
You know, really.
And even if, even if I did know what's going on, what could I possibly do?
What whatever is going to happen is whatever's going to happen.
And that's just my lot in life.
Uh, currently I guess it was about two weeks ago now it was the middle.
First week of April, about last week of March, first week of April, that
the yield curve inverted, and maybe people are listening, they don't
even know what a yield curve is.
Uh, we can, we don't have to go into the mechanics of it so much,
but why is that significant?
What should we do about it?
And we've talked previously that I mentioned previously that you work
in cycles, where are we in the macro cycle of economics, macro economics,
or just where we are in the cycle of the world with geopolitics.
And, and this is kind of a multi part question, but then I want to ask.
And so what, I don't want to stay in the physical theoretical.
World of, okay, it's going to snow outside.
I want to know what do I do?
How do I then go push that snow?
How do I go and interact with the physical realm?
So then not just left a victim running to the metaverse good.
Well, uh, you know, yield is, is the interest rate that you get paid for
loaning money for a period of time.
Normally if you're going to loan money for a short period of time, you'd expect to
earn less interest than if you're going to loan money for a long period of time.
Right.
And there's lots of different durations of loaning money, right?
So the most famous yield curve inversion is when you have two year
treasuries from the U S government paying, you know, say two, two and a
half percent, and then you have tenure treasuries from the U S government.
Right?
And so recently back in early April, there was more interest
being paid per year on the two.
Then there was on the tenure.
And how does that happen?
So you were getting like two and a half percent on the two year and you were
getting 2.4% on the 10 year for a year.
Is it the market that decides that the market decides that?
Yep.
So that's the so-called inversion of the yield curve.
And why is this significant?
Because often times, uh, when there is a yield curve inversion, particularly when
the two years are paying more interest to have a higher yield than the 10 years,
it's a harbinger of a upcoming recession.
And so the way that that would happen is a bunch of people are all of a sudden
wanting to buy two year bonds more than they want to buy 10 year bonds,
which causes the sale price to go up.
I'm saying that the near term cost of money, right.
That then what they can do with that money is more valuable today than what they
can do with it over the next 10 years.
Right.
So that's essentially saying that there's going to be less growth, right.
And so we don't care what happens in 10 years, we care about what's
happening in the next two years and we got to get our work done now.
So we need that money.
We're willing to pay more for it now, so we can get done
with it the, for the bad times.
Right.
So that's the idea of a yield curve inversion.
So going back to your other question, where are we at in the cycles?
Right.
I do believe that we are at a, uh, a 40 year low in yields that dates
back to the seventies and eighties, where you had Paul Volcker and the
federal reserve raising interest rates to, you know, 20% to try it.
Tame inflation.
And, um, I think that, you know, ever since then, we've been in a
40 year decline of those yields, especially longer-term yields.
And now we are starting to that starting to change.
Right.
We even went into negative yields.
We're still in negative, real yields.
Right.
But, uh, right.
So that is fundamentally starting to change.
And I think that's going to go on for decades.
And I think it's what I call, you know, the end of the
financialization of everything.
Okay.
All right.
A couple of questions though, for 40 years, the financialization of everything,
the financial engineering with cheaper and cheaper costs of money, right.
Has been, um, suppressing the value of things in the real world.
Right.
And so now.
Money is getting more expensive and it's going to keep getting more expensive.
And so things in the real world are going to be more valuable.
That's the simplest.
So you have commodities going up, you know, stocks will even go up
for a while, but many stocks are, are purely financial companies.
At this point, they don't have real world assets, you know, maybe they just have
digital assets, like what is Robin hood?
You know, what kind of real world assets does Robin hood have?
No, they're, they're a financial company.
Right.
And so, you know, those facts, those purely financial assets
are going to go down in value.
They already have gone down in value significantly.
Right.
And you know, like my neighbor's business where he's got to move rocks, you know,
like that that's going to go up because.
Things are going to have to start being done in the real world.
Again, you know, in the corporeal world, we can't live purely
in this physical Fiat world.
Right.
And Fiat, what kind of currency do we have today?
Right.
We have Fiat currency, right.
From when Nixon took the us off the gold standard.
