say look here's the encryption key. Do you know who had access to this? Everybody who knew where to look. Wouldn't that be the end of the case? Like how could you sit in the jury and let, and let's say that that evidence held up against cross-examination and everything. If that held up that it really was there and if you knew where to look you could find it. Now here's the part I don't know. How many people had access to that? Because you'd still have to have access to the system before you could find something on the system. So at the very least it would mean that any of the techs using the system could have thwarted it. So an inside job would still be possible but probably has to be an inside job unless the hackers can get in and maybe they can. So we'll keep an eye on that.

If you had applied the Dilbert filter to the election what would it have predicted? Now the Dilbert filter says that all big organizations operate super inefficiently and selfishly and stupidly and everything's a lie. That's the Dilbert filter. We were told that this massive enterprise of machines and technology and how it's all tied together in this complex system was flawless. If you've ever had any experience in a big company or any big organization there's no big organization that could pull this off flawlessly. The number of alleged problems with the system are exactly what I would have predicted. And I think I did, maybe not in the right words. But if you had any experience in a Dilbert-like world and this is a whole bunch of Dilbert worlds, you know every election precinct is a little Dilbert world. People don't have the ability to do this flawlessly. That's not something humans can do. Humans cannot pull off this level of complexity and organization without a lot of problems. So as soon as you were told that we don't have any problems every antenna should have gone up. Wait a minute you're in exactly a situation where 100% of the time there are problems and big ones. But this is the only time that that's not the case. Would you have believed it? No. The Dilbert filter is very predictive. If it's a big organization people are cheating and lying and bullshitting every time. Not sometimes, not most of the time, every time. It's just something to do with scale. If you get enough people in one place doing some kind of common thing a lot of them are going to be bad people. You can't avoid it.

All right let's take that and apply that to let's say climate change. Have you noticed that checking the temperature, the thermometers around the country, remind you of checking of voting machines? Let's say in both cases it's a very large enterprise with very complicated lots of moving parts, lots of human beings involved, a lack of transparency, very high stakes, people have a lot of money involved. How often is that going to be corrupt? If you use the Dilbert filter the Dilbert filter would say that climate change would be corrupt 100% of the time. And that the reading of the thermometers isn't much different from the making sure your election, your counting machines and your voting machines are all accurate and there's no security problems and that all the people working on them did the thing to keep them secure. Because remember the security of Dominion's machines I think this is fair to say is not about their design because nobody said yet, I haven't seen anybody say this, that they're designed poorly. It appears that the humans are the problem. If somebody left an unencrypted basically a password to the whole machine to give you god capability that feels more like a human problem. Like somebody should have known not to do that. It doesn't exactly sound like a technology problem. I mean it looks like it was done intentionally but you know in the real world incompetence explains almost everything so we can't tell in this case.

So I would say I would take the Dilbert filter to the climate thermometer measuring world and I'd say there's not really any chance the humans can do that as accurately as the experts tell us. So I have the same opinion on the voting machines as I do on climate change. That when you've got that level of complexity and money's involved and all that that's not something people can do to a level of perfection that you would want.

Now let's talk about evolution. I love that evolution is in the headlines again. It's just the ultimate provocative thing. So Tucker was on Joe Rogan the other day and said Tucker said that he doesn't believe in evolution. He does believe in species changing over time in the sense that you know you could breed a dog to be taller or bigger and maybe finches can have bigger or smaller beaks or change their colors. But according to Tucker, and this is not my view this is Tucker, human evolution has never been demonstrated by the fossil record. Would you agree with that statement? Science does not agree with that statement. But do you agree with it? That the fossil record does not prove human evolution and that in fact the record doesn't show anything else evolving either. It can show you a fossil of one thing and it can show you a fossil of another thing but you can't really tell that the one thing turned into the other thing because the fossil record is not that accurate.

Now to argue I'm going to argue both sides. So I want to steelman this as much as possible so it doesn't just sound absurd. The theory, the so-called theory of evolution has a ton of evidence in favor of it. A ton of evidence. I mean almost as much as climate change. Almost as much evidence as the fact that our elections are all secure and no problem at all. Those are three things that have a ton of evidence. The first two are ridiculously false. And when I say false I'm not making an allegation of my own about the voting machines so I can stay out of legal trouble. I'm saying I don't see any situation in which this level of complexity is going to lead to humans getting it flawlessly right. Evolution is pretty complicated too. A lot of moving parts and a lot of money involved. What are the odds that we got this one right?

Yeah here's a little mind bender for you. When you were in school did you learn that evolution was the survival of the fittest? How many of you learned that that's what evolution was, survival of the fittest? Do you know they changed that right? Because they found out that wasn't the case. It's the single most important element of evolution as we understood it that you had to have some adaptive benefit in order for that to continue. If it wasn't a benefit then it wouldn't continue. But the modern version of evolution is that things just happen. It's not always a benefit. So for example if you were a bird evolving on an island with no predators well then you could evolve for a thousand years having messed up birds that can't fly very well. No predators. If the predators were there and they couldn't fly they would all get eaten. But if there's no predators they can just willy-nilly evolve randomly into whatever the hell they want to. So the modern version of evolution pretty much completely rejects the original version of evolution that I was told was rock solid. I was told evolution was just a fact in school. But now I'm told that the most basic element of how it worked, now it's nothing like that. It's really just the evolution of what happened not the fittest.

