Latest / The Joe Rogan Recap / Julia Mossbridge (2026) - Consciousness, Precognition and the Culture of Discovery

Transcript

Julia Mossbridge (2026) - Consciousness, Precognition and the Culture of Discovery · The Joe Rogan Recap

• 0:00
  Welcome to the Joe Rogan Recap and before we get going, please
• 0:03
  follow us right here on Spotify to make sure you get sight of
• 0:06
  our latest episodes in your feed.
• 0:09
  So I want you to imagine, just for a second, sitting down at a
• 0:12
  brand new job. OK.
• 0:14
  You're 20 years old, right? You've just been hired on the
• 0:17
  spot for this very basic data entry role at a major aerospace
• 0:21
  defense contractor. You sit at your desk, you type
• 0:24
  your first sentence, and then you just blink.
• 0:27
  Just a normal blink. Yeah, but suddenly the sun is
• 0:30
  setting outside. Oh wow.
• 0:31
  You are physically shaking, tears are literally streaming
• 0:34
  down your face and you're handing a typed resignation
• 0:37
  letter to a boss who looks at you and says that's a shame, I
• 0:40
  thought you'd have a great future here and you have
• 0:42
  absolutely 0 memory of the last 8 hours.
• 0:45
  I mean, it sounds exactly like the opening scene of some sci-fi
• 0:48
  thriller, but that is a real, documented experience, right?
• 0:51
  And it's really just one piece of a much larger, frankly
• 0:55
  unsettling puzzle. Exactly So today's mission for
• 0:59
  this deep dive is unpacking a seriously mind bending
• 1:02
  conversation from the Joe Rogan Experience featuring Doctor
• 1:05
  Julia Mossbridge. We are going on a journey today
• 1:09
  that bridges cognitive neuroscience, quantum physics,
• 1:13
  precognition, and, as that opening story suggests, alleged
• 1:17
  covert government testing. Yeah, and we really need to
• 1:21
  establish the foundation right out of the gate here, because
• 1:23
  when we start talking about things like precognition and
• 1:25
  missing time, people naturally get pretty defensive.
• 1:28
  Oh totally, they shut down. Right.
• 1:29
  But Doctor Mossbridge isn't some fringe theorist broadcasting
• 1:33
  from a basement. You know she is a highly trained
• 1:35
  cognitive neuroscientist and a computer scientist IT.
• 1:38
  Has serious credentials. Absolutely.
• 1:39
  She earned her PhD from Northwestern, did postdoc work
• 1:42
  there, has a masters from UC San Francisco.
• 1:44
  These are top tier, rigorous institutions, but she actually
• 1:49
  walked away from the traditional academic establishment because
• 1:51
  she found it actively suppresses research into what she calls
• 1:56
  exceptional human performance. OK, let's unpack this.
• 2:00
  Because to understand how the human brain might literally be
• 2:03
  able to look into the future, we first need to understand why the
• 2:07
  scientific community point blank refuses to look at the data
• 2:11
  proving it in the sources. There's this fascinating
• 2:15
  comparison made between academia and a rigid cult.
• 2:19
  Like it points out how on the political extremes, you know,
• 2:23
  the left or the right, people get cancelled if they deviate
• 2:26
  from the accepted doctrine. Right.
• 2:27
  The sources make that parallel very clear.
• 2:30
  Just to impartially report on that idea, it's saying academia
• 2:33
  operates the exact same way. Exactly.
• 2:35
  It's described as this ego driven gatekeeping system.
• 2:38
  If you even bring up psychic phenomena, you lose your
• 2:40
  funding, you lose your lab. And your career is basically
• 2:43
  over. Yeah.
• 2:44
  But Doctor Mossbridge couldn't ignore it because she actually
• 2:47
  started experiencing it as a child.
• 2:48
  Precisely Her first, like, distinctly precognitive
• 2:52
  experience happened when she was just seven years old.
• 2:55
  She had this vivid, highly specific dream that her friend
• 2:59
  Elaine was going to lose her brand new watch on the
• 3:02
  playground. And then it happened the very
• 3:04
  next day. That exact sequence of events
• 3:06
  played out perfectly. That's wild.
• 3:09
  Now, her father was a theoretical physicist, right?
• 3:13
  And his reaction to his daughter predicting the future is
• 3:15
  incredibly telling. He just completely dismissed it
• 3:18
  as a statistical coincidence. Which is such a classic hard
• 3:20
  science reflex. Yeah.