There was no longer any mourning to any kind of physical reality.
I mean, physical, I have to be careful about physical corporeal reality, right?
Because we're using physical, incorporeal in a technical way
here as defined by Wolfgang Smith.
Right.
So, um, so I want to bring back old is a corporeal, uh, entity.
I want to come back to.
That's something you said, just to understand, you said that
interest rates have been real interest rates have been negative.
And is that because inflation is higher than the interest that
you're going to go on on bond?
So you might get 3% on a bond, but it's interesting.
There's inflation is 5% you're losing your real yield is minus 2% your real yield.
And so what that means is interest rates.
You're seeing that we're at a 40 or you're low.
What that means is that interest rates are going to begin to rise.
So my question is there's been a lot of talk of, of hyperinflation.
Do you think that we're heading in a direction of hyperinflation or do you
think we're going to see something that we saw in Japan where there was inflation
for a while and then as interest rates.
There was mega deflation and mega depression, not just to recession, which
is Japan done digging out of that hole.
I don't know.
You would know.
So is, is that more of the direction that we're supposed
to, that we're expecting to see?
I think so.
I think the Japan effication of America is a reasonable thesis.
Yes.
Especially if people stop having children and antinatalism is on the rise.
So, uh, fear, fear, not, I don't think that that is going
to be reversed anytime soon.
Sadly.
Uh, what does that, what does events that were bad for the planet?
Oh, it's horrible.
It's horrible.
I mean, it's horrible episode, 277 folks just talked about that at length.
Uh, but what does, what does that.
Well, what, what do I do?
What are the practical things that you do?
You learn how to do, learn, how to build something again, as a victim,
you, uh, I think you invest more in your local relationships, right?
And your local enterprises, you know, you do not have to give your money to an
institution to put it into an index fund.
You know, like going back to this idea of the soul, right.
I'd like to write a book called investing with soul.
So, you know, I think that finance has been turned into the ultimate machine.
You know, I think the United States has, um, uh, kind of lost its, um, its
moorings and its integrity because of its exorbitant privilege of being able to
print the world's reserve currency and.
And it has become a financial superpower more than anything.
Right.
And, you know, we are having trouble with our supply chains now because you
know, it was all financialized and we don't know how to build things anymore.
And so I think that there's this kind of retreat going on from globalization.
Some people call it slow realization and, uh, I think that's going to continue.
So I think, you know, things are going to contract.
Um, things are going to become more local and I think that's actually a
better way to live, but it's going to be a painful process because, um, we've
gone so far in the other direction.
It's gonna be a shock and a big adjustment to start to, um, uh, Retreat a bit.
Do you think we will slow down?
Do you think we'll see the D dollar suffocation of, of the us dollar as the
global reserve currency and going back to gold, you mentioned that gold is called.
I don't know if it will be gold, but I do.
I think that's actually part of what's going on with this war right
now, between Russia and the west.
It's really a war between Russia and the west.
India has not come out against Russia.
China has not come out against Russia, you know, and I think all
three of them together have some legitimate beefs with the way that
the United States is running the financial, the global financial system.
Yeah.
Right.
And that's a, it's kind of a terrible power that we have.
And, um, uh, you know, I am not saying that, um, we can't recover from that.
I think we have to rediscover the soul of what it means, you know, to, uh,
to be the global superpower, you know, and we have to act with the good of
the whole in mind and not just with our own advancement and power in mind.
And, um, and I think that, you know, the financial ism financialization
of everything which has been going on for, you know, 40, 60
years now, um, has gone too far.
And, uh, so I do think a friend of mine called it world financial war one, huh?
Not world war three, not kinetic world war three.
It's world financial war, one that we're in the midst of right now.
And, uh, so it's going to be a lot more volatility, a lot more uncertainty.
Um, going back to what I'm doing in my professional life, I'm developing
financial technology to help people understand risk and to be able to
factor risk mathematical risk, right.
In financial risk into their financial decision-making right.
And to start to work with risk, you know, instead of just, as you said,
sticking your head in the sand.
Yeah.
You have to understand the risks that are out there.
There are risk signals, you know, that markets are processing every day.
Right.
