1) Human memory is stored as the quantum spin of fermions.
1.1) Saying "fermions" in this context is way too unspecific. Fermions include all quarks, leptons, and baryons as well as many atoms and nuclei. Further on, a fermion can be an elementary particle, like the electron, or it can be a composite particle, like the proton.
1.2) Mr. Patch's theory would mean that if someone remembers "A" as happening, then, when they realize they were wrong, that it was in fact "B," fermion spin would change. But this simply isn't the case. Quantum spin isn't decided by mental activity. It's one of four quantum numbers that, in electrons, cannot all be the same in one orbital. It cannot be changed arbitrarily by human thought.
1.3) Quantum spin can be changed, but this requires applying a magnetic field and an electromagnetic pulse at the right polarization and frequency. Such fields and EM pulses are not something that happens naturally, or that has ever been detected as happening in the human brain.
2) The human brain is a quantum computer.
2.1) If the human mind runs on 1s and 0s as Mr. Patch stated previously, then this is a complete contradiction. That's the definition of a binary system, and an ordinary, non-quantum computer.
2.2) Quantum spin is talked about as going up or down (although it's not actual physical spinning). A quantum computer runs on 1s, 0s, and "both," so which of the two spins represent the third, quantum, state?
2.3) Why does a quantum computer require nearly absolute zero temperature (0.015 Kelvin)? If the human brain is capable of such processes at body-temperature? The low temperature is used to slow the particles down; to counteract quantum decoherence, which can be thought of as a loss of data. It's quite absurd to claim the human brain is a quantum computer, and then not address this issue.
3) 5G and nanoparticles are going to allow perfect mind control.
3.1) What is the targeting system behind this? If, as Mr. Patch claims, thoughts are made up of quantum spin, how can anyone target a fermion? Which fermion should be targeted? How many? In a binary system, how many fermions must change to make someone misremember a color? How would "they" know which ones turn, say, red to green? What kind of scanner can determine this level of information?
3.1.1) Think about a CAT scan, how long it takes, how much energy it uses, and how much data it gives. Also keep in mind that it requires you to lay still inside the actual scanner, which is a huge machine. Now, go ahead and "guesstimate" the required machine capable of "CAT scanning" you down to the sub-atomic level, from a distance, while you move around! I bet you come up with something pretty big and heavy. But, nah, they're totally doing that via wifi now. If you believe Mr. Patch. And I think it's becoming clear that you shouldn't do that. (To see what a microscope capable of viewing atoms looks like, see the link under sources below, and remember that it watches only the topmost layer in a carefully placed and immobile object at incredibly close range!)
3.1.2) But, while you think about the scanner required to target quantum particles, DO NOT think about quantum uncertainty or fermions in a wave-state. Because then you'll understand the whole thing is complete and utter nonsense. Also, don't think about the number of neurons in a human brain, or how many atoms are in each neuron. The number looks something like 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and that's just the atoms, that all have many electrons, each of which is a fermion. That's a septillion (or quadrillion) particles that would need to be scanned and labeled in order to make specific changes to a human mind. Does it seem likely? I hope not.
3.2) And how are "they" going to target a fermion deep inside the brain, without messing up all the ones before that one? If you beam enough energy to change the spin of one fermion, first of all, the person must hold still (probably to the point where they stop the blood flow in their brain), then, you change the first fermion that's hit (on the person's skin). To go to the center of the brain you need more energy, which results in more fermion changes on the way. A cancer cannon? Sure. But what Mr. Patch is saying? Nope. To think that specific quantum-level changes can be beamed at people through wifi is bafflingly ignorant for an "expert researcher."
3.2.1) But, Mr. Patch might say, the nanoparticles! That's how you get to the fermions deep inside the brain. Right? Not really. Nanoparticles are real, and research indicates they can damage DNA and cause cancer. But, and it's a big but, nanoparticles are NOT nanomachines. And, to do what Mr. Patch suggests, you'd need nanomachines capable of movement, perception and generating the required magnetic field and specific electromagnetic pulse at varying polarization and frequency. And those nanomachines are still very much science fiction.
3.2.2) But wait, Mr. Patch might object once more, deep state secret technology! That's the answer. They have the nanomachines, I just misspoke. That works, right? Technically, yes, but it makes no sense. Hiding technology only makes sense when the technology is good for the masses or bad for "them." If "they" have the ridiculous technological capabilities presented by Mr. Patch, they'd use them. There's nothing to wait for. So, either the tech we see is current, and the threat is in the future; or, the tech is old and "they" are idiots. There is no point following a logical technological evolution if you have perfect mind control capability. If "they" could have rolled out 5G instead of dial-up, they would have.
4) Data can turn into physical matter.
4.1) Now, Mr. Patch refers to this both as something that happens to a hologram and something that happens spontaneously. But, either is utterly preposterous and nonsensical! The granularity of data isn't some strange technical term; it's literally just the amount of information. Normally it's spoken of as coarse or fine, but Mr. Patch goes with "dense" which has to correspond to "fine" (more detailed data). Adding a column containing "Adress" to an Excel sheet containing your employees is what it means to make data denser. So, how many Excel sheets before we get physical matter, Mr. Patch?
4.2) But the hologram, surely there's some way to turn that into matter? Nope. Turning energy into matter requires a high-energy collider, and even then it's just particles. And, of course, that has nothing to do with data density whatsoever.
4.3) Mr. Patch says "Now there's a whole particle physics discussion that's behind that." (@83:10) In his normal presumptuous and condescending way, as he is, after all, talking to what he calls "Average-Joe-bag-of-doughnuts" here. The worst time was when (@42:30) Mr. Patch told Greg that even he, with all his THC experience, couldn't digest "the quick and superficial facts" that were being presented. Well, even if it's technically correct that the particle physics discussion exists, it's also blatantly obvious, and highly ironic, that Mr. Patch has utterly failed to understand it.