• 3:22
  Like if the data doesn't fit the current mathematical model of
• 3:24
  the universe, you just throw the data out.
• 3:27
  It really is. Moss Bridge likens it to that
• 3:30
  old spherical cow joke in physics.
• 3:32
  Oh, I love that one. Yeah.
• 3:34
  Like if you ask a physicist to calculate the volume of the cow,
• 3:37
  they'll say, OK, first let's assume the cow is a sphere,
• 3:40
  right? They mentally cut off the legs,
• 3:42
  the head, the tail. They entirely divorce themselves
• 3:45
  from reality just to make the math clean and controllable.
• 3:48
  Because reality is messy. Exactly.
• 3:50
  Hard science has this deep desire to simplify a messy
• 3:54
  universe. If a phenomenon like predicting
• 3:57
  a lost watch or, say, seeing ball lightning float through
• 4:01
  your living room, doesn't fit the established equations, the
• 4:04
  scientific establishment just pretends it didn't happen.
• 4:06
  But if you're a rigorously trained scientist like she is,
• 4:10
  how do you actually prove precognition in a controlled lab
• 4:14
  setting? I mean, you can't just publish A
• 4:16
  peer reviewed paper based on a 7 year old's dream journal.
• 4:19
  No, of course not. There has to be an objective,
• 4:22
  measurable mechanism. And there is You measure the
• 4:24
  body's autonomic nervous system. OK, this brings us to the data
• 4:28
  she compiled on what's called presentiment.
• 4:30
  Moss Bridge actually analyzed 26 separate peer reviewed studies
• 4:35
  conducted over 4 decades by various labs.
• 4:38
  Wow, 26, Yeah. And these studies show that the
• 4:41
  human body reacts physiologically before a random
• 4:43
  event actually occurs. Wait.
• 4:45
  Walk. Me through how that actually
• 4:46
  works in the lab. How do they know the body is
• 4:48
  reacting to the future? So the standard setup is quite
• 4:52
  elegant. A subject sits in front of a
• 4:54
  computer screen and they're hooked up to a galvanic skin
• 4:58
  response monitor. Which basically measures sweat.
• 5:00
  Essentially, yes. It measures micro fluctuations
• 5:03
  and how much you sweat, which is a classic indicator of autonomic
• 5:06
  arousal. So the computer is programmed
• 5:09
  with a random number generator to flash either a calming image
• 5:13
  like a landscape, or a highly shocking image like a car crash
• 5:17
  or a snake. OK, so it's totally random.
• 5:19
  Completely random, but what the data consistently shows is that
• 5:22
  the subject skin conductance spikes seconds before the
• 5:26
  computer even randomly selects and displays the shocking image.
• 5:30
  Insane. I know the body literally braces
• 5:33
  for impact before the event mathematically exists.
• 5:36
  And the data revealed this wild gender divide in these
• 5:39
  anticipation spikes, too. Like before a random correct or
• 5:44
  winning guess in these trials, men's skin conductance spikes
• 5:48
  wildly. It's like their nervous systems
• 5:50
  are popping champagne before the wind even happens.
• 5:52
  That's a. Great way to put it.
• 5:54
  But for women, their physiological responses remain
• 5:56
  relatively flat, regardless of whether they're about to get it
• 5:59
  right or wrong. Which is such a fascinating
• 6:01
  biological quirk. Why do you think that divergence
• 6:03
  even exists? Well, if we look at like
• 6:06
  evolutionary and cultural drives, there's this deep
• 6:09
  biological imperative for men to win or, you know, survive tribal
• 6:13
  warfare. If anticipating an ambush or a
• 6:16
  successful hunt kept your ancestors alive, your nervous
• 6:20
  system is going to be hyper tuned to that specific future
• 6:24
  consequence. The reward system is deeply tied
• 6:27
  to the anticipation of success. That is exactly the hypothesis.
• 6:31
  It's an evolutionary survival mechanism woven right into our
• 6:34
  precognitive hardware. But OK, that brings up a glaring
• 6:39
  contradiction for me. What's that?
• 6:40
  If we all have this latent, you know, precognitive telepathic
• 6:45
  hardware pre installed in our biology, why are you and I
• 6:49
  reading each other's minds right now?
• 6:51
  Well, the answer actually lies in the very tool we are using to
• 6:54
  communicate right now. Language.
• 6:56
  Really. Yeah.
