WEBVTT - From the Vault: Do Aliens Speak Physics, with Daniel Whiteson

0:00:06.240 --> 0:00:08.560
<v Speaker 1>Hey, you welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My

0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:11.200
<v Speaker 1>name is Robert Lamb. It is Saturday, so we have

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:13.560
<v Speaker 1>a vault episode for you. This one is going to

0:00:13.600 --> 0:00:17.079
<v Speaker 1>be an interview that Joe conducted with a friend of

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:21.720
<v Speaker 1>the show, Daniel Whitson, titled Do Alien Speak Physics? And

0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:26.239
<v Speaker 1>of course this concern is Whitson's new book, Do Alien

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:29.240
<v Speaker 1>Speak Physics out now wherever you get your books. So

0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:35.360
<v Speaker 1>without further ado, let's jump right into this interview episode.

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:39.519
<v Speaker 2>Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.

0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:48.440
<v Speaker 3>Hello, and welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:52.239
<v Speaker 3>name is Joe McCormick. Today on the podcast, we're going

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:54.840
<v Speaker 3>to be featuring an interview in which I talked to

0:00:55.000 --> 0:01:00.360
<v Speaker 3>returning show guest physicist Daniel Whitson about his upcoming book book,

0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 3>Do Aliens Speak Physics. Daniel shared an advance copy of

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:08.080
<v Speaker 3>this book with me, and I think it's great. It

0:01:08.160 --> 0:01:12.600
<v Speaker 3>is a fascinating book length thought experiment that is full

0:01:12.640 --> 0:01:16.400
<v Speaker 3>of insights about what could be universal and what could

0:01:16.440 --> 0:01:22.600
<v Speaker 3>be unique in surprising ways about human intelligence, science, language, mathematics,

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:26.360
<v Speaker 3>and culture. A bit of bio about Daniel. Daniel Whitson

0:01:26.520 --> 0:01:30.119
<v Speaker 3>is a particle physicist and physics professor. He's the co

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:34.280
<v Speaker 3>host of the podcast Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe and

0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:38.759
<v Speaker 3>co author of We Have No Idea, also co creator

0:01:38.880 --> 0:01:42.920
<v Speaker 3>of the PBS kids show Eleanor Wonders Why. His book

0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 3>Do Aliens Speak Physics? Is co written and illustrated by

0:01:46.920 --> 0:01:54.520
<v Speaker 3>Andy Warner. And now onto my conversation with Daniel Daniel Whitson,

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:55.760
<v Speaker 3>Welcome back to the show.

0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:58.400
<v Speaker 4>Thanks so much for having me on. Excited to talk

0:01:58.440 --> 0:01:58.920
<v Speaker 4>to you again.

0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:04.040
<v Speaker 3>So the book is Do Aliens Speak Physics? And I

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 3>have really really been enjoying this book. I plan to

0:02:08.200 --> 0:02:11.079
<v Speaker 3>finish it with a full read for today. But my

0:02:11.360 --> 0:02:14.320
<v Speaker 3>last night, my toddler was having some sleep disturbances. That

0:02:14.400 --> 0:02:16.080
<v Speaker 3>was an all night thing, so I was rushing to

0:02:16.080 --> 0:02:19.000
<v Speaker 3>get through the last couple chapters. Maybe you can fill

0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:21.760
<v Speaker 3>me in with the greater detail that I missed in

0:02:21.800 --> 0:02:23.639
<v Speaker 3>the skimming of the last two or three.

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:25.680
<v Speaker 4>Maybe you should have read the book to you toddler

0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:26.640
<v Speaker 4>to help put them to sleep.

0:02:27.080 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 3>Maybe I think she would really like the illustrations. Actually,

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:33.080
<v Speaker 3>but the problem is I had digital versions, so that

0:02:33.080 --> 0:02:35.399
<v Speaker 3>would involve showing it to her on a screen, which

0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 3>is a whole other thing. You know, that just turns

0:02:37.360 --> 0:02:40.040
<v Speaker 3>into want to see other things on the screen. So

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:43.320
<v Speaker 3>can't wait for my print copy. That'll be exciting. But

0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:45.919
<v Speaker 3>I guess we should start with the elevator pitch. What

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:49.120
<v Speaker 3>is the central question you're exploring in this book?

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:53.799
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, the question the book asks is whether aliens do

0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:57.520
<v Speaker 4>science and specifically physics, the same way we do. You know,

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:01.639
<v Speaker 4>when aliens arrive, can they just tell us the secrets

0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:04.600
<v Speaker 4>of the universe? Can they leap us forward a thousand,

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 4>a million, a billion years into the scientific future? Is

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:12.400
<v Speaker 4>science really just one track that way, one line and

0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:14.960
<v Speaker 4>we could just sort of like skip forward, you know,

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:17.960
<v Speaker 4>with the benefits of all their time and energy. Or

0:03:18.080 --> 0:03:21.760
<v Speaker 4>is science more complicated? Is it multiple paths? Are there

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:26.320
<v Speaker 4>multiple solutions? Do aliens even do science? So this book

0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:31.000
<v Speaker 4>is an exploration essentially of like how universal is our

0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:34.040
<v Speaker 4>theory of physics? Is what we're learning something about the

0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:37.000
<v Speaker 4>universe or is it something about the way we think?

0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:40.000
<v Speaker 4>Or both? And can we try to figure that out

0:03:40.120 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 4>before the aliens arrive.

0:03:42.600 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 3>One of the metaphors or kind of shorthand that you

0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:48.080
<v Speaker 3>use in the book is the idea of an interplanetary

0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:52.920
<v Speaker 3>physics conference. You're asking the question, if we ever make,

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.760
<v Speaker 3>you know, undeniable contact with an alien species, can we

0:03:56.920 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 3>get our heads together and communicate meaningfully about the laws

0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:05.000
<v Speaker 3>of physics? And so to illustrate those kinds of meetings,

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:07.080
<v Speaker 3>one thing I really liked about your book is that

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:10.760
<v Speaker 3>each chapter comes with what you call a contact hypothetical,

0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:13.040
<v Speaker 3>where you kind of tell a little story. There's some

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 3>fiction writing in this book. It's mostly, you know, nonfiction,

0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:19.880
<v Speaker 3>scientific writing and philosophical writing. But I like these little

0:04:19.880 --> 0:04:22.520
<v Speaker 3>fictional scenarios, and I think we might want to get

0:04:22.520 --> 0:04:24.440
<v Speaker 3>into a couple of these as we go along. But

0:04:24.480 --> 0:04:29.400
<v Speaker 3>before we do that, to sort of frame how you

0:04:29.440 --> 0:04:32.520
<v Speaker 3>explore the question of do aliens speak physics? And could

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:36.839
<v Speaker 3>we communicate about physics with them? You extend the classic

0:04:37.120 --> 0:04:40.919
<v Speaker 3>Drake equation, So could you explain that, maybe first explain

0:04:41.560 --> 0:04:44.920
<v Speaker 3>what the original Drake equation is and how it works,

0:04:45.320 --> 0:04:48.039
<v Speaker 3>and then also explain the way you extend it and

0:04:48.080 --> 0:04:50.000
<v Speaker 3>the terms you added to it to get at this

0:04:50.120 --> 0:04:51.719
<v Speaker 3>alien physics conference question.

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:56.920
<v Speaker 4>Yes, so the Alien Physics Conference is in there because

0:04:57.160 --> 0:05:00.280
<v Speaker 4>it's a literal fantasy of mine, you know, I mean,

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:03.040
<v Speaker 4>I got into physics to understand the universe, and I

0:05:03.080 --> 0:05:05.800
<v Speaker 4>want to figure it out, but sometimes I feel like, gosh,

0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:10.160
<v Speaker 4>progress is frustratingly slow, and you know what if there

0:05:10.160 --> 0:05:12.360
<v Speaker 4>are aliens out there that just have the answers, it's

0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:15.640
<v Speaker 4>so tantalizing and frustrating to think that, like somebody out

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 4>there has figured out what is quantum gravity? How do

0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:21.679
<v Speaker 4>you build wormholes? How did the universe begin? Like somebody

0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:23.920
<v Speaker 4>maybe knows these answers and they could just tell us,

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:27.160
<v Speaker 4>beam them to us, email us your textbooks. You know,

0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 4>imagine you know, Newton getting to read Einstein's a relativity theory,

0:05:32.800 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 4>or you know, Aristotle getting to read modern physics, like

0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:38.920
<v Speaker 4>that could be us. Wow, so that's in there because

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:43.159
<v Speaker 4>that's my literal, like I can taste it, but you know,

0:05:43.240 --> 0:05:45.839
<v Speaker 4>I also wonder if it's really true, and so I

0:05:45.920 --> 0:05:49.080
<v Speaker 4>sort of The book is a meditation on like all right, Daniel,

0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:53.279
<v Speaker 4>calm down. Maybe those answers aren't actually out there. And

0:05:53.279 --> 0:05:57.520
<v Speaker 4>we wrote those little fictional interludes to try to give

0:05:57.640 --> 0:06:01.760
<v Speaker 4>like more concrete examples rather than just thinking theoretically about

0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 4>the nature of physics and the structure of and the

0:06:04.120 --> 0:06:07.200
<v Speaker 4>philosophical underpinnings, like let's walk through what it might be

0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 4>like to give people a concrete example. And also we

0:06:10.680 --> 0:06:13.000
<v Speaker 4>didn't want to tackle the whole question at once, like

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:15.560
<v Speaker 4>it's a lot of pieces, and so we were inspired

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:18.600
<v Speaker 4>by the way Drake took apart the question of are

0:06:18.640 --> 0:06:22.080
<v Speaker 4>there aliens out there? And why haven't we heard from them?

0:06:22.560 --> 0:06:25.080
<v Speaker 4>He broke that into pieces, and he starts by calculating

0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:28.440
<v Speaker 4>how many stars are in the universe, what fraction of

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:32.279
<v Speaker 4>those stars might have life, what fraction of stars with

0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:35.960
<v Speaker 4>life might develop civilization, how long do those civilizations last.

0:06:36.320 --> 0:06:38.080
<v Speaker 4>It's a classic approach in science. You have a problem

0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:40.160
<v Speaker 4>that's too big to solve, so you break it into

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 4>a bunch of pieces, none of which you maybe can solve,

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 4>but some of which you can make a little bit

0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:47.200
<v Speaker 4>of progress on. So you're not completely stymied by your

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:49.360
<v Speaker 4>inability to make progress one area, because you can move

0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:52.159
<v Speaker 4>in another area. And for example, we now know that

0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:54.720
<v Speaker 4>there are lots and lots of stars in the universe.

0:06:55.200 --> 0:06:58.480
<v Speaker 4>Every galaxy that's out there has like hundreds of billions

0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:01.240
<v Speaker 4>of stars, and there's hung's of billions of galaxies. So

0:07:01.360 --> 0:07:04.360
<v Speaker 4>the number of stars out there just in the observable

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:08.839
<v Speaker 4>universe is very, very vast, and shockingly, We've made progress

0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:12.160
<v Speaker 4>on other aspects, like how many planets does an average

0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 4>star have? And the answer again is surprisingly big. You know,

0:07:16.080 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 4>there's a lot of uncertainty there and depends on how

0:07:18.480 --> 0:07:21.120
<v Speaker 4>you define earth like planet, But like something like twenty

0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:25.360
<v Speaker 4>five percent of stars out there have rocky planets that are,

0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:28.400
<v Speaker 4>you know, earth like according to some definition. So we're

0:07:28.440 --> 0:07:32.000
<v Speaker 4>talking a huge number of earth like planets in the universe.

0:07:32.960 --> 0:07:36.640
<v Speaker 4>But you know, the Drake equation is multiplicative. The number

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:39.200
<v Speaker 4>of aliens that contact us is the number of stars

0:07:39.480 --> 0:07:42.840
<v Speaker 4>times the fraction that have life, times the fraction that

0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:45.640
<v Speaker 4>are technological, et cetera. So if any of those numbers

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 4>are zero, we're screwed. And we don't know what fraction

0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:51.720
<v Speaker 4>of those planets have life, and what fraction of that

0:07:51.800 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 4>life becomes technological, and how long that life lasts. So

0:07:55.520 --> 0:07:58.000
<v Speaker 4>that's the structure of the Drake equation, and we thought

0:07:58.000 --> 0:07:59.440
<v Speaker 4>it was a natural thing to do to extend that

0:07:59.480 --> 0:08:02.520
<v Speaker 4>to answer the qu question how many alien civilizations are

0:08:02.520 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 4>there out there that we can talk science with? And

0:08:06.040 --> 0:08:08.160
<v Speaker 4>so to do that we broke it into several questions.

0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:11.520
<v Speaker 4>We said, well, what fraction of them do science? You know,

0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:15.000
<v Speaker 4>is that even a thing aside of Earth, is science

0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:17.680
<v Speaker 4>like a human endeavor? Maybe everybody else is bored by

0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:21.480
<v Speaker 4>the question, or you know, maybe they're technological but not scientific.

0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:24.680
<v Speaker 4>And then we asked, well, can we communicate with them?

0:08:24.920 --> 0:08:26.800
<v Speaker 4>You know, can we figure out a way to have

0:08:26.880 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 4>a mental mind meld about these things? Do they ask

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:33.080
<v Speaker 4>the same kind of questions that we ask?

0:08:33.160 --> 0:08:33.319
<v Speaker 1>Are?

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:37.160
<v Speaker 4>Are we curious about the same things? Do they find

0:08:37.280 --> 0:08:40.719
<v Speaker 4>and accept intuitively the same kind of answers? Would they

0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:44.079
<v Speaker 4>even take the same path as we would? So rather

0:08:44.120 --> 0:08:46.080
<v Speaker 4>than tackling this whole big question all at once, and

0:08:46.120 --> 0:08:50.360
<v Speaker 4>the whole question and even its parts are essentially unanswerable,

0:08:50.600 --> 0:08:52.360
<v Speaker 4>but to even make some progress, we thought it was

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:54.000
<v Speaker 4>useful to break it into some pieces.

0:08:54.400 --> 0:08:56.800
<v Speaker 3>So let's look at a few of these pieces one

0:08:56.840 --> 0:09:00.240
<v Speaker 3>by one. One of the earliest questions you look at

0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:04.760
<v Speaker 3>in the book is the question do aliens wonder? Why

0:09:05.280 --> 0:09:09.559
<v Speaker 3>do they even have the motivation to pursue scientific questions?