Now but what about that fossil record? Would you say the entire evolution depends on just the fossil record? No it does not because there's other evidence. For example viruses although they're not alive so that shouldn't count. I think bacteria, some other stuff. So in a lab you can force things to evolve but I'm not sure you can turn a bacteria into a germ. Like I don't know what I'm talking about but I think a bacteria is different than a germ I'm pretty sure. So is there anything happening in the lab? I just don't know actually. Is there anything happening in the lab that's definitely evolution? Or is the lab just more proof that you can breed a big dog into a little dog if you try? I don't know.

But here's where it gets interesting. Elon Musk replied to this conversation with the sigh. The sigh seemed to indicate that watching Tucker doubt evolution was sort of anti-science. But how do you believe in evolution if you also believe in the simulation? Now you could say that the simulation just includes evolution so it all happened. It's all simulated but it all happened within the simulation just like everything else. Maybe. But if we're a simulation it suggests there's probably a resource limit because everything seems to have a resource limit. Now not necessarily. Could be some future unlimited technology species but far more likely it would be a species like us in some ways that is limited in resources. If it's limited in resources it's not going to build the whole universe in the simulation. That would be crazy. It's going to build the stuff you can see and then as you need to see other stuff. Let's say we can go to see the backside of the moon for the first time. That's when it becomes real. It fills it in when you can see it.

Now we do see in science that our observation does seem to change reality so that's not crazy. So I would say that if you believe the simulation is a billion to one more likely than not being a simulation it's a little sketchy to say that evolution is true. Because in my view simulation doesn't require but very likely the past is created by the present. So if you saw any evidence that like the double slit experiment in my view that's my own interpretation that is the present creating the past. Because when you look at it it's only when you look at it that it's different in the past. Does that make sense? The first time you look at the results for the double slit experiment without getting into details about it when you look at it that's the first time you know that there was an interference. And again without the details you know there was an interference pattern but the interference pattern had to have existed before you looked at it because otherwise it wouldn't be there. So by looking at it you've actually created the past for the first time. Now if you measure it without looking at it it also solidifies it into that interference pattern but the measurement is just another way of solidifying reality. Doesn't need to be a human. It could be a measurement. But in both cases the present created the past.

Now I know some of you are going to say Scott you are misinterpreting that experiment. To which I say hey whatever your name is no you're misinterpreting it. And so are all the scientists. Do you know why they're misinterpreting it? Because they can't handle the fact that the arrow of time is not what they think it is. So they start with the assumption that you can't change the past whereas I start with the assumption that changing the past is probably the way it works. It's the most likely way it works. So if you enter the double slit experiment assuming the most likely way the world works is that your observations change the past well there it is. It's right in front of you. If you think that's not possible then you would interpret it a different way I suppose.

Anyway I saw Cernovich saying, Mike Cernovich, the theory he posted today. The theory of evolution people can't even figure out where COVID originated. LMAO. So is that fair? Now that's the Dilbert principle. He's basically stating it in a more common sensical headline way. But the reason we can't figure out where COVID originated from might be capability but it might be more to do with the people that everybody lies. So the world is full of liars lying for lots of different reasons. So if you look at anything that's happened during our time you can see it's mostly a bunch of lying. But then you look at evolution you're like oh I'm glad we totally nailed that. Yeah the elections we have doubts about. We've got doubts about those thermometers but oh the evolution's good. We nailed the evolution.

I saw Colin Wright on X. Here's his view. He says the right can't convincingly accuse the woke left of denying biology, you know the whole trans thing regarding biological sex, if they themselves reject evolution. Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense that you can't doubt one part of science if you're doubting a different part of science? How does that make sense? Isn't doubting science built into science? And can't I say most of it looks good but I doubt this part? I thought that's the whole point. I thought that's exactly what I can do. I can say you got gravity right but I'm not so sure about climate change. There's no such thing as trusting science. If you're trusting science you're doing it wrong. Science says don't trust me right? Science says hey people don't trust me. That's his main message. That's the number one thing it says. Don't trust me. You better test this a lot.

All right so here's why. And then Tucker says that God built it and I say that any filter that works keep doing it. If having a God filter on things lets you organize your life in a productive way and raise your kids to be good citizens and all that it does appear to do that I'd say sure do some of that. But if it doesn't stop you from doing science that's the important part. I mean you can't ignore all of science because you disagree with one part of it.

All right here's some more science. Mario Nawfal is reporting that a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, so it's in their annals, they studied fasting and they say it doesn't work for losing weight. This is an RCT. Technically doesn't work for losing weight. Do you believe that? Do you believe that fasting doesn't work for losing weight? That as long as you eat the same amount of food over time you don't lose weight. How is that even, why do you even have to study that? Who didn't understand that if you ate the same amount of food in the same time frame you would weigh the same no matter when you ate it? Did we really need to study that?

Now don't, when you say fasting works let's be specific. Fasting has benefits that are claimed for that are good for your body and your mental health right but not necessarily weight loss. If you're fasting for weight loss then all you're doing is eating less if you're doing it right. So if what you did is fast for a day and then the next day you ate the normal amount for that day of course you'd lose weight because you would have an entire day with no calories. So a