And, you know, we have the ability to be savvy financial decision-makers,
but we have to be looking through the same lens that professionals
and institutions are using.
To understand the world of finance.
And as I said, I think the internet is natively financial.
So, you know, these are things and again, it's, it's a personal
responsibility question, right?
Do you want to abdicate that and outsource that to somebody else?
No, thank you.
You know, right.
I don't want to put my money into an index fund because I don't like what
a lot of the companies in an index fund are doing and investing is partly
about creating the future that we want for our children and for our culture.
It's not just a passive give your money to the markets, you know, and beat inflation.
No, it's about creating the future that we want.
Absolutely.
That's investing with soul absolute because you're saying I have a
soul, you know, my soul matters.
My soul can influence things.
Even if it might not be, you know, that detectable, it's still the act that
matters and you will grow your soul.
If you act with soul, it reminds me of what you said
earlier of, for whatever reason.
This just struck me that the quantum realm, the physical realm,
uh, as the be defined technically is just a realm of potential.
And that it's just, and it's when it is interacts with the world
that it becomes actualized.
And maybe this is maybe Wolfgang.
Wouldn't agree with this.
I'm sure he'd be like, well, actually there's some nuance to that, but it
feels as if we, as individuals, as human beings who are created, not
evolve, not just a sack of self.
But we are something that's greater than the atoms that make us the tripartite
cosmos, you have Corpus, right?
That's our bodies.
We have Ani ma it's kind of our soul or our psyche.
And we have spirits use Corpus on AMA spirits.
Yes.
For psyche and pneuma.
Sometimes it's called P N E U M a like pneumatic breath.
Right.
So act with soul and beyond soul is spirit.
Yes.
Right?
Yeah.
Body, soul, and spirit, three parts.
Don't ignore spirit and soul just for body.
And then don't try to turn body into something purely digital.
Yes.
And quantitative.
And when we do that, when we can unreal live in that mediation, Metta world.
And, and, you know, you talk about mediator, essentially mediated finances.
We're like, well, I don't know.
I don't know what to do.
I'm just going to give it a hedge fund.
I don't know.
I'm just going to put it into my 401k.
I don't know.
I'm just going to trade it on Robin hood and try to do this.
I have no idea what I'm doing, that it, it leaves us in this realm of uncertainty.
It leaves us in this realm of potential.
But when we step outside of that, and this is kind of, you know, a little quantum,
when we step outside of that and we engage with the world around us, with the woods
outside with building something with our hands, moving rocks or something in front
of us and invest our life, not just on a sticker top or a, uh, a stock ticker, but
we invest our life into people around us.
Then that is what actualizes, who we are meant to be.
And we're no longer a sack of probabilities or potential, but we
become actualized into the person that we were created and packed full of
breath on this earth to be absolutely sounds like a good note to end on.
That's a great note.
Where can, uh, where can people, I guess people can find, find you at Dr.
Richard smith.com they can find, but we're really here to primarily do talk about
Wolfgang's work, which is at fellows Phi, L O S hyphen Sophia, S O P H I a love
of wisdom below Sophia dot O R g.org.
The and if you're listening on a podcast, 2.0 certified app, uh, speaking
of the web three, you can click the.
You can just click right there.
And the link is right there on your phone as you listen.
It's amazing.
And if you're new to Wolfgang's work, a great way to great place
to start is with the movie that was made about his work in his life.
A couple of weeks, about two years ago called the end of quantum reality.
Um, it's available on our website, Philo sophia.org.
You can, and it's also available at Amazon.
Well, thank you so much Dr.
Smith for being with us today.
We really appreciate it.
It's been a great conversation.
Appreciate it.
Thank you for listening.
And I hope that you enjoyed this episode with Dr.
Richard Smith.
If you enjoyed it, I ask that you go and check out Dr.
Wolf gang's work and also check out the floss Sophia initiative, which
has lots of great content that if you enjoyed this will enjoy that.
If you want to get more out of this episode, share it with a friend by sharing
it and having a conversation with someone else about this helps you build your
society to be something that is strong to be something that you want to live in.
And it deepens your relationship with those around you.
That is all.
Thank you.
Remember, go out and own your future.