0:09:10.600 --> 0:09:13.920
<v Speaker 3>It's hard for me to imagine that aliens would ever

0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:19.120
<v Speaker 3>develop the ability to travel or communicate between stars without

0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:22.679
<v Speaker 3>having something like science. Obviously, you can imagine us traveling

0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:25.520
<v Speaker 3>out and going to other star systems and finding bacteria

0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:28.319
<v Speaker 3>and other things that we wouldn't think of as technological

0:09:28.320 --> 0:09:32.120
<v Speaker 3>intelligences but are live on other planets. But assuming that

0:09:32.160 --> 0:09:34.840
<v Speaker 3>they are able to somehow get in contact with us,

0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:39.240
<v Speaker 3>a desire to understand and model the principles of how

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:43.000
<v Speaker 3>reality works just seems like it would almost be a

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:45.920
<v Speaker 3>must have. But you came up with a hypothetical contact

0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:49.679
<v Speaker 3>scenario to imagine this. Could you briefly describe kind of

0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:53.439
<v Speaker 3>sketch the contact scenario and then talk about some reasons

0:09:53.480 --> 0:09:58.280
<v Speaker 3>for thinking a species maybe could actually communicate between stars

0:09:58.400 --> 0:10:00.800
<v Speaker 3>or travel between stars with out science.

0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:04.200
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, this is really counterintuitive. And when I first started

0:10:04.200 --> 0:10:07.600
<v Speaker 4>digging into this, I also thought like, of course, you know,

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:09.400
<v Speaker 4>everybody out there is going to be doing science because

0:10:09.400 --> 0:10:11.480
<v Speaker 4>they're gonna be curious about the universe, and science is

0:10:11.480 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 4>the way to figure it out. But the more I

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 4>talk to historians and philosophers, the more I understood that,

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:20.280
<v Speaker 4>you know, science has a lot of humanity in it,

0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:24.959
<v Speaker 4>the structure, the institutions, the process, and it's fairly recent.

0:10:25.000 --> 0:10:27.720
<v Speaker 4>It's something we've been doing, you know, in the way

0:10:27.720 --> 0:10:30.000
<v Speaker 4>we call science for only a few centuries, which is

0:10:30.040 --> 0:10:32.160
<v Speaker 4>a blip of time. And so it could be like

0:10:32.200 --> 0:10:35.480
<v Speaker 4>an intermediate step towards something greater, a better way to

0:10:35.760 --> 0:10:38.640
<v Speaker 4>learn about the universe. And so you know, it's not

0:10:38.720 --> 0:10:42.240
<v Speaker 4>that I don't think that aliens are doing science. It's

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 4>just that I wanted to make the strongest argument I

0:10:44.760 --> 0:10:48.839
<v Speaker 4>could that maybe they aren't, because you know, deeply, because

0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:52.360
<v Speaker 4>deep down, I feel like we're biased towards thinking aliens

0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:53.840
<v Speaker 4>are going to be like us, the sort of star

0:10:53.880 --> 0:10:56.640
<v Speaker 4>trek fallacy, like they're us with wrinkles on their forehead

0:10:56.720 --> 0:10:59.839
<v Speaker 4>or with pointy ears, right, but fundamentally they're human, and

0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:01.520
<v Speaker 4>I think that that's narrow minded.

0:11:01.559 --> 0:11:03.280
<v Speaker 3>So I'm trying to break out of it.

0:11:03.679 --> 0:11:05.840
<v Speaker 4>And you know, the book is an exercise essentially and

0:11:05.880 --> 0:11:10.600
<v Speaker 4>convincing myself that aliens might be more alien than we imagine.

0:11:11.360 --> 0:11:14.120
<v Speaker 4>And so your question is, like, is it possible to

0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:17.640
<v Speaker 4>explore the stars to come visit Earth and not be scientific,

0:11:17.679 --> 0:11:21.000
<v Speaker 4>to be deeply technological? And you only have to look

0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:23.200
<v Speaker 4>back at a history on Earth to see that, like,

0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:26.160
<v Speaker 4>we have technology, well before we have science, you know,

0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 4>people have been like fermenting yeast into bread and beer,

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:34.480
<v Speaker 4>which is you know, fairly technological without understanding anything about

0:11:34.480 --> 0:11:36.280
<v Speaker 4>what was going on in it or people have been

0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:39.720
<v Speaker 4>making swords, you know, which requires if you want to

0:11:39.800 --> 0:11:43.320
<v Speaker 4>understand it, like pretty deep level knowledge of like solid

0:11:43.320 --> 0:11:46.840
<v Speaker 4>state physics and metallurgy. But there were masters making incredible

0:11:46.880 --> 0:11:51.640
<v Speaker 4>devices well before they understood why, and even people exploring

0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:53.880
<v Speaker 4>the earth. Right if you say science began a few

0:11:53.960 --> 0:11:57.320
<v Speaker 4>hundred years ago, well, humanity has been like venturing from

0:11:57.360 --> 0:12:00.640
<v Speaker 4>shore to shore for thousands of years. And so I

0:12:00.679 --> 0:12:03.160
<v Speaker 4>took that as an inspiration and try to come up

0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:06.840
<v Speaker 4>with an example of how aliens might get here without

0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 4>being scientific. And I was thinking about a planet where

0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:14.439
<v Speaker 4>you have some critters and they're floating through their oceans,

0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:18.520
<v Speaker 4>and on their planet, the atmosphere is thicker than it

0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:21.280
<v Speaker 4>is on ours, and so the boundary between the ocean

0:12:21.400 --> 0:12:24.920
<v Speaker 4>and the atmosphere is a little fuzzier, and so it's

0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:28.280
<v Speaker 4>not so crazy to imagine that they might stumble across

0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:31.080
<v Speaker 4>some way to not just navigate their oceans, but also

0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:34.280
<v Speaker 4>navigate their atmospheres, you know, just like we did. And

0:12:34.320 --> 0:12:37.720
<v Speaker 4>in this case, these folks are like little bladders that

0:12:37.920 --> 0:12:41.199
<v Speaker 4>can absorb, can emit air into order to go up,

0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:44.480
<v Speaker 4>or accept ballasts to go down. They're like little submarines essentially,

0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:47.839
<v Speaker 4>but they learned to navigate their atmosphere, and then it's

0:12:47.880 --> 0:12:50.199
<v Speaker 4>not too big a leap to imagine that maybe they

0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:52.920
<v Speaker 4>also figure out how to coat themselves in something so

0:12:53.000 --> 0:12:56.560
<v Speaker 4>they can navigate above the atmosphere through their solar system.

0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:59.000
<v Speaker 4>And in their solar system, they don't just have a star.

0:12:59.040 --> 0:13:01.120
<v Speaker 4>They have a binary star system, one of which is

0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:04.600
<v Speaker 4>a black hole. And so they spend millions of years

0:13:04.640 --> 0:13:07.640
<v Speaker 4>like whizzing around this black hole, and they develop an

0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:11.400
<v Speaker 4>intuitive understanding of space and curvature. So they don't have

0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:13.880
<v Speaker 4>an Einstein who's given them an equation. They just have

0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:17.160
<v Speaker 4>a feeling for curvature. You know, the way that curvature

0:13:17.200 --> 0:13:20.160
<v Speaker 4>is very counterintuitive to us. It's like, weird to think

0:13:20.200 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 4>about space being bent between here and there and distances

0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:26.280
<v Speaker 4>are oscillating, and what It's very hard for people to

0:13:26.360 --> 0:13:30.199
<v Speaker 4>really grock general relativity because we grew up in a

0:13:30.240 --> 0:13:32.240
<v Speaker 4>place where we imagine space is always flat. It's always

0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:34.560
<v Speaker 4>our experience. But what if you didn't, and what if

0:13:34.559 --> 0:13:37.079
<v Speaker 4>you spent millions of years whizzing around a black hole

0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:40.960
<v Speaker 4>and really experiencing curvature and somehow intuited your way into

0:13:41.000 --> 0:13:45.560
<v Speaker 4>manipulating spatial curvature and traveling the stars, and so that

0:13:45.720 --> 0:13:48.800
<v Speaker 4>was like hypothetical scenario to try to make a concrete

0:13:49.040 --> 0:13:51.280
<v Speaker 4>to give an example of how aliens could arrive here

0:13:51.679 --> 0:13:54.960
<v Speaker 4>with warped technology effectively and not be able to explain

0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:57.280
<v Speaker 4>it to us because they're like, what do you mean? Like,

0:13:57.320 --> 0:13:59.320
<v Speaker 4>here's how you do it? What do you mean why?

0:13:59.440 --> 0:14:05.000
<v Speaker 3>How? That kind of thing does seem hard to imagine,

0:14:05.000 --> 0:14:07.240
<v Speaker 3>But I like the way you really like put the

0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:09.520
<v Speaker 3>work in to sketch it out and compare it to

0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:12.280
<v Speaker 3>I mean, as you're saying, it seems like it would

0:14:12.280 --> 0:14:14.079
<v Speaker 3>depend on a lot of trial and error, so it

0:14:14.120 --> 0:14:16.920
<v Speaker 3>might be a much slower process than the progress of

0:14:17.000 --> 0:14:22.000
<v Speaker 3>human science human technology. But a sort of branching question

0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:26.840
<v Speaker 3>off of that is, do you think the desire to

0:14:26.960 --> 0:14:31.120
<v Speaker 3>understand why, to ask the question why is a core

0:14:31.360 --> 0:14:36.280
<v Speaker 3>feature of intelligence or could that be a specific feature

0:14:36.720 --> 0:14:41.240
<v Speaker 3>of just human minds? You know, I was trying to

0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:44.320
<v Speaker 3>think about this, and I had a suspicion that I

0:14:44.360 --> 0:14:48.200
<v Speaker 3>don't know. I suspect that the question why has got

0:14:48.280 --> 0:14:52.359
<v Speaker 3>to be pretty fundamental to intelligence because we define intelligence

0:14:52.440 --> 0:14:57.240
<v Speaker 3>largely by the ability to solve problems or learn, which

0:14:57.280 --> 0:15:02.200
<v Speaker 3>is almost always going to be accelerated by understanding underlying principles.

0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:06.400
<v Speaker 3>But I don't know. I could definitely be missing things there.

0:15:06.440 --> 0:15:08.440
<v Speaker 3>They are contingencies I'm not seeing.

0:15:09.160 --> 0:15:11.400
<v Speaker 4>I think you put your finger on the deepest part

0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:14.520
<v Speaker 4>of this question, and that's really what we're going to

0:15:14.520 --> 0:15:16.720
<v Speaker 4>get an answer to when the aliens come, is how

0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:20.040
<v Speaker 4>much overlap do we have with them? If they do

0:15:20.120 --> 0:15:22.440
<v Speaker 4>wonder why the same way we do, then we're gonna

0:15:22.440 --> 0:15:23.760
<v Speaker 4>have a lot in common and we're gonna be able

0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:26.080
<v Speaker 4>to learn a lot from them. But if they don't,

0:15:26.160 --> 0:15:28.720
<v Speaker 4>then it's going to tell us something. It's going to

0:15:28.800 --> 0:15:33.000
<v Speaker 4>tell us that we are unusual in some way. And

0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:36.800
<v Speaker 4>that's really my fantasy. I mean, I got into this thinking, Wow,

0:15:36.920 --> 0:15:39.320
<v Speaker 4>it would be wonderful if aliens show up and they're

0:15:39.360 --> 0:15:41.480
<v Speaker 4>basically just like us, but further ahead, because then we

0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:43.920
<v Speaker 4>can zoom forward in science. But actually, I think that

0:15:44.000 --> 0:15:46.560
<v Speaker 4>might be the most boring outcome. It might be the

0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:49.800
<v Speaker 4>most amazing. We might learn the most, not necessarily about

0:15:49.840 --> 0:15:52.720
<v Speaker 4>quantum field theory, but about the nature of humanity and

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:56.040
<v Speaker 4>intelligence and the experience of being alive in this universe.

0:15:56.280 --> 0:15:59.400
<v Speaker 4>If they're so fundamentally weird and different that they're like,

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:02.440
<v Speaker 4>don't that these questions don't make sense to them, or

0:16:02.600 --> 0:16:04.920
<v Speaker 4>they don't even ask these questions that they have another

0:16:05.000 --> 0:16:07.480
<v Speaker 4>way of having a relationship with the universe. Because I

0:16:07.520 --> 0:16:11.080
<v Speaker 4>agree with you, it feels like it's essential. It's part

0:16:11.120 --> 0:16:13.920
<v Speaker 4>of being intelligent, building a model in your mind and

0:16:14.000 --> 0:16:16.560
<v Speaker 4>probing that model and using it to solve your problem,

0:16:16.600 --> 0:16:18.560
<v Speaker 4>even if that problem is like, hey, how do we

0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:21.360
<v Speaker 4>take down this mammoth for dinner? Or you know, how

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:24.000
<v Speaker 4>do I solve this social problem with my neighbor, you know,

0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:26.280
<v Speaker 4>which I think humans have been doing for hundreds of

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:29.440
<v Speaker 4>thousands of years. But it could be not. You know,

0:16:29.600 --> 0:16:32.520
<v Speaker 4>it could be that that's as fundamental as like eating

0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:35.040
<v Speaker 4>sweet things for breakfast. You know, the first time I

0:16:35.120 --> 0:16:38.880
<v Speaker 4>went traveling and I was like, hmm, wow, people have

0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:41.960
<v Speaker 4>like weird spicy fish soup for breakfast. I didn't even

0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:45.320
<v Speaker 4>imagine that you could have other kinds of things for breakfast.

0:16:45.440 --> 0:16:47.360
<v Speaker 4>Or the first time I saw like a toilet in

0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:49.320
<v Speaker 4>a country where like you don't just sit, you know,

0:16:49.400 --> 0:16:52.600
<v Speaker 4>I was like, oh, WHOA, mind blowing. There's so many

0:16:52.640 --> 0:16:57.840
<v Speaker 4>areas where we can't imagine beyond our experience. And I'm

0:16:57.840 --> 0:17:01.040
<v Speaker 4>hopeful when the aliens come that they're gonna blow our

0:17:01.080 --> 0:17:04.199
<v Speaker 4>minds with their different way of having a relationship with

0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:07.479
<v Speaker 4>the universe. One of my favorite hypotheticals is maybe they

0:17:07.560 --> 0:17:10.840
<v Speaker 4>used to do science. Maybe science is some sort of

0:17:10.840 --> 0:17:13.199
<v Speaker 4>primitive way of understanding the universe, and what they have

0:17:13.400 --> 0:17:16.800
<v Speaker 4>is like, you know, science plus the way we think

0:17:16.800 --> 0:17:20.640
<v Speaker 4>about natural philosophy, Like we look at Aristotle and we're like, cool, bro,

0:17:20.920 --> 0:17:23.160
<v Speaker 4>you made a lot of progress just thinking about stuff.