• 6:57
  Joe Rogan actually theorized during their conversation that
• 7:00
  telepathy atrophied because we invented spoken language.
• 7:03
  But Mossbridge corrects him with a crucial distinction.
• 7:06
  OK, it has an atrophied. It is actively being suppressed
• 7:09
  by the language symptom of your brain, specifically a region
• 7:13
  called the left frontal orbital area.
• 7:15
  Wait, let me make sure I'm getting this.
• 7:16
  So if my brain is a filter, it's basically acting like a pair of
• 7:19
  noise cancelling headphones. It's actively shutting out the
• 7:22
  subtle telepathic signals or precognitive echoes just so I
• 7:26
  can focus on making breakfast or speaking a coherent sentence.
• 7:30
  That is a brilliant analogy. It's known as the filter theory
• 7:33
  of consciousness. So consciousness and information
• 7:36
  might be everywhere, like a massive overlapping radio
• 7:40
  signal, right? If you heard every frequency at
• 7:42
  once, you'd be paralyzed. You wouldn't be able to
• 7:44
  function, so your left frontal orbital area acts as a limiter,
• 7:49
  filtering out the overwhelming noise of the universe so you can
• 7:52
  function locally. Which perfectly explains our
• 7:55
  inner monologue. For most of us, it's this
• 7:57
  constant blaring stream of words and logic.
• 8:00
  It's playing 24/7 and it completely grounds out the faint
• 8:03
  frequency of telepathy. Exactly.
• 8:05
  But how did they actually prove that this specific part of the
• 8:08
  brain is the jammer? Mossbridge points to the
• 8:10
  incredible work of a neurologist named Morris Freeman.
• 8:14
  He studied stroke patients who had suffered physical damage
• 8:17
  specifically to that left frontal orbital area.
• 8:20
  The brain's logic and language filter.
• 8:22
  Right. And because their biological
• 8:23
  jammer was broken, the underlying signal actually came
• 8:26
  through. And what could they do?
• 8:28
  They were able to move a cursor on a computer screen that was
• 8:31
  hooked up to a random number generator using nothing but
• 8:35
  their intention, you. Mean they didn't touch a mouse.
• 8:37
  They didn't touch a mouse, they just willed the cursor to move
• 8:41
  and it statistically deviated from randomness.
• 8:44
  Wow. And to prove this wasn't just
• 8:46
  some weird anomaly with stroke patients, Freeman used a
• 8:48
  technology called transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS.
• 8:53
  Oh, that's where they use a powerful magnetic coil held
• 8:56
  outside the skull to temporarily turn off specific regions of the
• 8:59
  brain. Right, exactly.
• 9:01
  They used TMS to temporarily suppress that exact same left
• 9:06
  brain language area in healthy neurotypical people.
• 9:09
  And the result. Those healthy people could
• 9:12
  suddenly move the cursor with their minds too.
• 9:14
  The ability was always there, was just being talked over by
• 9:17
  their own brains. I have to push back here though.
• 9:20
  Moving a cursor a few pixels on a screen is one thing, but the
• 9:23
  sources talk about non speaking autistic children doing things
• 9:27
  that sound like outright parlor tricks.
• 9:29
  I know it sounds unbelievable. Because these kids aren't
• 9:31
  engaging that left brain language center to speak out
• 9:34
  loud. Their telepathic frequencies are
• 9:37
  supposedly like wide open. But how do we know they aren't
• 9:41
  just reading micro expressions or getting subtle cues from the
• 9:44
  researchers? That is the exact right question
• 9:47
  to ask, and it's why the experimental design is so
• 9:49
  incredibly important here. They set up highly rigorous
• 9:53
  remote viewing trials. OK, how remote?
• 9:55
  The person sending the target image wasn't even in the room.
• 9:58
  They were multiple rooms away, behind a closed door, looking at
• 10:02
  a screen. There was zero line of sight,
• 10:05
  zero chance for micro expressions.
• 10:07
  So completely isolated. Yes, and in one instance under
• 10:10
  these strict conditions a non speaking student used his letter
• 10:14
  board to perfectly describe the hidden target video as quote art
• 10:18
  of a beautiful sky at. The target video playing
• 10:20
  multiple rooms away was a time lapse of the Northern Lights
• 10:23
  glowing over the tops of trees. Statistically, pulling that
• 10:27
  exact poetic description out of thin air with no visual cues is
• 10:31
  just impossible. It defies classical statistics
• 10:34
  entirely, and what's more, these kids appear to be tapped into
• 10:38
  the same network. Mossbridge calls them telepathy
• 10:42
  trains. Telepathy trains.
