Dennis McKenna

I mean, all of this – I mean, here's the thing in science. You never prove anything. All hypotheses, all scientific – science is simply a way of asking very structured questions about nature. You never prove your hypotheses. Because there always may be data that comes in next week, next month, 50 years from now, 100 years ago that invalidates your hypothesis.

I mean, all of this – I mean, here's the thing in science. You never prove anything. All hypotheses, all scientific – science is simply a way of asking very structured questions about nature. You never prove your hypotheses. Because there always may be data that comes in next week, next month, 50 years from now, 100 years ago that invalidates your hypothesis.

I mean, all of this – I mean, here's the thing in science. You never prove anything. All hypotheses, all scientific – science is simply a way of asking very structured questions about nature. You never prove your hypotheses. Because there always may be data that comes in next week, next month, 50 years from now, 100 years ago that invalidates your hypothesis.

All you can say is based on the data that we have, what we know now, this hypothesis, whatever it is, appears to be valid. That's the way science works. And that was what was lacking in Terence's construct. He was arguing, he was trying to prove it. And you don't ever – you don't arrive at proof. All you can do is say what we suppose, the hypothesis that we've constructed, we can't disprove it.

All you can say is based on the data that we have, what we know now, this hypothesis, whatever it is, appears to be valid. That's the way science works. And that was what was lacking in Terence's construct. He was arguing, he was trying to prove it. And you don't ever – you don't arrive at proof. All you can do is say what we suppose, the hypothesis that we've constructed, we can't disprove it.

All you can say is based on the data that we have, what we know now, this hypothesis, whatever it is, appears to be valid. That's the way science works. And that was what was lacking in Terence's construct. He was arguing, he was trying to prove it. And you don't ever – you don't arrive at proof. All you can do is say what we suppose, the hypothesis that we've constructed, we can't disprove it.

And I guess you could say that, but the thing is there's not enough – the time wave in itself doesn't have – enough data to really be able to say that because in some ways it's – there are holes in it. There are big holes that you can drive a truck through. For example, it does not take account of relativity. It does not take – if it's a model of time,

And I guess you could say that, but the thing is there's not enough – the time wave in itself doesn't have – enough data to really be able to say that because in some ways it's – there are holes in it. There are big holes that you can drive a truck through. For example, it does not take account of relativity. It does not take – if it's a model of time,

And I guess you could say that, but the thing is there's not enough – the time wave in itself doesn't have – enough data to really be able to say that because in some ways it's – there are holes in it. There are big holes that you can drive a truck through. For example, it does not take account of relativity. It does not take – if it's a model of time,

Like the work that the guy that you had on the podcast, time is not something that applies to the entire universe. There are regions where time is different than where it is now. That's why the idea of time travel is actually a possibility. But the time wave is like, nope, this is it. This describes the entire space-time continuum. And it didn't, obviously.

Like the work that the guy that you had on the podcast, time is not something that applies to the entire universe. There are regions where time is different than where it is now. That's why the idea of time travel is actually a possibility. But the time wave is like, nope, this is it. This describes the entire space-time continuum. And it didn't, obviously.

Like the work that the guy that you had on the podcast, time is not something that applies to the entire universe. There are regions where time is different than where it is now. That's why the idea of time travel is actually a possibility. But the time wave is like, nope, this is it. This describes the entire space-time continuum. And it didn't, obviously.

And there are other things that, well, actually, again, it's, you know, I don't want to feel like I'm putting my, I don't want to sound like I'm putting my brother down. I mean, I had tremendous respect for him. And he was a brilliant guy. But the way he was trying to true of the time wave, the time wave was more about him than it was about time.

And there are other things that, well, actually, again, it's, you know, I don't want to feel like I'm putting my, I don't want to sound like I'm putting my brother down. I mean, I had tremendous respect for him. And he was a brilliant guy. But the way he was trying to true of the time wave, the time wave was more about him than it was about time.

And there are other things that, well, actually, again, it's, you know, I don't want to feel like I'm putting my, I don't want to sound like I'm putting my brother down. I mean, I had tremendous respect for him. And he was a brilliant guy. But the way he was trying to true of the time wave, the time wave was more about him than it was about time.

It was about his personality, his understanding of history. Which was, you know, deep. I mean, he was an incredible scholar of history. And it was about, you know, one of the things that we used to have in our conversations about novelty was what is really novel? What is novelty?

It was about his personality, his understanding of history. Which was, you know, deep. I mean, he was an incredible scholar of history. And it was about, you know, one of the things that we used to have in our conversations about novelty was what is really novel? What is novelty?

It was about his personality, his understanding of history. Which was, you know, deep. I mean, he was an incredible scholar of history. And it was about, you know, one of the things that we used to have in our conversations about novelty was what is really novel? What is novelty?

And we talked about, I mean, and he said, well, events like the first time an atomic bomb was ever detonated on the earth. That's a novel event. So that would be a spike. That would be a major marker to put down in this evolution of novelty or the first time an animal was cloned or various kinds of scientific discoveries. But I would say –

And we talked about, I mean, and he said, well, events like the first time an atomic bomb was ever detonated on the earth. That's a novel event. So that would be a spike. That would be a major marker to put down in this evolution of novelty or the first time an animal was cloned or various kinds of scientific discoveries. But I would say –