0:17:23.520 --> 0:17:27.080
<v Speaker 4>Why didn't you think about doing experiments? You know, empiricism

0:17:27.160 --> 0:17:29.680
<v Speaker 4>is obvious, like, come on, just go outside and try

0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:32.320
<v Speaker 4>it for ten minutes. Why argue for hours and hours

0:17:32.320 --> 0:17:35.560
<v Speaker 4>and hours? It seems obvious to us. And in that way,

0:17:35.680 --> 0:17:38.840
<v Speaker 4>maybe the aliens have upgraded their science. They're like, yeah,

0:17:38.840 --> 0:17:39.960
<v Speaker 4>we used to do it that way, but then we

0:17:40.000 --> 0:17:42.719
<v Speaker 4>came up with this other trick that's so much better.

0:17:43.119 --> 0:17:45.800
<v Speaker 4>I can't believe you guys are still doing experiments or whatever.

0:17:46.480 --> 0:17:48.800
<v Speaker 4>And so it could be that they don't do science

0:17:48.840 --> 0:17:52.320
<v Speaker 4>because they've left it behind for something even more powerful.

0:18:02.720 --> 0:18:07.199
<v Speaker 3>So another one of the questions you look at is

0:18:07.480 --> 0:18:12.600
<v Speaker 3>assuming that aliens do ask the question why they do

0:18:12.680 --> 0:18:16.119
<v Speaker 3>have some kind of scientific understanding, would we be able

0:18:16.200 --> 0:18:19.639
<v Speaker 3>to communicate with them about it and you asked this

0:18:19.680 --> 0:18:21.600
<v Speaker 3>in a number of different ways. I definitely want to

0:18:21.600 --> 0:18:24.080
<v Speaker 3>get into the question of math in just a second.

0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:26.000
<v Speaker 3>But before we look at math, I want to look

0:18:26.040 --> 0:18:31.160
<v Speaker 3>at difficulties in basic just language communication. And you draw

0:18:31.240 --> 0:18:37.320
<v Speaker 3>the analogy with difficulties in deciphering lost human languages. Could

0:18:37.320 --> 0:18:39.840
<v Speaker 3>you talk a bit about that, and how illuminating that

0:18:40.000 --> 0:18:42.640
<v Speaker 3>those kind of troubles we've faced in the past are.

0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:45.840
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, this is fun because you know, we haven't met

0:18:45.840 --> 0:18:48.639
<v Speaker 4>aliens if we don't know what amiling language is like,

0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:52.040
<v Speaker 4>so you can speculate endlessly. But I wanted to try

0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:55.159
<v Speaker 4>to dig into something more concrete, and the best example

0:18:55.240 --> 0:19:00.679
<v Speaker 4>we have of intelligent civilizations who are little alien to

0:19:00.800 --> 0:19:04.240
<v Speaker 4>us are ancient human civilizations. So I thought, let's dig

0:19:04.280 --> 0:19:07.199
<v Speaker 4>into what was it like to try to translate the

0:19:07.240 --> 0:19:11.520
<v Speaker 4>writings of ancient intelligent human civilizations who are not around

0:19:11.560 --> 0:19:13.800
<v Speaker 4>to explain it to us, because I thought that would

0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:18.320
<v Speaker 4>be helpful to teach us, like what's important. How challenging

0:19:18.480 --> 0:19:20.800
<v Speaker 4>is this? When do we succeed? When do we fail?

0:19:21.560 --> 0:19:24.840
<v Speaker 4>And I'm kind of shocked to learn the answer, which

0:19:24.920 --> 0:19:26.600
<v Speaker 4>was that this is a lot harder than I thought.

0:19:26.600 --> 0:19:28.840
<v Speaker 4>I mean, these are humans, right, they have the same

0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:31.080
<v Speaker 4>brain as we do, they live in the same world

0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:34.920
<v Speaker 4>as we do, they have the same senses, the same environment.

0:19:36.080 --> 0:19:38.680
<v Speaker 4>They have lots and they left us lots of examples,

0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:42.800
<v Speaker 4>but in same cases, we still have not decoded their writing. Like, yes,

0:19:42.960 --> 0:19:46.399
<v Speaker 4>we decoded ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, there's an important caveat in

0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:50.359
<v Speaker 4>that story, but we have not, for example, decoded Etruscan writing.

0:19:50.440 --> 0:19:52.960
<v Speaker 4>And the Etruscans like lived just a couple thousand years

0:19:53.000 --> 0:19:55.439
<v Speaker 4>ago next to the Romans, and the Romans talk all

0:19:55.440 --> 0:19:58.240
<v Speaker 4>about them, and we have lots of examples, and yet

0:19:58.280 --> 0:20:03.119
<v Speaker 4>it still remains in undecipherable. It's incredible to me. It

0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:07.640
<v Speaker 4>tells me that like the barrier to accessing another intelligence,

0:20:07.760 --> 0:20:11.760
<v Speaker 4>even one hosted on the same substrate, is very, very challenging.

0:20:12.200 --> 0:20:15.639
<v Speaker 4>And it hints that in order to make these mental connections,

0:20:15.880 --> 0:20:20.240
<v Speaker 4>you need one essential thing, which is common context. You

0:20:20.280 --> 0:20:22.760
<v Speaker 4>need to be able to like point at something and say,

0:20:22.880 --> 0:20:25.119
<v Speaker 4>this is an apple, right, let's agree on the word apple,

0:20:25.640 --> 0:20:29.600
<v Speaker 4>or you know, this is one, this is two, and

0:20:29.760 --> 0:20:32.640
<v Speaker 4>you know, I read a really interesting set of articles

0:20:32.640 --> 0:20:36.840
<v Speaker 4>by the folks at SETI or actually anthropologists analyzing SETI,

0:20:37.240 --> 0:20:40.639
<v Speaker 4>and you know. Their conclusion essentially was that it's hopeless

0:20:41.240 --> 0:20:43.560
<v Speaker 4>if the aliens communicate with us, if they send us

0:20:43.560 --> 0:20:47.359
<v Speaker 4>a message SETI like, but they don't show up, so

0:20:47.400 --> 0:20:49.720
<v Speaker 4>we can't like point to things and say here's an apple,

0:20:49.760 --> 0:20:54.560
<v Speaker 4>here's a doughnut. That it's essentially impossible to decode just

0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:57.399
<v Speaker 4>written language from an alien species because we have no

0:20:57.480 --> 0:20:59.800
<v Speaker 4>idea what it's supposed to look like. How do you

0:20:59.880 --> 0:21:02.280
<v Speaker 4>know when you've decoded it correctly? You have no clues,

0:21:02.320 --> 0:21:04.960
<v Speaker 4>no handles. And the best example of that, I think

0:21:05.119 --> 0:21:08.159
<v Speaker 4>is Egyptian hieroglyphics. You know, there is this famous story

0:21:08.240 --> 0:21:12.400
<v Speaker 4>the Rosetta Stone. We had hieroglyphics, nobody could decode them.

0:21:12.600 --> 0:21:16.080
<v Speaker 4>Then we found this cheat sheet, right, it's got Greek

0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:19.000
<v Speaker 4>on it, and it's got the same stuff in hieroglyphics.

0:21:19.000 --> 0:21:21.160
<v Speaker 4>Since you're like, oh, I know how to translate these

0:21:21.160 --> 0:21:22.840
<v Speaker 4>words from one to the other, I can go from there,

0:21:22.920 --> 0:21:25.760
<v Speaker 4>dot dot dot, I've cracked hieroglyphics. But that's not the

0:21:25.800 --> 0:21:28.400
<v Speaker 4>way it happened. The way it happened is they found

0:21:28.400 --> 0:21:31.560
<v Speaker 4>the Rosetta Stone and it still took them twenty years.

0:21:32.320 --> 0:21:37.080
<v Speaker 4>Twenty years when they had examples of decoded text in

0:21:37.119 --> 0:21:40.439
<v Speaker 4>both languages. Why did it take so long Because they

0:21:40.480 --> 0:21:45.919
<v Speaker 4>were making a fundamentally mistaken assumption about the structure of hieroglyphics.

0:21:46.280 --> 0:21:48.160
<v Speaker 4>They looked at hieroglyphics and they were like, oh, these

0:21:48.160 --> 0:21:51.680
<v Speaker 4>are pictograms. The ones that are look like birds are

0:21:51.920 --> 0:21:54.280
<v Speaker 4>mean birds someway. The ones that look like water mean

0:21:54.359 --> 0:21:58.000
<v Speaker 4>water some way, but they're not. Egyptian hieroglyphics turn out

0:21:58.040 --> 0:22:01.719
<v Speaker 4>to be phonetic in the same way that our language is,

0:22:01.760 --> 0:22:05.160
<v Speaker 4>and so like a hieroglyphic means a sound, not an idea.

0:22:05.880 --> 0:22:07.640
<v Speaker 4>They only realized this when they were doing a deep

0:22:07.640 --> 0:22:10.760
<v Speaker 4>comparison with the Greek and they found some phrases in

0:22:10.800 --> 0:22:13.840
<v Speaker 4>Greek that translated to sounds, and they noticed that these

0:22:13.880 --> 0:22:18.399
<v Speaker 4>sounds were common across these across the translation. And so

0:22:18.640 --> 0:22:21.560
<v Speaker 4>it was only because not only did they have examples

0:22:21.800 --> 0:22:24.200
<v Speaker 4>of the translated Greek, but they understood how this Greek

0:22:24.280 --> 0:22:27.159
<v Speaker 4>was spoken that they could crack this code. So the

0:22:27.240 --> 0:22:31.040
<v Speaker 4>key was cultural context, just having something in common to

0:22:31.119 --> 0:22:34.560
<v Speaker 4>sort of nail languages together. And the same is true

0:22:34.600 --> 0:22:38.040
<v Speaker 4>of like Mayan. Mayan was cracked because there's still people

0:22:38.080 --> 0:22:41.840
<v Speaker 4>speaking a variant of Mayan, and so understanding this like

0:22:42.040 --> 0:22:45.600
<v Speaker 4>cultural expression. The way this is spoken and used is

0:22:45.640 --> 0:22:49.439
<v Speaker 4>absolutely essential to cracking any sort of alien language. And

0:22:49.520 --> 0:22:51.399
<v Speaker 4>so if we get a message from aliens like that

0:22:51.440 --> 0:22:54.600
<v Speaker 4>would be awesome, but it's hard to know, like if

0:22:54.640 --> 0:22:56.320
<v Speaker 4>it even is a message and what does it mean?

0:22:56.359 --> 0:22:58.639
<v Speaker 4>Like the wow signal is a great example, like maybe

0:22:58.680 --> 0:23:01.159
<v Speaker 4>we did get a message, don't know how to decode it,

0:23:01.520 --> 0:23:03.320
<v Speaker 4>or maybe we're getting messages all the time, we don't

0:23:03.359 --> 0:23:07.159
<v Speaker 4>even recognize them, right, And so unless aliens arrive and

0:23:07.200 --> 0:23:10.120
<v Speaker 4>we can sit together and build some sort of cultural

0:23:10.160 --> 0:23:13.600
<v Speaker 4>context to establish that real communication mind mild, I think

0:23:13.720 --> 0:23:14.800
<v Speaker 4>it's going to be impossible.

0:23:15.160 --> 0:23:18.360
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you need the feedback, But I think the hieroglyphics

0:23:18.520 --> 0:23:22.560
<v Speaker 3>is a great example of example to use because it's

0:23:23.119 --> 0:23:25.400
<v Speaker 3>like what you're doing throughout the book is an example

0:23:25.440 --> 0:23:28.159
<v Speaker 3>of where an assumption that was holding us back is

0:23:28.160 --> 0:23:31.159
<v Speaker 3>invisible to us, and it's not until we realized we

0:23:31.280 --> 0:23:34.000
<v Speaker 3>had the incorrect assumption that we can actually make progress.

0:23:34.240 --> 0:23:37.840
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, and who knows how many more assumptions there are

0:23:37.880 --> 0:23:39.760
<v Speaker 4>built and that we don't even recognize. It's not like

0:23:39.760 --> 0:23:41.840
<v Speaker 4>we have a list of assumptions we can examine them

0:23:41.840 --> 0:23:44.480
<v Speaker 4>and say, yeah, I'm pretty confident in those The problem

0:23:44.640 --> 0:23:46.639
<v Speaker 4>is that we don't know where the edge of that

0:23:46.680 --> 0:23:49.280
<v Speaker 4>box is because we don't even know how things might

0:23:49.320 --> 0:23:51.920
<v Speaker 4>be different. You know what kind of breakfasts they eat

0:23:51.960 --> 0:23:52.840
<v Speaker 4>in Alpha Centauri.

0:23:53.240 --> 0:23:55.440
<v Speaker 3>So I want to go on to the other big

0:23:55.480 --> 0:23:57.960
<v Speaker 3>part of the communication question. Obviously, if we're going to

0:23:58.000 --> 0:24:01.280
<v Speaker 3>be sharing information about physic and the laws that govern

0:24:01.359 --> 0:24:04.879
<v Speaker 3>reality with them, our main language for doing that is math.

0:24:05.680 --> 0:24:08.440
<v Speaker 3>And so you have a question a chapter called does

0:24:08.520 --> 0:24:12.359
<v Speaker 3>one plus one equal to everywhere? This starts with a

0:24:12.359 --> 0:24:17.639
<v Speaker 3>fun contact scenario or contact hypothesis about contact that is

0:24:17.680 --> 0:24:21.040
<v Speaker 3>made with a star that's alive, that's kind of bioplasma,

0:24:21.520 --> 0:24:25.320
<v Speaker 3>but doesn't seem to respond to mathematical or numerical information.

0:24:26.600 --> 0:24:30.040
<v Speaker 3>And so you asked the question, is it plausible that

0:24:30.080 --> 0:24:33.760
<v Speaker 3>there could be an intelligent species that maybe even has

0:24:33.920 --> 0:24:37.080
<v Speaker 3>technology in some way we could think about it, or

0:24:37.119 --> 0:24:40.360
<v Speaker 3>at least has you know, capabilities of contact with another species,

0:24:40.760 --> 0:24:44.160
<v Speaker 3>but it doesn't have a concept of counting and arithmetic,

0:24:44.240 --> 0:24:48.560
<v Speaker 3>the most basic numerical thing that we think there is.

0:24:49.160 --> 0:24:50.240
<v Speaker 3>Could you explore that a bit?

0:24:50.880 --> 0:24:53.640
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, this is where it becomes clear if you're reading

0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:57.000
<v Speaker 4>the book that the book really is about the philosophical question,

0:24:57.359 --> 0:25:01.600
<v Speaker 4>you know, is science human or is it universal? And

0:25:01.640 --> 0:25:03.879
<v Speaker 4>this really comes into focus because this is an ancient

0:25:03.960 --> 0:25:07.199
<v Speaker 4>question of philosophy of math. Right, is math something that

0:25:07.240 --> 0:25:10.440
<v Speaker 4>we've discovered or invented? Is it part of the universe

0:25:10.800 --> 0:25:13.040
<v Speaker 4>or is it a shorthand for the way that we think?