• 10:44
  Yeah, kids who had literally never met and we're in
• 10:47
  completely different locations were passing along psychic
• 10:50
  messages like. Playing a game of telephone.
• 10:52
  Exactly. For example, one kid types out
• 10:55
  on his board that he wants to go on a double date with the next
• 10:58
  test subjects girlfriend. OK, 20 minutes later, that next
• 11:02
  kid who was miles away during the first session walks into the
• 11:06
  testing room and immediately brings up the double date on his
• 11:09
  own board. It's like they're changing the
• 11:11
  Wi-Fi channel on a router and they all have the password to
• 11:14
  the same hidden frequency. And the sources mentioned it
• 11:17
  gets even more granular than a double date, right?
• 11:19
  It really does. During one session, a student
• 11:22
  was failing to kick up the hidden video target, so he
• 11:25
  tacked out a suggestion. What did he suggest?
• 11:27
  He said to get on the right timeline to receive the psychic
• 11:29
  video, the sender in the other room should mentally picture
• 11:33
  slamming a beach ball on the ground.
• 11:35
  Just a totally arbitrary visualization, yeah.
• 11:38
  Completely arbitrary, but when the next student walked into the
• 11:41
  testing room, having heard absolutely none of this, he
• 11:44
  immediately suggested through his board that trying the beach
• 11:48
  ball slam would be a good idea to sync up their minds.
• 11:50
  And that gives me chills. And it wasn't just happening in
• 11:53
  waking Lamb hours either. One of these non speaking
• 11:55
  students psychically visited Mosss bridge in her dream.
• 11:59
  Yes, he headed her a highly specific rotating orb covered in
• 12:03
  some spots in the very next day on his letter board before she
• 12:07
  said a single word about her dream.
• 12:09
  He tells her. I still can't get over this.
• 12:11
  I sent you a pre revolutionary orb with four stars on it slowly
• 12:15
  rotating. He literally logged into her
• 12:16
  subconscious. He did.
• 12:18
  Here's where it gets really interesting though.
• 12:20
  If non speaking kids in our subconscious minds could tap
• 12:23
  into future information or remote locations.
• 12:25
  There has to be a physical mechanical rule in the universe
• 12:28
  allowing information to move backward through time.
• 12:31
  There does. What is the actual physics
• 12:33
  behind? This Well, in quantum physics,
• 12:34
  the bridge between mind and matter appears to be photons,
• 12:38
  particles of light. Photons are what physicists call
• 12:41
  busonic particles. Let's unpack that jargon for a
• 12:43
  second, right? Bosonic basically means they
• 12:45
  don't take up exclusive space, right?
• 12:47
  Correct. Unlike solid billiard balls that
• 12:50
  bounce off each other, bosonic particles are more like ghosts.
• 12:54
  You can stack a million of them in the exact same spot at the
• 12:56
  exact same time. That's a really great analogy.
• 12:59
  They operate outside the rules of classical matter and this
• 13:03
  leads to the famous double slit experiment where a single photon
• 13:07
  is fired at a barrier with two slits.
• 13:10
  Right, the classic experiment. Yeah, and instead of going
• 13:12
  through one or the other, it goes through both simultaneously
• 13:14
  and interferes with itself. It proves that a photon can be
• 13:18
  non local in space. But Mossbridge realized a
• 13:22
  massive implication here. If a photon can be nonlocal in
• 13:25
  space, it can logically be nonlocal in time.
• 13:29
  Whoa. So how did she test that?
• 13:31
  How do you actually prove a particle of light is
• 13:34
  communicating with its future self?
• 13:35
  She designed this groundbreaking retro causality experiment.
• 13:39
  Imagine a laser firing single photons at a sensor.
• 13:42
  OK, I'm picturing it. Before the photon hits the
• 13:45
  sensor and forms a pattern, a computer randomly generates a
• 13:49
  number that will dictate how long the experiment will keep
• 13:52
  running in the future. So the length of the experiment
• 13:54
  is decided later. Yes, and what Mossbridge found
• 13:58
  was that the photons emitted right now change their
• 14:01
  behavioral pattern on the sensor based on the duration the
• 14:04
  computer was going to randomly select later.