0:25:13.600 --> 0:25:17.680
<v Speaker 4>And it's a surprisingly difficult question, you know. On one hand,

0:25:18.200 --> 0:25:22.040
<v Speaker 4>it seems like the universe is awfully mathematical, and there

0:25:22.080 --> 0:25:25.240
<v Speaker 4>are great moments of discovery in the history of physics

0:25:25.440 --> 0:25:28.479
<v Speaker 4>where math has led us to the answer. And you know,

0:25:28.600 --> 0:25:31.560
<v Speaker 4>one of my favorites is pretty recent. It's the Higgs boson.

0:25:32.119 --> 0:25:34.639
<v Speaker 4>You know. Peter Higgs was looking at the structure of

0:25:34.720 --> 0:25:39.000
<v Speaker 4>quantum field theory and he noticed that these particles were

0:25:39.080 --> 0:25:41.200
<v Speaker 4>very similar to the photon and the W and the z,

0:25:42.080 --> 0:25:43.919
<v Speaker 4>but they were different. One of them had mass and

0:25:43.920 --> 0:25:45.680
<v Speaker 4>one of them had no mass. And why is that?

0:25:45.760 --> 0:25:48.399
<v Speaker 4>And anyway, how do you give masses to all the

0:25:48.440 --> 0:25:52.200
<v Speaker 4>fundamental particles without breaking this other symmetry? And he came

0:25:52.280 --> 0:25:54.879
<v Speaker 4>up with a mechanism, a mathematical mechanism. He said, you

0:25:54.880 --> 0:25:57.800
<v Speaker 4>know what, this whole theory is missing a piece and

0:25:58.240 --> 0:26:01.560
<v Speaker 4>clicks together only if you add this one more element.

0:26:01.600 --> 0:26:04.800
<v Speaker 4>And so this is a purely mathematical observation saying like,

0:26:05.400 --> 0:26:07.720
<v Speaker 4>there's a mathematical structure here, and it seems like it's

0:26:07.720 --> 0:26:11.000
<v Speaker 4>missing something. Fifty years later, we go out and it's there.

0:26:11.280 --> 0:26:14.000
<v Speaker 4>The Higgs boson is there in the universe. It's real.

0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:15.280
<v Speaker 3>That's kind of spooky.

0:26:15.520 --> 0:26:19.480
<v Speaker 4>It's spooky, right, And there's all these great quotes from physicists,

0:26:19.760 --> 0:26:23.679
<v Speaker 4>you know, like Stephen Weinberg saying that physicists often discover

0:26:23.760 --> 0:26:27.040
<v Speaker 4>that mathematicians have been there before them, you know, and

0:26:27.080 --> 0:26:31.320
<v Speaker 4>it goes back deeper like Maxwell. Maxwell. Maxwell was assembling

0:26:31.400 --> 0:26:35.080
<v Speaker 4>the equations of electromagnetism and he noticed lots of beautiful symmetry,

0:26:35.080 --> 0:26:37.720
<v Speaker 4>but he also noticed, hmm, hold on a second, this

0:26:37.760 --> 0:26:40.959
<v Speaker 4>would be more symmetrical if we added one piece. But

0:26:41.000 --> 0:26:43.119
<v Speaker 4>you can't just like add something to the laws of

0:26:43.119 --> 0:26:47.040
<v Speaker 4>physics because it's prettier. And yet when he went out

0:26:47.040 --> 0:26:49.240
<v Speaker 4>there to find if there is an element of the

0:26:49.320 --> 0:26:51.760
<v Speaker 4>universe that corresponds to this missing piece, he found, oh.

0:26:51.720 --> 0:26:52.159
<v Speaker 3>Yes, it is.

0:26:52.200 --> 0:26:55.520
<v Speaker 4>It just had been overlooked. So again the math guided him.

0:26:55.520 --> 0:26:58.480
<v Speaker 4>And to me, that's really powerfully suggestive to say, like, wow,

0:26:58.520 --> 0:27:02.440
<v Speaker 4>the universe isn't described by math. It runs on math,

0:27:02.440 --> 0:27:05.960
<v Speaker 4>like it is fundamentally mathematical. And I remember having this

0:27:06.119 --> 0:27:09.320
<v Speaker 4>moment where I personally came to believe that as an

0:27:09.400 --> 0:27:13.600
<v Speaker 4>undergrad learning like quantum mechanics and hearing about like bells

0:27:13.600 --> 0:27:16.480
<v Speaker 4>inequality and all these experiments, and I was like, Wow,

0:27:16.920 --> 0:27:20.359
<v Speaker 4>this is too accurate to be approximate, too accurate to

0:27:20.560 --> 0:27:23.480
<v Speaker 4>just be a description, right, this is the rules, This

0:27:23.560 --> 0:27:25.960
<v Speaker 4>is the source code of the universe. So I used

0:27:26.000 --> 0:27:29.280
<v Speaker 4>to deeply, deeply believe that. But you know, the more

0:27:29.320 --> 0:27:31.199
<v Speaker 4>you dig into the philosophy of math, the more you

0:27:31.280 --> 0:27:35.320
<v Speaker 4>realize this sits on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions which

0:27:35.400 --> 0:27:38.520
<v Speaker 4>sound plausible, but when you dig into them, like do

0:27:38.600 --> 0:27:42.280
<v Speaker 4>we really have good arguments for them? And as you say,

0:27:42.320 --> 0:27:45.399
<v Speaker 4>some of them relate to like arithmetic. In the last

0:27:45.400 --> 0:27:47.920
<v Speaker 4>couple of hundreds of years, philosophers of math have asked

0:27:48.000 --> 0:27:51.560
<v Speaker 4>questions like, well, what are the basic foundations of math?

0:27:51.720 --> 0:27:54.960
<v Speaker 4>Like what are the starting rules the few things you

0:27:55.000 --> 0:27:57.399
<v Speaker 4>need to assume from which you can build everything else.

0:27:58.000 --> 0:28:00.880
<v Speaker 4>And the goal of that is it's not just like, hey,

0:28:00.960 --> 0:28:03.280
<v Speaker 4>let's be nerdy and figure out what the rules are,

0:28:03.320 --> 0:28:06.240
<v Speaker 4>but like, let's examine those assumptions and wonder like could

0:28:06.240 --> 0:28:08.560
<v Speaker 4>they have been something else? You know, the way we

0:28:08.640 --> 0:28:11.560
<v Speaker 4>might like see the fundamental equation of the universe and

0:28:11.600 --> 0:28:13.399
<v Speaker 4>ask like is it this way it? Could it have

0:28:13.440 --> 0:28:16.240
<v Speaker 4>been the other way? You learned something by seeing the

0:28:16.280 --> 0:28:19.720
<v Speaker 4>fundamental nature written down, And in the last couple hundred

0:28:19.760 --> 0:28:22.840
<v Speaker 4>years we've learned We've made a lot of progress, Like wow.

0:28:22.960 --> 0:28:26.880
<v Speaker 4>Most of mathematics is based on arithmetic, and arithmetic itself

0:28:26.960 --> 0:28:29.720
<v Speaker 4>is based on a few basic axioms. They're called p

0:28:29.880 --> 0:28:32.920
<v Speaker 4>and O's axioms, and those can be described in terms

0:28:32.960 --> 0:28:35.720
<v Speaker 4>of set theory, like you know, this is inside that,

0:28:35.840 --> 0:28:39.040
<v Speaker 4>and a barber who shaves themselves can shave other barbers

0:28:39.080 --> 0:28:42.040
<v Speaker 4>or whatever. But at the core of it, there's a

0:28:42.120 --> 0:28:45.800
<v Speaker 4>question mark, like Godal's theorem tells us that we can't

0:28:45.800 --> 0:28:49.280
<v Speaker 4>describe everything in math using those fundamental axioms. And then

0:28:49.360 --> 0:28:51.440
<v Speaker 4>even if you have a bunch of fundamental axioms, there

0:28:51.440 --> 0:28:53.959
<v Speaker 4>are always going to be things that aren't captured by it.

0:28:54.880 --> 0:28:58.480
<v Speaker 4>You know, there are things in arithmetic that are true

0:28:59.000 --> 0:29:02.720
<v Speaker 4>that cannot be with our axioms, which tells you like,

0:29:03.280 --> 0:29:07.360
<v Speaker 4>maybe we don't really fundamentally understand what's at the core

0:29:07.560 --> 0:29:08.600
<v Speaker 4>of mathematics.

0:29:09.200 --> 0:29:13.680
<v Speaker 3>Is it possible to do physics without numbers? You explore

0:29:13.720 --> 0:29:17.040
<v Speaker 3>at least one scholar who's attempted to, I think, put

0:29:17.040 --> 0:29:20.720
<v Speaker 3>together a version of Newton's laws of motion or gravitation

0:29:21.240 --> 0:29:23.920
<v Speaker 3>without using numbers. You make it sound like it's kind

0:29:23.920 --> 0:29:26.320
<v Speaker 3>of difficult and painful.

0:29:28.840 --> 0:29:31.960
<v Speaker 4>I love this book. It's not easy to read. It's

0:29:31.960 --> 0:29:34.360
<v Speaker 4>like not written for a popular audience. It's written for

0:29:34.480 --> 0:29:37.720
<v Speaker 4>like nerds of philosophy. So I'll be honest, it was

0:29:37.760 --> 0:29:39.600
<v Speaker 4>hard for me to get through it and to really

0:29:39.640 --> 0:29:41.800
<v Speaker 4>digest it. But it's a great book. It's called Science

0:29:41.800 --> 0:29:45.600
<v Speaker 4>Without Numbers. It's by heartree Field, and it's really an

0:29:45.640 --> 0:29:48.600
<v Speaker 4>effort to give an example of like do we need

0:29:48.720 --> 0:29:51.800
<v Speaker 4>mathematics or is it just really useful? And he puts

0:29:51.840 --> 0:29:56.280
<v Speaker 4>together an alternative theory of gravity. You know, he starts

0:29:56.280 --> 0:29:58.160
<v Speaker 4>with Newton's theory, which you can write in terms of

0:29:58.160 --> 0:30:02.280
<v Speaker 4>like a gravitational potential and gravitational field, which is very handy.

0:30:02.320 --> 0:30:05.040
<v Speaker 4>And newton theory famously has an equation in it and

0:30:05.040 --> 0:30:07.640
<v Speaker 4>you can like calculate things with numbers, and he's like,

0:30:07.720 --> 0:30:10.480
<v Speaker 4>do we need that or is that just really helpful?

0:30:10.520 --> 0:30:13.600
<v Speaker 4>So he put together this theory of gravity with no numbers,

0:30:13.800 --> 0:30:16.560
<v Speaker 4>there is no gravitational field. He says, you can't observe

0:30:16.600 --> 0:30:19.760
<v Speaker 4>that directly anyway. All you see is motion of particles.

0:30:20.120 --> 0:30:23.160
<v Speaker 4>So maybe that's just like an intermediate step that's useful

0:30:23.360 --> 0:30:25.600
<v Speaker 4>to us. And then he's like, maybe you don't need

0:30:25.680 --> 0:30:28.160
<v Speaker 4>numbers at all. Maybe you don't need to say the

0:30:28.200 --> 0:30:31.360
<v Speaker 4>field has a value here, and you know this has

0:30:31.800 --> 0:30:34.320
<v Speaker 4>this the son has a mass of this number. Maybe

0:30:34.360 --> 0:30:36.959
<v Speaker 4>all you need are relationships. You know, this one has

0:30:37.040 --> 0:30:38.920
<v Speaker 4>more mass than the other one, this is a greater

0:30:39.040 --> 0:30:42.560
<v Speaker 4>distance than that one. If he structure in terms of relationships,

0:30:42.960 --> 0:30:47.000
<v Speaker 4>he was able to recover the not the equationance of

0:30:47.040 --> 0:30:49.440
<v Speaker 4>motion right, because it's not like he's not dealing with numbers,

0:30:49.800 --> 0:30:55.120
<v Speaker 4>but a description of the behavior gravitationally without using Newton's

0:30:55.120 --> 0:30:58.440
<v Speaker 4>theory and without using any numbers. So in the philosophy

0:30:58.440 --> 0:31:02.080
<v Speaker 4>of mass, this approach is called nominalism. Essentially says that

0:31:02.240 --> 0:31:06.240
<v Speaker 4>numbers are something we made up. You know, one, two, four,

0:31:06.520 --> 0:31:09.120
<v Speaker 4>They don't exist anywhere in the world, like where is

0:31:09.200 --> 0:31:12.680
<v Speaker 4>the number four? It's a sort of a hilarious philosophy

0:31:12.760 --> 0:31:14.920
<v Speaker 4>question that you could just brush off. It's like, well,

0:31:15.200 --> 0:31:17.280
<v Speaker 4>it sounds like you've been smoking too many banana peels.

0:31:17.280 --> 0:31:21.040
<v Speaker 4>But you know, if four exists outside of human knowledge

0:31:21.240 --> 0:31:24.280
<v Speaker 4>and before us, then like where is it? It's sort

0:31:24.320 --> 0:31:27.440
<v Speaker 4>of a reasonable question, Like, you know, if it's part

0:31:27.480 --> 0:31:29.520
<v Speaker 4>of the universe, it should have a location. Everything else

0:31:29.560 --> 0:31:32.160
<v Speaker 4>that's part of the universe has a location. So maybe

0:31:32.200 --> 0:31:36.040
<v Speaker 4>it's just something we constructed to help us think about stuff.

0:31:36.280 --> 0:31:38.400
<v Speaker 4>And so it's pretty hard to growck like a theory

0:31:38.400 --> 0:31:40.640
<v Speaker 4>of physics without math, And that's his point. His point

0:31:40.720 --> 0:31:43.120
<v Speaker 4>is like, look, math is very useful, but that doesn't

0:31:43.160 --> 0:31:46.760
<v Speaker 4>mean it's necessary the way like, yes, having a car

0:31:46.760 --> 0:31:49.600
<v Speaker 4>in Los Angeles is very useful, but you could walk

0:31:49.640 --> 0:31:53.240
<v Speaker 4>everywhere it would be a huge pain. Right, It's obviously

0:31:53.240 --> 0:31:56.480
<v Speaker 4>an advantage, but it doesn't mean it's fundamental. And that

0:31:56.520 --> 0:31:58.880
<v Speaker 4>opens up the door to like, well, maybe aliens found

0:31:58.880 --> 0:32:01.560
<v Speaker 4>some other way to think. Maybe math reflects the way

0:32:01.680 --> 0:32:05.040
<v Speaker 4>our minds work instead of the way the universe works,

0:32:05.040 --> 0:32:08.040
<v Speaker 4>and if alien minds work differently, they might come up

0:32:08.040 --> 0:32:11.680
<v Speaker 4>with something else we wouldn't call math. Or if aliens

0:32:11.680 --> 0:32:15.160
<v Speaker 4>evolved in a similar situation where they have bodies that

0:32:15.200 --> 0:32:19.000
<v Speaker 4>are easy to distinguish and so counting makes sense, and

0:32:19.040 --> 0:32:21.560
<v Speaker 4>they have like you know, interesting economies that are similar

0:32:21.600 --> 0:32:24.320
<v Speaker 4>hours they might have evolved the similar concepts. So it

0:32:24.360 --> 0:32:26.640
<v Speaker 4>comes down to essentially how much we have in common

0:32:26.720 --> 0:32:30.760
<v Speaker 4>with them evolutionarily and conceptually, whether or not we think

0:32:30.840 --> 0:32:34.760
<v Speaker 4>they might have math, but it's definitely not necessary. And

0:32:34.920 --> 0:32:37.440
<v Speaker 4>even here on Earth. I was surprised when I was

0:32:37.440 --> 0:32:39.959
<v Speaker 4>doing my research to learn that different cultures here on

0:32:40.000 --> 0:32:43.760
<v Speaker 4>Earth have different relationships with counting. You know, you might

0:32:43.800 --> 0:32:45.440
<v Speaker 4>look at a bunch of stuff on a desk and

0:32:45.480 --> 0:32:47.040
<v Speaker 4>I can ask you like, oh, how many things are

0:32:47.080 --> 0:32:49.160
<v Speaker 4>on the desk, and you say, oh, there's four things.

0:32:49.680 --> 0:32:52.960
<v Speaker 4>But somebody who's Japanese, for example, they have different categories

0:32:53.000 --> 0:32:55.680
<v Speaker 4>of counting, and they would never group together things that

0:32:55.720 --> 0:32:58.240
<v Speaker 4>are like long and thin with things that are like

0:32:58.320 --> 0:33:01.120
<v Speaker 4>flat and short, So like pencils CDs on a desk,

0:33:01.480 --> 0:33:03.880
<v Speaker 4>they would say, oh, there's two pencils and two CDs.

0:33:04.520 --> 0:33:08.240
<v Speaker 4>You can't say that's four things because they're different categories, right,

0:33:08.880 --> 0:33:11.440
<v Speaker 4>And that's a hint where you can dig in and say, like, well,

0:33:11.880 --> 0:33:14.480
<v Speaker 4>when do we group things together? Like why do I

0:33:14.520 --> 0:33:17.040
<v Speaker 4>say this four things? What is the category of a thing?

0:33:17.320 --> 0:33:19.320
<v Speaker 4>Like why do I say these things are similar enough

0:33:19.320 --> 0:33:21.640
<v Speaker 4>that I can call them a thing? And in the end,

0:33:21.760 --> 0:33:24.080
<v Speaker 4>that's a bit of an arbitrary distinction. Like if you

0:33:24.120 --> 0:33:26.240
<v Speaker 4>look at a bunch of apples on a table, I

0:33:26.240 --> 0:33:28.400
<v Speaker 4>could say there's ten apples, or I could say, well,

0:33:28.400 --> 0:33:30.240
<v Speaker 4>there's this apple, and there's that apple, and there's the

0:33:30.280 --> 0:33:34.160
<v Speaker 4>other apple, and they're all unique apples and so on

0:33:34.240 --> 0:33:37.120
<v Speaker 4>what basis am I saying they're all the same? That's culture,

0:33:37.400 --> 0:33:41.600
<v Speaker 4>that's I'm saying the differences are not important, and that's arbitrary.

0:33:41.960 --> 0:33:45.160
<v Speaker 4>And like, I'm probably right there are ten apples, Like

0:33:45.400 --> 0:33:49.360
<v Speaker 4>I'm not saying every apple really is fundamentally different. But

0:33:49.480 --> 0:33:52.600
<v Speaker 4>when you discover that the lines you're drawing are arbitrary,

0:33:52.720 --> 0:33:55.080
<v Speaker 4>then that makes you wonder whether other people are drawing

0:33:55.120 --> 0:33:59.160
<v Speaker 4>different arbitrary lines. And again, this isn't like to say

0:33:59.480 --> 0:34:02.400
<v Speaker 4>matth is useless or anything. It's just to point out

0:34:02.600 --> 0:34:04.920
<v Speaker 4>that there are cracks here, that there are assumptions we're

0:34:04.960 --> 0:34:07.960
<v Speaker 4>making that are human that might be made differently elsewhere.

0:34:08.480 --> 0:34:11.400
<v Speaker 3>Okay, you ask some other really interesting questions along these

0:34:11.440 --> 0:34:15.320
<v Speaker 3>lines about how our thinking versus alien thinking might influence

0:34:15.760 --> 0:34:18.400
<v Speaker 3>different ways that we could relate to the universe or

0:34:18.400 --> 0:34:21.840
<v Speaker 3>that science could arise. One is you talk about differences

0:34:21.880 --> 0:34:26.120
<v Speaker 3>in perception like native sensory capabilities, and how that could

0:34:26.680 --> 0:34:29.600
<v Speaker 3>probably determine what kinds of questions and answers make sense.

0:34:29.800 --> 0:34:31.239
<v Speaker 3>Maybe we can come back to that, because I want

0:34:31.239 --> 0:34:34.400
<v Speaker 3>to get to your question about your chapter on do

0:34:34.520 --> 0:34:37.920
<v Speaker 3>aliens argue about planets? I found this really interesting because

0:34:38.239 --> 0:34:41.520
<v Speaker 3>I don't think I ever considered it this way. But

0:34:41.600 --> 0:34:46.120
<v Speaker 3>you start here with a contact hypothetical about the inhabitants

0:34:46.120 --> 0:34:50.560
<v Speaker 3>of a subsurface ocean on Jupiter's moon Europa, who see

0:34:50.640 --> 0:34:55.000
<v Speaker 3>everything in terms of eddy is kind of swirling swarms

0:34:55.040 --> 0:34:59.640
<v Speaker 3>of matter in motion, and that that's as fundamental to

0:34:59.680 --> 0:35:03.120
<v Speaker 3>their physical view of reality as the idea of particles

0:35:03.120 --> 0:35:06.319
<v Speaker 3>and discrete objects is to us. I thought that was

0:35:06.360 --> 0:35:10.120
<v Speaker 3>really interesting, the idea that we could meet with another

0:35:10.160 --> 0:35:12.400
<v Speaker 3>spec And of course, from here you build up the

0:35:12.440 --> 0:35:14.239
<v Speaker 3>idea that we could meet with this other speci we

0:35:14.239 --> 0:35:18.240
<v Speaker 3>could both have science and both be able and willing

0:35:18.320 --> 0:35:21.799
<v Speaker 3>to communicate with each other, but end up finding each

0:35:21.840 --> 0:35:28.200
<v Speaker 3>other's physical metaphors for describing reality uninteresting and not very useful.

0:35:28.760 --> 0:35:30.719
<v Speaker 3>I don't think I don't think i'd ever that had

0:35:30.760 --> 0:35:33.040
<v Speaker 3>never entered my mind. So could you elaborate on that?

0:35:33.400 --> 0:35:37.080
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, you know, the goal here is like identify the

0:35:37.120 --> 0:35:40.319
<v Speaker 4>assumptions that underpin our science and wonder if they could

0:35:40.360 --> 0:35:43.600
<v Speaker 4>be different. And one of my goals in writing this

0:35:43.640 --> 0:35:47.399
<v Speaker 4>book was to bring to more popular awareness that there's

0:35:47.480 --> 0:35:50.520
<v Speaker 4>like a raging philosophical debate about some of these things

0:35:50.600 --> 0:35:53.160
<v Speaker 4>that a lot of people aren't even aware of. And

0:35:53.200 --> 0:35:56.080
<v Speaker 4>one of them is this principle of emergence. You know,

0:35:56.360 --> 0:35:59.839
<v Speaker 4>essentially asked the question, why can you make chicken soup

0:35:59.840 --> 0:36:03.320
<v Speaker 4>with out understanding quantum gravity? Like we don't understand the

0:36:03.360 --> 0:36:06.000
<v Speaker 4>fundamental nature of the universe, for sure, we don't, you know,

0:36:06.080 --> 0:36:08.680
<v Speaker 4>like we've zoomed down to electrons and quarks and whatever.

0:36:08.840 --> 0:36:11.040
<v Speaker 4>We know that's not the final story, and we don't

0:36:11.080 --> 0:36:13.480
<v Speaker 4>know how far below that is the final story? Is

0:36:13.480 --> 0:36:16.879
<v Speaker 4>there even a final story? And yet people have been

0:36:16.960 --> 0:36:20.080
<v Speaker 4>like calculating how to lob cannon balls over castle walls

0:36:20.120 --> 0:36:22.600
<v Speaker 4>for a long time. And people live in the world,

0:36:22.680 --> 0:36:26.160
<v Speaker 4>and you know, we have very fancy technology that describes

0:36:26.200 --> 0:36:29.000
<v Speaker 4>the behavior of transistors and all this sorts of stuff.

0:36:29.440 --> 0:36:33.800
<v Speaker 4>Why is it possible to understand the world without understanding

0:36:33.840 --> 0:36:37.280
<v Speaker 4>the basic rules of it. There's this sort of magic

0:36:37.360 --> 0:36:41.000
<v Speaker 4>trick that all of our science relies on and it's

0:36:41.000 --> 0:36:43.840
<v Speaker 4>called emergence, and it says that the universe seems to

0:36:43.880 --> 0:36:47.280
<v Speaker 4>operate at different levels, and you can understand the universe

0:36:47.320 --> 0:36:50.120
<v Speaker 4>at sort of our level without knowing the details of

0:36:50.120 --> 0:36:52.719
<v Speaker 4>what's going on inside. Right. We've been able to do

0:36:52.760 --> 0:36:57.520
<v Speaker 4>biology and chemistry well before we were even doing particle physics, right,

0:36:57.560 --> 0:37:00.960
<v Speaker 4>So it's not like everybody was waiting. I know, particle

0:37:00.960 --> 0:37:03.400
<v Speaker 4>physicists tell us what is the rules so that we

0:37:03.440 --> 0:37:06.440
<v Speaker 4>can then extrapolate upwards to biology. Like you could just

0:37:06.480 --> 0:37:08.719
<v Speaker 4>go ahead and do biology, you can go ahead and

0:37:08.800 --> 0:37:12.759
<v Speaker 4>do chemistry, you can do lots of classical physics. But

0:37:12.840 --> 0:37:16.080
<v Speaker 4>why does that happen? Why is that even possible? You know,

0:37:16.200 --> 0:37:18.160
<v Speaker 4>if I told you I'm going to make up a

0:37:18.160 --> 0:37:20.880
<v Speaker 4>bunch of random, arbitrary rules for the way the universe

0:37:20.880 --> 0:37:23.480
<v Speaker 4>works at it a fundamental level, you might think, okay, well,

0:37:23.520 --> 0:37:27.319
<v Speaker 4>what are the consequences then for the macroscopic scale, you know,

0:37:27.400 --> 0:37:29.600
<v Speaker 4>And it turns out it's weird that you don't have

0:37:29.640 --> 0:37:33.600
<v Speaker 4>to know the microscopic to understand the macroscopic And that's

0:37:33.640 --> 0:37:36.000
<v Speaker 4>the thing that makes me wonder if we don't know

0:37:36.280 --> 0:37:38.799
<v Speaker 4>why that works. And this is a deep question in

0:37:38.840 --> 0:37:45.040
<v Speaker 4>philosophy why does simplicity emerge from you know, complexity and chaos.

0:37:45.719 --> 0:37:48.200
<v Speaker 4>Then how do we know we're not imposing it on

0:37:48.280 --> 0:37:50.680
<v Speaker 4>the universe. How do we know there's not a cultural

0:37:50.680 --> 0:37:53.560
<v Speaker 4>bias where we're like, well, there's a seeding mass of

0:37:53.680 --> 0:37:55.920
<v Speaker 4>chaos out there in the universe, and we're selecting the

0:37:56.000 --> 0:37:59.359
<v Speaker 4>things that are interesting to us because they're relevant to us,

0:37:59.360 --> 0:38:01.319
<v Speaker 4>and they come out of the way we live, and

0:38:01.360 --> 0:38:03.719
<v Speaker 4>we're expressing the universe in terms.

0:38:03.480 --> 0:38:04.440
<v Speaker 3>Of those things.

0:38:05.160 --> 0:38:09.160
<v Speaker 4>And so I chose this question of planets because talking

0:38:09.200 --> 0:38:11.279
<v Speaker 4>to a mathematician friend of mine early on in his book,

0:38:11.320 --> 0:38:13.359
<v Speaker 4>he was like, yeah, well, but I mean, aliens are

0:38:13.360 --> 0:38:15.600
<v Speaker 4>going to agree with us about like there are planets

0:38:15.600 --> 0:38:18.480
<v Speaker 4>and stars and galaxies. I'm gonna have some scientific cultural

0:38:18.520 --> 0:38:19.920
<v Speaker 4>touch points. And I was like, well, I don't know,

0:38:20.000 --> 0:38:23.080
<v Speaker 4>maybe what if they didn't evolve on a planet so

0:38:23.120 --> 0:38:27.560
<v Speaker 4>they don't see like rocks through space as fundamental. I mean,

0:38:27.800 --> 0:38:30.920
<v Speaker 4>one way to understand this is like, think about how

0:38:31.080 --> 0:38:34.680
<v Speaker 4>we describe the Solar System. Is it to scale? It

0:38:34.800 --> 0:38:38.080
<v Speaker 4>never is. Whenever you see a description of the Solar System,

0:38:38.440 --> 0:38:41.319
<v Speaker 4>it takes the planets and it zooms them way out

0:38:41.360 --> 0:38:44.279
<v Speaker 4>of proportion. Somebody looking at that would be like, whoa dude,

0:38:44.280 --> 0:38:47.200
<v Speaker 4>you're kind of biased towards planets here, Like, really, planets

0:38:47.239 --> 0:38:51.440
<v Speaker 4>are irrelevant dust compared to the Sun. So if you're

0:38:51.480 --> 0:38:54.600
<v Speaker 4>an alien species that evolves like in a solar atmosphere,

0:38:54.800 --> 0:38:56.920
<v Speaker 4>you're going to think it's awfully weird that we think

0:38:56.960 --> 0:38:59.240
<v Speaker 4>about solar systems the way that we do, where planets

0:38:59.280 --> 0:39:02.240
<v Speaker 4>are front and send. And as I make the argument

0:39:02.280 --> 0:39:04.560
<v Speaker 4>in the book, we don't even have a good definition

0:39:04.640 --> 0:39:06.320
<v Speaker 4>of what a planet is. I mean, we've been arguing

0:39:06.320 --> 0:39:09.160
<v Speaker 4>about it for decades and the definition we have is

0:39:09.280 --> 0:39:12.000
<v Speaker 4>pretty absurd. And it's the reason, like for all this

0:39:12.440 --> 0:39:17.000
<v Speaker 4>kerfuffle about Pluto, it's because we wanted to protect this category.