• 14:06
  You're kidding. No, the photons in the present
• 14:09
  were getting a reverberation, an echo from the future state of
• 14:13
  the machine. But wait, if the photon knows
• 14:15
  exactly what the random number generator is going to do 30
• 14:19
  seconds from now, does that mean I'm just following a script?
• 14:22
  Yeah. Like is the future completely
• 14:23
  locked in? That is the ultimate
• 14:25
  philosophical tension here. We have to carefully
• 14:28
  differentiate between the future influencing the present versus
• 14:31
  changing an already set timeline.
• 14:33
  OK, how so? Retro causality suggests time
• 14:36
  isn't a one way conveyor belt, it's more of a Figure 8 loop.
• 14:40
  The future loops back and continuously exerts a
• 14:42
  gravitational pull or like an influence on the past.
• 14:45
  So it pulls but doesn't force. Right, the probabilities are
• 14:48
  interacting, but it doesn't necessarily mean consciousness
• 14:51
  lacks agency. OK, but if the human brain is
• 14:54
  utilizing these photons and this retro causal loop, it
• 14:58
  fundamentally A bends how we are currently trying to build
• 15:01
  technology. Entirely, Mossbridge argues our
• 15:03
  current approach to quantum computing is fundamentally
• 15:06
  flawed. Tech giants are spending
• 15:08
  billions trying to trap single isolated subatomic particles in
• 15:12
  super cooled environments near absolute 0.
• 15:15
  Just to force them to behave like rigid classical computers.
• 15:18
  Exactly, but nature doesn't put things in freezing boxes.
• 15:22
  Simple leaf undergoing photosynthesis is essentially
• 15:25
  performing quantum computing at room temperature.
• 15:27
  Really a leaf? Yes, it does this by using the
• 15:31
  group properties of bosonic particles and tapping into these
• 15:34
  non local phenomena. And if leaf can do it, the human
• 15:37
  brain, which is infinitely more complex, is absolutely a room
• 15:41
  temperature quantum computer. Without a doubt.
• 15:43
  Now let's use some logical deduction here.
• 15:46
  If the human brain is capable of retro causality, remote viewing,
• 15:50
  and room temperature quantum processing, there is zero chance
• 15:54
  the intelligence and defense communities didn't notice.
• 15:58
  Powerful institutions are going to want to study or weaponize
• 16:02
  that. Which explains A deeply
• 16:04
  disturbing chapter in Mossbridge's own childhood.
• 16:07
  As a listener, hearing this part of the sources was visceral.
• 16:11
  It is incredibly heavy and it grounds all this high level
• 16:15
  physics in a very dark reality. In the 1980s, when Mossbridge
• 16:19
  was in middle school in Illinois, she was placed in a
• 16:22
  gifted program called SOAS. OAR.
• 16:25
  Right. She later uncovered that the
• 16:27
  acronym originally stood for Students on Active Research.
• 16:30
  That's terrifying. She has these vivid, disturbing
• 16:33
  memories of being pulled out of her 7th grade classes and taken
• 16:36
  to a small room with covered windows to see so-called
• 16:39
  counselors. What actually happened in that
• 16:40
  room? They would give her and other
• 16:42
  children chalky pink drinks. Immediately after consuming
• 16:45
  them, she would experience total blackout.
• 16:47
  Just complete missing time. Complete missing time.
• 16:51
  She would eventually be sent back to class with absolutely no
• 16:53
  memory of what experiments or testing occurred in that room.
• 16:57
  And the surveillance didn't stop in middle school, which brings
• 17:00
  us back to that terrifying opening scenario we talked
• 17:03
  about. Right, the Lockheed Martin
• 17:05
  incident. Yeah, when she was 20 years old,
• 17:07
  she applied for a simple word processing job as a temp at
• 17:11
  Lockheed Martin. She's hired on the spot, sits
• 17:14
  down at a computer, and then the blackout hits. 8 hours just
• 17:18
  gone. Gone.
• 17:19
  She wakes up shaking, typing a resignation letter, and the boss
• 17:22
  makes that eerie comment about her great future.
• 17:26
  It screams MK Ultra. But why her?
• 17:30
  Out of millions of kids? Why was she targeted for active
• 17:33
  research? Well, the historical context she
• 17:35
  uncovered makes it even more chilling.
• 17:37
  Mossbridge's grandfather was a uranium miner in Denver.