0:39:17.040 --> 0:39:20.279
<v Speaker 4>We wanted to have something special that made us feel important.

0:39:21.440 --> 0:39:23.600
<v Speaker 4>And anytime we've done that in the history of science,

0:39:23.640 --> 0:39:25.600
<v Speaker 4>you know, like the Earth is the center of the universe,

0:39:25.640 --> 0:39:27.759
<v Speaker 4>the Earth is the center of the Solar system, it's

0:39:27.880 --> 0:39:32.160
<v Speaker 4>always led us down the wrong path. And so it's

0:39:32.200 --> 0:39:35.799
<v Speaker 4>hard to imagine aliens who don't understand planets and don't

0:39:35.840 --> 0:39:38.560
<v Speaker 4>think about the universe in terms of rocks orbiting stars.

0:39:38.920 --> 0:39:42.120
<v Speaker 4>But if they evolve in subsurface oceans, maybe they just

0:39:42.160 --> 0:39:46.040
<v Speaker 4>think about you know, little chaotic vortices and they build

0:39:46.120 --> 0:39:48.799
<v Speaker 4>up their explanation of the universe from that. So that's

0:39:48.840 --> 0:39:50.319
<v Speaker 4>what this chapter is about. And I had a lot

0:39:50.320 --> 0:39:53.840
<v Speaker 4>of fun talking to philosophers about emergence and realized that

0:39:53.960 --> 0:39:57.040
<v Speaker 4>I had a lot of assumptions about the way emergence works. Like,

0:39:57.080 --> 0:40:01.160
<v Speaker 4>for example, I assumed that the universe has fundamental level,

0:40:01.200 --> 0:40:05.640
<v Speaker 4>that there is some firmament where the rules are set

0:40:05.719 --> 0:40:08.799
<v Speaker 4>and everything emerges from that, and maybe we don't know

0:40:08.840 --> 0:40:11.880
<v Speaker 4>exactly how, and it's complicated the way that like hurricanes

0:40:11.920 --> 0:40:15.040
<v Speaker 4>are complicated, but we think they follow rules, but that's

0:40:15.080 --> 0:40:17.520
<v Speaker 4>not necessarily true. Like what if there is no firmament.

0:40:17.600 --> 0:40:20.319
<v Speaker 4>What if it's just like layers of emergence all the

0:40:20.320 --> 0:40:24.160
<v Speaker 4>way down, or what if you know, they don't follow

0:40:24.239 --> 0:40:28.520
<v Speaker 4>from below, maybe things don't bubble upwards. Maybe every layer

0:40:28.600 --> 0:40:31.480
<v Speaker 4>has its own set of laws that are somehow independent.

0:40:31.520 --> 0:40:35.000
<v Speaker 4>There's a lot of basic philosophical assumptions you make when

0:40:35.000 --> 0:40:37.120
<v Speaker 4>you take a sort of particle physics point of view.

0:40:36.920 --> 0:40:49.520
<v Speaker 3>There that gets into your chapter, also about the idea

0:40:49.560 --> 0:40:52.680
<v Speaker 3>that maybe there are no underlying laws of physics, but

0:40:53.000 --> 0:40:55.520
<v Speaker 3>also just at the base level of you know, the

0:40:55.560 --> 0:40:59.480
<v Speaker 3>objects we deal with when we're talking about planets and particles.

0:41:00.080 --> 0:41:02.319
<v Speaker 3>There was a great example in this chapter where you're

0:41:02.320 --> 0:41:05.560
<v Speaker 3>trying to illuminate the different zoom settings. I think a

0:41:05.560 --> 0:41:09.040
<v Speaker 3>lot of people will be familiar with the idea that, yeah,

0:41:09.200 --> 0:41:12.000
<v Speaker 3>chemistry maybe is an approximation and you can get more

0:41:12.040 --> 0:41:15.399
<v Speaker 3>exact if you go down into particle physics. And of course,

0:41:15.440 --> 0:41:17.920
<v Speaker 3>you know, hire biology is more of an approximation. It's

0:41:17.960 --> 0:41:19.760
<v Speaker 3>based on emergence. But I think a lot of people

0:41:19.760 --> 0:41:22.319
<v Speaker 3>would have that in their head, but think, well, when

0:41:22.360 --> 0:41:26.160
<v Speaker 3>you get down to you know, particles, that's the base level.

0:41:26.600 --> 0:41:28.439
<v Speaker 3>But I love the example you use in the book

0:41:28.440 --> 0:41:32.239
<v Speaker 3>of the charge of the electron and how actually, while

0:41:32.280 --> 0:41:35.120
<v Speaker 3>we have a good approximation for how that works, that

0:41:35.239 --> 0:41:39.440
<v Speaker 3>still relies on zoom settings. Could you explain that example.

0:41:40.160 --> 0:41:42.080
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I wanted to dig into this because I think

0:41:42.120 --> 0:41:43.719
<v Speaker 4>a lot of people think about the way you just

0:41:43.800 --> 0:41:46.799
<v Speaker 4>described that they imagine that eventually you can get down

0:41:46.880 --> 0:41:48.920
<v Speaker 4>to the fundamental truth, right And like number one, we

0:41:48.920 --> 0:41:51.160
<v Speaker 4>don't know if there is and the zoomi ist bit

0:41:51.200 --> 0:41:53.279
<v Speaker 4>that we have so far is still kind of a myth.

0:41:53.840 --> 0:41:57.080
<v Speaker 4>Like I make fun of astronomers having a silly definition

0:41:57.200 --> 0:41:59.920
<v Speaker 4>of planet, but like definition of a particle is much

0:42:00.040 --> 0:42:02.960
<v Speaker 4>much more of a mess philosophically, you get ten particle

0:42:02.960 --> 0:42:04.560
<v Speaker 4>theorists in a room and you ask them what is

0:42:04.600 --> 0:42:07.680
<v Speaker 4>a particle, You're gonna get ten answers like it's crazy,

0:42:08.239 --> 0:42:12.200
<v Speaker 4>Like this concept is historical, it's intuitive for us. It

0:42:12.360 --> 0:42:14.840
<v Speaker 4>comes out of our need to describe the universe in

0:42:14.920 --> 0:42:18.319
<v Speaker 4>terms of like little bits of stuff, and in many

0:42:18.320 --> 0:42:20.480
<v Speaker 4>ways I think it's holding us back. You know, we

0:42:21.080 --> 0:42:23.440
<v Speaker 4>have a glimpse now in quantum field theory that things

0:42:23.480 --> 0:42:25.960
<v Speaker 4>work differently, but we're still sort of like clinging to

0:42:26.040 --> 0:42:26.640
<v Speaker 4>this idea.

0:42:27.280 --> 0:42:27.640
<v Speaker 3>Anyway.

0:42:27.680 --> 0:42:31.319
<v Speaker 4>The current idea of a particle is hard to describe

0:42:31.440 --> 0:42:34.800
<v Speaker 4>because particles are never by themselves. Like you think of

0:42:34.840 --> 0:42:37.640
<v Speaker 4>an electron as a tiny dot with a negative charge

0:42:37.640 --> 0:42:41.879
<v Speaker 4>on it. Cool little ball, Yeah, people think a little ball, right,

0:42:41.880 --> 0:42:44.800
<v Speaker 4>and there it is. There's your intuition, your classical intuition.

0:42:45.480 --> 0:42:47.600
<v Speaker 4>I live in the universe with rocks and little bits

0:42:47.600 --> 0:42:49.279
<v Speaker 4>of stuff, and so everything is made out of little

0:42:49.280 --> 0:42:51.600
<v Speaker 4>bits of stuff, right. It's the way you might laugh

0:42:51.640 --> 0:42:54.800
<v Speaker 4>at the ancient Greeks, and we're still doing it. But

0:42:55.200 --> 0:42:57.480
<v Speaker 4>you think of the electron, even if you like think, well,

0:42:57.520 --> 0:42:58.120
<v Speaker 4>it's not a ball.

0:42:58.160 --> 0:42:58.520
<v Speaker 3>Of stuff.

0:42:58.520 --> 0:43:01.120
<v Speaker 4>It's a point, right, and it's got negative sign on it.

0:43:01.320 --> 0:43:03.160
<v Speaker 4>And where does that negative sign come from? Well, we

0:43:03.239 --> 0:43:06.080
<v Speaker 4>measure it in experiments, right, we know the charge of

0:43:06.120 --> 0:43:08.680
<v Speaker 4>the electron. We have the famous oil drop experiment that

0:43:08.719 --> 0:43:12.080
<v Speaker 4>told us the mass to charge ratio, et cetera. But

0:43:12.400 --> 0:43:15.680
<v Speaker 4>is that the charge of the electron itself? Because the electron,

0:43:16.320 --> 0:43:19.040
<v Speaker 4>because it has a charge, is always interacting with the

0:43:19.080 --> 0:43:22.480
<v Speaker 4>electromagnetic field. It makes a field and as it moves,

0:43:22.520 --> 0:43:25.720
<v Speaker 4>that field ripples, and so the right way to describe

0:43:25.760 --> 0:43:28.200
<v Speaker 4>an electron either as in terms of a field around it,

0:43:28.280 --> 0:43:32.560
<v Speaker 4>or equivalently as a cloud of virtual photons. Right, Photons

0:43:32.600 --> 0:43:35.040
<v Speaker 4>are ripples and the electromagnetic field. And so from the

0:43:35.080 --> 0:43:38.200
<v Speaker 4>particle point of view, you have the electron. It's surrounded

0:43:38.200 --> 0:43:41.480
<v Speaker 4>by this cloud of virtual photons, and those virtual photons

0:43:41.640 --> 0:43:44.920
<v Speaker 4>change the charge that you measure. So when you're measuring

0:43:44.960 --> 0:43:47.200
<v Speaker 4>the charge of the electron, you're not measuring the charge

0:43:47.200 --> 0:43:50.719
<v Speaker 4>of the pure, bare electron. You're measuring the charge of

0:43:50.760 --> 0:43:54.040
<v Speaker 4>the electron plus this cloud of photons. Because photons can

0:43:54.080 --> 0:43:57.800
<v Speaker 4>fluctuate into like electrons and positrons, you have this cloud

0:43:57.840 --> 0:44:02.040
<v Speaker 4>of charged particles, and say electrons charge polarizes that cloud,

0:44:02.680 --> 0:44:05.239
<v Speaker 4>And depending on how far into that cloud you go,

0:44:05.360 --> 0:44:08.120
<v Speaker 4>you get a different answer for what is the charge

0:44:08.160 --> 0:44:10.759
<v Speaker 4>that we measure? So really, far away from the cloud,

0:44:10.920 --> 0:44:12.600
<v Speaker 4>you get the charge that we know in loud that

0:44:12.640 --> 0:44:16.520
<v Speaker 4>Ben Franklin discovered and that we measured one hundred years ago.

0:44:16.760 --> 0:44:19.239
<v Speaker 4>But if you start to probe into that cloud, then

0:44:19.280 --> 0:44:21.560
<v Speaker 4>you're not seeing as much of those photons. You're getting

0:44:21.800 --> 0:44:24.560
<v Speaker 4>through it closer to the bare electron, closer to the

0:44:24.880 --> 0:44:27.600
<v Speaker 4>real truth of the electrons charge, and you get a

0:44:27.640 --> 0:44:32.040
<v Speaker 4>more negative number. And the deeper you probe intowards that cloud,

0:44:32.480 --> 0:44:35.640
<v Speaker 4>the more you're not being affected by those particles, the

0:44:35.640 --> 0:44:39.120
<v Speaker 4>more negative that number gets. And if you extrapolate, what

0:44:39.120 --> 0:44:40.520
<v Speaker 4>would it be like if you went all the way

0:44:40.520 --> 0:44:41.920
<v Speaker 4>through the cloud, you went all the way to to

0:44:41.960 --> 0:44:44.279
<v Speaker 4>the electron, what number would you measure for the charge

0:44:44.280 --> 0:44:47.799
<v Speaker 4>of the electron? The answer is negative infinity?

0:44:48.719 --> 0:44:49.200
<v Speaker 3>Like what.

0:44:51.040 --> 0:44:53.200
<v Speaker 4>This is another example in physics where you get a

0:44:53.239 --> 0:44:56.879
<v Speaker 4>nonsense answer that tells you that, like your theory has

0:44:56.920 --> 0:45:00.760
<v Speaker 4>been pushed beyond its region of applicability. Right, it makes sense.

0:45:01.440 --> 0:45:04.680
<v Speaker 4>We're not saying the electron really does have a negative charge.

0:45:04.719 --> 0:45:08.120
<v Speaker 4>We're saying the concept of the electron on its own

0:45:08.160 --> 0:45:11.360
<v Speaker 4>with the charge, that is not an appropriate way to

0:45:11.400 --> 0:45:15.960
<v Speaker 4>think about what's happening. Really, electrons are always tied together

0:45:16.040 --> 0:45:19.040
<v Speaker 4>with photons. We're making this arbitrary dotted line between the

0:45:19.080 --> 0:45:21.520
<v Speaker 4>electrons and the photons because we like to think of

0:45:21.560 --> 0:45:24.880
<v Speaker 4>it that way, But fundamentally these two are so deeply

0:45:24.920 --> 0:45:27.560
<v Speaker 4>interwoven that it doesn't make sense to imagine the charge

0:45:27.560 --> 0:45:30.600
<v Speaker 4>of the electron by itself. So even this concept of

0:45:30.600 --> 0:45:33.400
<v Speaker 4>a particle like the fundamental basis of all of our

0:45:33.400 --> 0:45:36.319
<v Speaker 4>particle physics, and we think the universe and even if

0:45:36.360 --> 0:45:38.879
<v Speaker 4>the electron isn't, we think that our particles within it. Right,

0:45:38.920 --> 0:45:44.080
<v Speaker 4>this basic unit of our imagination is something that's not

0:45:44.239 --> 0:45:48.520
<v Speaker 4>really an appropriate description of the universe. And so that

0:45:48.640 --> 0:45:52.439
<v Speaker 4>to me smells of humanity, of cultural choices, of being

0:45:52.480 --> 0:45:55.920
<v Speaker 4>linked to our intuition, the preference, the way that we

0:45:56.080 --> 0:45:58.719
<v Speaker 4>like to hear the answers, and so the language that

0:45:58.760 --> 0:46:03.400
<v Speaker 4>we express ourselves in. And I wonder if aliens argue

0:46:03.440 --> 0:46:06.880
<v Speaker 4>about particles and argue about planets, and it would be amazing,

0:46:07.560 --> 0:46:10.120
<v Speaker 4>It'd be amazing if they didn't, if they came with

0:46:10.200 --> 0:46:14.320
<v Speaker 4>a completely different way of expressing and explaining the universe.

0:46:14.400 --> 0:46:17.480
<v Speaker 4>That would be mind blowing. That's my real fantasy.

0:46:17.719 --> 0:46:19.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, that actually does tie into a later chapter, the

0:46:19.840 --> 0:46:24.919
<v Speaker 3>one where you're talking about alternative alien science. Could there

0:46:25.040 --> 0:46:30.800
<v Speaker 3>be completely different theories of everything, complete theories of physics

0:46:31.320 --> 0:46:36.400
<v Speaker 3>that both correctly predict the behavior of all matter, energy,

0:46:36.400 --> 0:46:40.040
<v Speaker 3>and space time, and yet they're different theories. Is that

0:46:40.080 --> 0:46:43.680
<v Speaker 3>actually possible? Are two different theories that always make the

0:46:43.800 --> 0:46:46.400
<v Speaker 3>exact same predictions actually equivalent?

0:46:47.000 --> 0:46:49.360
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, So this is a great example, Like, this is

0:46:49.360 --> 0:46:53.320
<v Speaker 4>a question philosophers have been debating for decades and decades

0:46:53.760 --> 0:46:57.560
<v Speaker 4>that's basically unknown in physics. Like I think most physicists

0:46:57.719 --> 0:47:00.600
<v Speaker 4>and most people out there imagine if if you find

0:47:00.760 --> 0:47:04.800
<v Speaker 4>a theory that works and is simple and it's basic,

0:47:04.920 --> 0:47:06.880
<v Speaker 4>like say string theory figures it out and they have

0:47:06.960 --> 0:47:09.520
<v Speaker 4>one equation and it describes everything and it predicts every

0:47:09.560 --> 0:47:12.200
<v Speaker 4>experiment and it all works, then people are like, okay,

0:47:12.200 --> 0:47:15.920
<v Speaker 4>well you're done right, Like that's it. But there's an

0:47:15.920 --> 0:47:19.040
<v Speaker 4>assumption there that there is a unique description, that there's

0:47:19.080 --> 0:47:22.839
<v Speaker 4>only one description, one way to answer this question, and

0:47:23.040 --> 0:47:25.600
<v Speaker 4>it actually makes a lot more sense to imagine that

0:47:25.680 --> 0:47:29.600
<v Speaker 4>there might be multiple descriptions. I mean, like consider anytime

0:47:29.640 --> 0:47:32.879
<v Speaker 4>you have data. You measure something, you have a few

0:47:32.960 --> 0:47:36.200
<v Speaker 4>data points, and then you try to describe it, describe

0:47:36.200 --> 0:47:38.080
<v Speaker 4>it by like drawing a line through it. Maybe it's

0:47:38.120 --> 0:47:39.840
<v Speaker 4>a straight line, maybe it's a wiggly line. Maybe you

0:47:39.880 --> 0:47:43.120
<v Speaker 4>have all some model you're fitting to your data. That

0:47:43.239 --> 0:47:46.040
<v Speaker 4>model is describing things between your data points that you

0:47:46.080 --> 0:47:49.240
<v Speaker 4>have not observed. And even if you take infinite amounts

0:47:49.239 --> 0:47:51.719
<v Speaker 4>of data, there will always be multiple models that fit

0:47:51.760 --> 0:47:54.920
<v Speaker 4>the data. So it actually kind of makes sense to imagine, hm,

0:47:55.200 --> 0:47:57.680
<v Speaker 4>you could have multiple ways to describe the same universe,

0:47:57.719 --> 0:48:01.640
<v Speaker 4>and I think this conflicts with your natural intuition. They're like, yeah,

0:48:01.640 --> 0:48:05.440
<v Speaker 4>but there's a true answer. You know, the universe runs

0:48:05.560 --> 0:48:07.520
<v Speaker 4>some way and we just have to figure it out.

0:48:07.560 --> 0:48:10.239
<v Speaker 4>And maybe we're right, or maybe the aliens are right,

0:48:10.280 --> 0:48:12.880
<v Speaker 4>and maybe our theory of quantum fields is wrong and

0:48:12.920 --> 0:48:15.720
<v Speaker 4>maybe their theory of quantum fields is right or whatever.

0:48:16.440 --> 0:48:19.680
<v Speaker 4>But there is a truth. And that's a philosophical assumption

0:48:20.760 --> 0:48:23.120
<v Speaker 4>saying that there's a single objective truth that we could

0:48:23.120 --> 0:48:26.480
<v Speaker 4>discover and it's unique. How do you know? You know,

0:48:26.640 --> 0:48:29.800
<v Speaker 4>you don't know. That's exactly the kind of philosophical assumption

0:48:29.880 --> 0:48:32.400
<v Speaker 4>I want to sort of reveal in this book, And

0:48:32.440 --> 0:48:34.080
<v Speaker 4>I'm not saying that we don't. I'm not saying that

0:48:34.080 --> 0:48:37.240
<v Speaker 4>there isn't, but I'm saying that we can't be sure.

0:48:37.760 --> 0:48:40.640
<v Speaker 4>And you know, there's lots of arguments in philosophy that

0:48:40.840 --> 0:48:43.560
<v Speaker 4>say that there very well could be. And there's lots

0:48:43.560 --> 0:48:47.560
<v Speaker 4>of great historical examples. You know, the history of our

0:48:47.680 --> 0:48:52.279
<v Speaker 4>physics is the history of overthrowing one way of thinking

0:48:52.320 --> 0:48:55.719
<v Speaker 4>about the universe for another one. You know, when Einstein

0:48:56.280 --> 0:48:59.879
<v Speaker 4>upgraded on understanding of gravity, didn't just give us better

0:49:00.000 --> 0:49:03.880
<v Speaker 4>equations that were more accurate, he completely revised the story

0:49:04.040 --> 0:49:07.560
<v Speaker 4>of what's happening. You know, it's not masses pulling on

0:49:07.600 --> 0:49:10.640
<v Speaker 4>each other. It's space itself is bending and curving, and

0:49:10.680 --> 0:49:13.279
<v Speaker 4>gravity is not even a force. So there is this

0:49:13.480 --> 0:49:18.239
<v Speaker 4>history of overthrowing our ideas which suggests that there are

0:49:18.520 --> 0:49:21.600
<v Speaker 4>other ideas out there which could better or at least

0:49:21.600 --> 0:49:24.799
<v Speaker 4>equivalently describe the universe that we see, that we could

0:49:24.840 --> 0:49:27.360
<v Speaker 4>conceive of right now. If you are a super genius,

0:49:27.640 --> 0:49:30.280
<v Speaker 4>you could sit down and come up with another way

0:49:30.400 --> 0:49:34.799
<v Speaker 4>to describe gravity or quantum fields or whatever that's equivalent

0:49:34.920 --> 0:49:40.200
<v Speaker 4>or superior. And so it's certainly possible to have multiple

0:49:40.239 --> 0:49:44.600
<v Speaker 4>theories and so in the literature they argue about this,

0:49:44.719 --> 0:49:47.319
<v Speaker 4>and there's a whole group of people like this is

0:49:47.320 --> 0:49:50.680
<v Speaker 4>skuy Norton who says that any alternative theory is quote

0:49:50.760 --> 0:49:53.160
<v Speaker 4>merely the same theory dressed in different clothes.

0:49:53.360 --> 0:49:54.319
<v Speaker 3>Right that as you.

0:49:54.280 --> 0:49:57.799
<v Speaker 4>Say, look, okay, maybe you have fields and we have shmields,

0:49:58.200 --> 0:50:01.000
<v Speaker 4>but they must be equivalent, because if they're doing the

0:50:01.040 --> 0:50:04.279
<v Speaker 4>same thing, right, if they're making the same predictions, how

0:50:04.320 --> 0:50:07.799
<v Speaker 4>can they really be different? And you know, we don't

0:50:07.840 --> 0:50:11.279
<v Speaker 4>know the answer to that because nobody has an alternative

0:50:11.480 --> 0:50:14.520
<v Speaker 4>like this is theoretical philosophers say it should be possible,

0:50:14.840 --> 0:50:17.560
<v Speaker 4>and other philosophers say, like, all right, show us you

0:50:17.600 --> 0:50:20.399
<v Speaker 4>know what are you talking about. Where is this alternative?

0:50:20.560 --> 0:50:20.759
<v Speaker 3>Right?

0:50:22.440 --> 0:50:24.319
<v Speaker 4>And we don't have that. So all we can do

0:50:24.440 --> 0:50:27.000
<v Speaker 4>is look at our history, and we have some fascinating

0:50:27.040 --> 0:50:32.399
<v Speaker 4>examples there, like you know, Newtonian mechanics was supplanted by

0:50:32.560 --> 0:50:35.759
<v Speaker 4>Lagrangeen mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics, which is a different way

0:50:35.800 --> 0:50:38.719
<v Speaker 4>to think about like how things move. If you want

0:50:38.760 --> 0:50:40.960
<v Speaker 4>to calculate, you know, how does the ball move with

0:50:41.000 --> 0:50:43.920
<v Speaker 4>the parabola, you can use Newtonian mechanics, and we do that.

0:50:44.320 --> 0:50:46.799
<v Speaker 4>You know, f equals MA, and that works. But as

0:50:46.800 --> 0:50:49.000
<v Speaker 4>soon as it gets complicated, you have your ball and

0:50:49.040 --> 0:50:50.640
<v Speaker 4>a string, and a string is being held by a

0:50:50.640 --> 0:50:53.359
<v Speaker 4>squirrel and the squirrels on a roller coaster. It's way

0:50:53.360 --> 0:50:56.480
<v Speaker 4>too hard to use Newton's laws like it just becomes unsolvable.

0:50:56.680 --> 0:51:00.040
<v Speaker 4>So these clever guys, Lagrange and Hamilton came up with

0:51:00.040 --> 0:51:04.839
<v Speaker 4>with more effective mechanics that rely essentially on energy as

0:51:04.840 --> 0:51:08.000
<v Speaker 4>the fundamental principle, and you can derive Newton's laws from them.

0:51:08.480 --> 0:51:11.440
<v Speaker 4>And lagrange And mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics are very similar,

0:51:11.480 --> 0:51:14.040
<v Speaker 4>but they're all so different, and you can use both

0:51:14.120 --> 0:51:17.600
<v Speaker 4>of them to describe these things. And for like more

0:51:17.600 --> 0:51:19.839
<v Speaker 4>than one hundred years, people have been arguing about are

0:51:19.880 --> 0:51:23.800
<v Speaker 4>these two theories just the same dressed in different clothes

0:51:23.920 --> 0:51:27.800
<v Speaker 4>or are they fundamentally different? And the last ten years

0:51:27.880 --> 0:51:30.200
<v Speaker 4>or twenty years or so they've been digging into, like, well,

0:51:30.200 --> 0:51:32.279
<v Speaker 4>what does it mean to be different? You know, this

0:51:32.360 --> 0:51:35.239
<v Speaker 4>is the way philosophy makes progress. They're like, well, what

0:51:35.320 --> 0:51:37.120
<v Speaker 4>is the meaning of the word is mean?

0:51:37.200 --> 0:51:37.680
<v Speaker 3>Anyway?

0:51:38.000 --> 0:51:41.080
<v Speaker 4>So it gets pretty nerdy and abstract, but fundamentally we

0:51:41.120 --> 0:51:43.719
<v Speaker 4>don't know. We don't know if it's possible to have

0:51:43.800 --> 0:51:48.920
<v Speaker 4>multiple theories that describe the universe equivalently and are fundamentally

0:51:48.960 --> 0:51:53.560
<v Speaker 4>categorically different, that they tell different conceptual stories, or if

0:51:53.760 --> 0:51:56.480
<v Speaker 4>both being effective means that they fundamentally have to be

0:51:56.520 --> 0:51:59.160
<v Speaker 4>telling the same story. We just don't know. And we

0:51:59.480 --> 0:52:02.759
<v Speaker 4>have examples on the other side, you know, like quantum mechanics,

0:52:03.120 --> 0:52:06.160
<v Speaker 4>we had matrix equations and we had wave equations. You know,

0:52:06.239 --> 0:52:10.080
<v Speaker 4>Schrodinger and Heisenberg and von Neumann showed Okay, guys, these

0:52:10.080 --> 0:52:12.319
<v Speaker 4>are actually the same thing, you know, just you have

0:52:12.360 --> 0:52:15.040
<v Speaker 4>different operators and different kinds of math, and they seem

0:52:15.080 --> 0:52:18.160
<v Speaker 4>pretty different, but actually they are the same, which is

0:52:18.239 --> 0:52:21.400
<v Speaker 4>kind of hilarious because Schortinger and Heisenberg famously sort of

0:52:21.400 --> 0:52:25.440
<v Speaker 4>hated each other and really didn't like the other's approached, Like, oh,

0:52:25.560 --> 0:52:26.840
<v Speaker 4>I find it gross.

0:52:26.840 --> 0:52:26.920
<v Speaker 2>But.

0:52:28.440 --> 0:52:32.600
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, exactly. Yeah, there's some German dissing the in the

0:52:32.640 --> 0:52:35.440
<v Speaker 4>academic literature which is pretty fun to read. But they

0:52:35.480 --> 0:52:38.040
<v Speaker 4>are fundamentally the same. So you can show that's not

0:52:38.080 --> 0:52:40.680
<v Speaker 4>two theories, right, that is just one theory expressed in

0:52:40.719 --> 0:52:44.000
<v Speaker 4>different clothing. So that would be fascinating, right. When the

0:52:44.040 --> 0:52:47.360
<v Speaker 4>aliens show up with their theory, it might be very different,

0:52:47.440 --> 0:52:49.360
<v Speaker 4>and we might be able to show that it's essentially

0:52:49.360 --> 0:52:52.560
<v Speaker 4>the same, or we might discover, wow, this is a

0:52:52.640 --> 0:52:55.440
<v Speaker 4>very different story about what's happening in the universe. It

0:52:55.520 --> 0:52:59.040
<v Speaker 4>really is a different way to explain things that that

0:52:59.160 --> 0:53:01.759
<v Speaker 4>can't be mapped to ours. And what would that mean?

0:53:02.160 --> 0:53:05.040
<v Speaker 4>You know, what would that mean If the universe has

0:53:05.280 --> 0:53:11.480
<v Speaker 4>multiple correct descriptions, it means something about the nature of truth, right,

0:53:11.600 --> 0:53:15.480
<v Speaker 4>But what is really happening? If there is anything you

0:53:15.480 --> 0:53:17.000
<v Speaker 4>can say is really happening.