• 17:40
  Her mother grew up with radioactive dust physically
• 17:43
  tracked into their home. Mossbridge later found federal
• 17:46
  documents showing that the fence agencies were explicitly
• 17:49
  tracking intergenerational radiation exposure in specific
• 17:52
  families. You're saying they were looking
• 17:53
  for mutations? They were essentially running a
• 17:55
  massive covert longitudinal study to see if this specific
• 18:00
  type of radiation exposure mutated human consciousness,
• 18:04
  perhaps enhancing the exact precognitive or remote viewing
• 18:07
  abilities we've been discussing. It's a profound violation.
• 18:10
  The intelligence community or their aerospace contractors were
• 18:14
  allegedly conducting memory wiping experiments on public
• 18:17
  school children without any parental consent, just mining
• 18:20
  the civilian population for psychic assets.
• 18:23
  It's a lot to take in. So what does this all mean?
• 18:25
  I mean, how does a person even begin to process that level of
• 18:29
  institutional betrayal? You use the very physics we just
• 18:32
  discussed to heal yourself. Mossbridge realized that if time
• 18:36
  is non linear, trauma doesn't have to be either.
• 18:38
  That is the core of her book. Have a nice disclosure right
• 18:41
  now. Everyone in the UFO and
• 18:43
  paranormal communities is waiting for the government to
• 18:46
  drop classified files. Right, the big reveal.
• 18:48
  But Mossbridge argues that true disclosure is internal.
• 18:52
  It's exploring your own inner space, trusting your own strange
• 18:55
  experiences, and refusing to let a shadowy authority figure
• 18:59
  dictate your reality. But she didn't just write a
• 19:02
  theory right, She built a practical tool.
• 19:05
  She did. She started a nonprofit called
• 19:07
  Applied Love Labs and created an application called Time Machine,
• 19:11
  and the application of this is profound.
• 19:13
  How does it work? The app allows users to record
• 19:16
  and send audio messages to their future selves and, crucially, to
• 19:20
  receive and listen to messages from their past selves.
• 19:23
  They are working with veterans, incarcerated individuals at the
• 19:26
  Cook County Jail and severe trauma survivors.
• 19:29
  Let's just think about the psychological weight of that for
• 19:31
  a second. It creates this temporal bubble
• 19:34
  of unconditional love. You aren't just getting over the
• 19:36
  past. No, you're interacting with it.
• 19:38
  If retro causality is real, you are literally mathematically
• 19:42
  sending an emotional signal back along your own timeline.
• 19:45
  You are the older wiser voice reaching back into the past,
• 19:49
  sitting in that small room with the covered windows next to your
• 19:52
  younger self saying I am here and you are going to survive
• 19:56
  this. It is emotional retro paisality,
• 19:59
  just as the photons in her lab received a reverberation from
• 20:02
  their future state. Humans can send grace and hope
• 20:05
  back and forth across their own lives to alter their emotional
• 20:08
  present. That's.
• 20:09
  Beautiful. It is, and if we synthesize all
• 20:12
  of this, the takeaways are completely paradigm shifting.
• 20:15
  Our minds are far more expansive than the rigid strictures of
• 20:18
  spoken language allow us to realize.
• 20:21
  The future isn't a blank, impenetrable wall.
• 20:24
  It is constantly whispering to the present at a quantum level.
• 20:28
  And most importantly, we possess the inherent power to use that
• 20:32
  temporal connection not for espionage or warfare, but to
• 20:35
  heal ourselves. So to you listening right now,
• 20:39
  next time you get a random inexplicable gut feeling to
• 20:41
  avoid a certain street, or you have a hyper specific dream that
• 20:45
  seems to bleed into reality, don't just brush it off as a
• 20:47
  statistical anomaly. Don't cut the legs off the
• 20:50
  spherical. Cow.
• 20:50
  Exactly. It might literally be a
• 20:52
  transmission from your own future.
• 20:54
  And I'll leave you with this final concept to Mull over.
• 20:57
  If time time truly is a Figure 8 loop, and our physical bodies
• 21:01
  are constantly bracing for the future consequences of choices
• 21:04
  we haven't even made yet, what does that actually mean for the
• 21:07
  concept of free will? That's the big question.
• 21:09
  Are we actually making real time decisions or are we just walking
• 21:12
  a path, feeling the echoes of a future that has already
• 21:15
  happened? Are you driving the timeline or
• 21:18
  just reacting to the loop? Something to think about.
• 21:21
  Until next time.