0:53:28.320 --> 0:53:32.040
<v Speaker 3>So I think one reason people are tempted to think

0:53:32.080 --> 0:53:35.240
<v Speaker 3>that aliens would have science and it would be similar

0:53:35.280 --> 0:53:38.000
<v Speaker 3>to us, similar to our science, is because when we,

0:53:38.680 --> 0:53:40.879
<v Speaker 3>at least I have this experience, I think a lot

0:53:40.880 --> 0:53:45.719
<v Speaker 3>of people do. When you look back on scientific history,

0:53:45.800 --> 0:53:50.160
<v Speaker 3>you somehow get this feeling that it's kind of faded,

0:53:50.400 --> 0:53:54.520
<v Speaker 3>that it's like on track, maybe because it's not because

0:53:54.560 --> 0:53:58.560
<v Speaker 3>it feels like different than like artistic you know, creations

0:53:58.640 --> 0:54:01.560
<v Speaker 3>where it's like they're they are the scientific discoveries and

0:54:01.600 --> 0:54:05.040
<v Speaker 3>history are bound by nature, and so because they're discovering

0:54:05.080 --> 0:54:09.000
<v Speaker 3>things about nature just kind of feels inevitable that it

0:54:09.040 --> 0:54:11.879
<v Speaker 3>would have developed in the way that it did. Could

0:54:11.880 --> 0:54:15.960
<v Speaker 3>you talk about some reasons for thinking that actually the

0:54:16.040 --> 0:54:20.319
<v Speaker 3>history of human science is somewhat contingent, and how that

0:54:20.360 --> 0:54:23.319
<v Speaker 3>could undermine our belief that aliens would develop science along

0:54:23.360 --> 0:54:24.120
<v Speaker 3>the same tracks.

0:54:24.800 --> 0:54:26.719
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, this is really fun. I got to dig into

0:54:26.719 --> 0:54:28.560
<v Speaker 4>a lot of the history here, and I agree with you.

0:54:29.280 --> 0:54:31.920
<v Speaker 4>I used to think of the history of science as inevitable.

0:54:32.320 --> 0:54:34.759
<v Speaker 4>I played civilization, for example, and you know, you have

0:54:34.840 --> 0:54:37.080
<v Speaker 4>to develop this, and then gunpowdern then you can build this,

0:54:37.160 --> 0:54:41.080
<v Speaker 4>and it feels sort of like a natural progression. But

0:54:41.200 --> 0:54:43.080
<v Speaker 4>you know, there's a lot of moments in the history

0:54:43.080 --> 0:54:46.239
<v Speaker 4>of science that were random, that were accidental, where we

0:54:46.320 --> 0:54:50.120
<v Speaker 4>discovered something that we could have discovered much earlier, and

0:54:50.160 --> 0:54:52.800
<v Speaker 4>it could have totally changed the path of our science.

0:54:52.920 --> 0:54:54.200
<v Speaker 4>And this is one of the reasons I wrote the

0:54:54.239 --> 0:54:56.200
<v Speaker 4>book in the structure I did with this Drake equation

0:54:56.600 --> 0:54:59.239
<v Speaker 4>structure because it let me make some assumptions, like at

0:54:59.239 --> 0:55:00.759
<v Speaker 4>this point in the book and say, all right, let's

0:55:00.800 --> 0:55:03.880
<v Speaker 4>push aside all of the philosophical questions. Let's assume aliens

0:55:03.960 --> 0:55:06.320
<v Speaker 4>do science, they use math, they ask the same questions,

0:55:06.360 --> 0:55:08.960
<v Speaker 4>they're interested in the same stuff as us. Even then,

0:55:10.000 --> 0:55:12.960
<v Speaker 4>how similar or different might their science be? Or like,

0:55:13.000 --> 0:55:16.360
<v Speaker 4>take aliens out of the equation. Imagine running the earth

0:55:17.160 --> 0:55:20.319
<v Speaker 4>a million times, you know, and even start from like

0:55:20.440 --> 0:55:23.080
<v Speaker 4>humans have formed one hundred thousand years ago, When do

0:55:23.160 --> 0:55:25.520
<v Speaker 4>they become technological? How long does that take? What does

0:55:25.520 --> 0:55:28.680
<v Speaker 4>that civilization look like? What science do they develop? Are

0:55:28.719 --> 0:55:32.359
<v Speaker 4>we typically late or early compared to that population? Boy,

0:55:32.440 --> 0:55:34.280
<v Speaker 4>I would love to know the answer to that question.

0:55:34.880 --> 0:55:37.920
<v Speaker 4>You know, what is the path of science in all

0:55:38.000 --> 0:55:40.640
<v Speaker 4>of those different earths? And so we can't know that,

0:55:41.160 --> 0:55:43.360
<v Speaker 4>but we do have some glimmers. You know. I was

0:55:43.400 --> 0:55:48.600
<v Speaker 4>able to like dig into ancient human civilizations Mayans and

0:55:48.680 --> 0:55:51.960
<v Speaker 4>Chinese and the Greeks before they really talk to each other.

0:55:51.960 --> 0:55:54.640
<v Speaker 4>It's sort of like a little mini experiment to compare

0:55:55.040 --> 0:55:58.160
<v Speaker 4>proto scientific development to see how similar it was.

0:55:59.239 --> 0:56:00.439
<v Speaker 3>But actually where we together?

0:56:00.520 --> 0:56:02.880
<v Speaker 4>You asked about like more recent developments. One of my

0:56:02.920 --> 0:56:05.400
<v Speaker 4>favorites is the discovery of X rays, which was, you know,

0:56:05.480 --> 0:56:09.319
<v Speaker 4>essentially just accidental. Guy left a source on top of

0:56:09.360 --> 0:56:13.000
<v Speaker 4>a photographic sheet, came back over the weekend, found this thing,

0:56:13.400 --> 0:56:17.200
<v Speaker 4>He wrote it up, published it the next day. Beat

0:56:17.280 --> 0:56:19.680
<v Speaker 4>some English guy by I.

0:56:19.640 --> 0:56:21.759
<v Speaker 3>Got his wife to stick her hand in front of it.

0:56:22.280 --> 0:56:26.600
<v Speaker 4>Exactly, and you know, made this discovery and all the

0:56:26.680 --> 0:56:29.279
<v Speaker 4>tools were there, Like people have been using uranium for

0:56:29.320 --> 0:56:32.360
<v Speaker 4>a long time, and we had photography for a while,

0:56:32.440 --> 0:56:34.480
<v Speaker 4>so you could have discovered that much much earlier. It

0:56:34.560 --> 0:56:38.560
<v Speaker 4>was really just an accident. And so I like to imagine, well,

0:56:38.600 --> 0:56:40.400
<v Speaker 4>what if we had what if we had made that

0:56:40.440 --> 0:56:43.920
<v Speaker 4>discovery decades or centuries earlier, because that discovery is what

0:56:44.120 --> 0:56:47.880
<v Speaker 4>kicked off like the Cures and their analysis of radiation,

0:56:48.560 --> 0:56:51.000
<v Speaker 4>and then you know Rutherford and his analysis of the

0:56:51.040 --> 0:56:54.600
<v Speaker 4>nucleus and like basically quantum mechanics. Right, that was the

0:56:54.640 --> 0:56:57.880
<v Speaker 4>moment that kicked off everything that led to quantum mechanics.

0:56:57.880 --> 0:57:00.640
<v Speaker 4>What if that had happened one hundred years earlier? What

0:57:00.840 --> 0:57:05.200
<v Speaker 4>if little Einstein was taught quantum mechanics in the crib,

0:57:05.800 --> 0:57:08.920
<v Speaker 4>then when he was developing his theory of general relativity,

0:57:09.480 --> 0:57:13.279
<v Speaker 4>would he have come up with some quantum version. I mean,

0:57:13.360 --> 0:57:18.120
<v Speaker 4>it's just one example, but it shows you how randomness

0:57:18.160 --> 0:57:20.520
<v Speaker 4>affects the development of our science and it could have

0:57:20.560 --> 0:57:23.760
<v Speaker 4>taken us on different paths. And so the fact that

0:57:23.800 --> 0:57:27.800
<v Speaker 4>we're stuck right now unifying quantum mechanics and gravity and

0:57:27.800 --> 0:57:30.720
<v Speaker 4>that even Einstein wasn't able to do it, maybe it's

0:57:30.760 --> 0:57:33.480
<v Speaker 4>because we started too late with quantum mechanics, and if

0:57:33.560 --> 0:57:37.720
<v Speaker 4>quantum mechanics was more intuitive to the smarty pants in

0:57:37.720 --> 0:57:39.800
<v Speaker 4>the last one hundred years, maybe we would have made

0:57:39.840 --> 0:57:43.800
<v Speaker 4>more progress. Or maybe there's some other crazy and kind

0:57:43.840 --> 0:57:46.840
<v Speaker 4>of obvious discovery we haven't made yet, and on all

0:57:46.880 --> 0:57:49.880
<v Speaker 4>the other earths they have and so they're like way

0:57:49.960 --> 0:57:52.720
<v Speaker 4>far ahead of us because we just haven't like stumbled

0:57:52.760 --> 0:57:56.680
<v Speaker 4>across XYZ, you know. Or maybe we're very far ahead

0:57:56.720 --> 0:57:59.960
<v Speaker 4>and most earths they're still using stone tools. Who knows,

0:58:00.280 --> 0:58:03.360
<v Speaker 4>but it would certainly affect what it's like to talk

0:58:03.400 --> 0:58:06.520
<v Speaker 4>to aliens, you know. Are they on the same single

0:58:06.600 --> 0:58:09.680
<v Speaker 4>path that we are on? Are there multiple paths up

0:58:09.680 --> 0:58:11.760
<v Speaker 4>this sort of mountain to figure out the nature of

0:58:11.760 --> 0:58:14.680
<v Speaker 4>the universe? And where did their path diverge? You know,

0:58:14.760 --> 0:58:18.800
<v Speaker 4>did they start totally differently from us or did they

0:58:18.880 --> 0:58:22.360
<v Speaker 4>just like randomly discover things in a different order. Really

0:58:22.400 --> 0:58:24.880
<v Speaker 4>really fascinating to learn that, And so that's why I

0:58:24.960 --> 0:58:27.959
<v Speaker 4>dug into the sort of ancient history. You know, were

0:58:27.960 --> 0:58:32.080
<v Speaker 4>the Mayans being mathematical? If the Mayans, for example, had

0:58:32.120 --> 0:58:36.560
<v Speaker 4>not been devastated by the Spanish, what would their mathematics

0:58:36.560 --> 0:58:39.240
<v Speaker 4>and science be like right now? That would be fascinating

0:58:39.280 --> 0:58:41.720
<v Speaker 4>to know it's such a tragedy. You know, they might

0:58:41.760 --> 0:58:44.720
<v Speaker 4>have a very different way to think about the universe

0:58:44.760 --> 0:58:47.720
<v Speaker 4>and to express it. They certainly were on the road

0:58:47.760 --> 0:58:51.040
<v Speaker 4>to doing that. When the Europeans got there. Their predictions

0:58:51.040 --> 0:58:54.280
<v Speaker 4>for like motions of stars and moons were more accurate

0:58:54.360 --> 0:58:58.680
<v Speaker 4>than the European predictions. So you know, we certainly lost

0:58:58.720 --> 0:58:59.600
<v Speaker 4>a whole thread there.

0:59:00.360 --> 0:59:03.240
<v Speaker 3>Okay, if your game for this, here's the part where

0:59:03.400 --> 0:59:06.320
<v Speaker 3>I would like you to speculate. I want you to

0:59:06.400 --> 0:59:10.200
<v Speaker 3>voice your hunches. If you have a guess or a

0:59:10.240 --> 0:59:14.320
<v Speaker 3>suspicion about what is most likely the limiting factor in

0:59:14.600 --> 0:59:18.960
<v Speaker 3>the original Drake equation, Like which of those variables you know,

0:59:19.200 --> 0:59:21.960
<v Speaker 3>maybe multiple, but which of them is most likely to

0:59:22.040 --> 0:59:24.600
<v Speaker 3>be near zero and is the reason we're not hearing

0:59:24.640 --> 0:59:29.000
<v Speaker 3>from anybody? And then secondly, what do you think is

0:59:29.120 --> 0:59:33.920
<v Speaker 3>most likely to be the filter preventing the alien physics conference.

0:59:35.240 --> 0:59:39.160
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, my hunch, again not scientifically, is that there's life

0:59:39.160 --> 0:59:42.000
<v Speaker 4>everywhere in the universe, that it's all over. You know

0:59:42.880 --> 0:59:47.120
<v Speaker 4>that maybe the fraction of planets that have life is small,

0:59:47.400 --> 0:59:50.760
<v Speaker 4>but it can't be that small, you know, it doesn't

0:59:50.760 --> 0:59:53.480
<v Speaker 4>seem like we're that special. So I think there's probably

0:59:53.520 --> 0:59:57.439
<v Speaker 4>at least microbial life everywhere. How often do you get

0:59:57.480 --> 1:00:01.720
<v Speaker 4>like complex multicellular life, know, But I still my hunch

1:00:01.920 --> 1:00:04.440
<v Speaker 4>is that the denominator is big enough to tolerate a

1:00:04.480 --> 1:00:07.040
<v Speaker 4>small fraction, and that the final result is still going

1:00:07.120 --> 1:00:09.200
<v Speaker 4>to be large. So I'm going to imagine that the

1:00:09.280 --> 1:00:13.920
<v Speaker 4>universe is filled with technological aliens, and you know, we

1:00:13.960 --> 1:00:16.600
<v Speaker 4>haven't heard from them because we don't understand their signals,

1:00:17.080 --> 1:00:20.200
<v Speaker 4>or because you know, time and space have prevented them

1:00:20.200 --> 1:00:23.240
<v Speaker 4>from coming here or communicating with us. So I think that,

1:00:23.320 --> 1:00:26.920
<v Speaker 4>you know, we're starting from a good number. I think

1:00:26.960 --> 1:00:30.040
<v Speaker 4>that when they do arrive, that we are going to

1:00:30.080 --> 1:00:34.160
<v Speaker 4>be shocked by how human are science is. I mean,

1:00:34.160 --> 1:00:36.360
<v Speaker 4>I think I persuaded myself when I was writing this

1:00:36.400 --> 1:00:39.680
<v Speaker 4>book that there's a lot of assumptions we're making that

1:00:39.760 --> 1:00:41.960
<v Speaker 4>you know, they're not going to have coffee and croissants

1:00:41.960 --> 1:00:44.680
<v Speaker 4>for breakfast. They're going to be so much weirder than

1:00:44.680 --> 1:00:48.760
<v Speaker 4>we imagine. Because even on Earth, life is always weirder

1:00:48.800 --> 1:00:52.240
<v Speaker 4>than we imagine. We're always discovering super weird, gunky stuff,

1:00:53.520 --> 1:00:57.600
<v Speaker 4>and so it's sort of it's really just hubris to

1:00:57.680 --> 1:01:01.480
<v Speaker 4>imagine that our way way of thinking and our way

1:01:01.520 --> 1:01:03.520
<v Speaker 4>of doing things is the only way, is the best

1:01:03.560 --> 1:01:07.600
<v Speaker 4>way to me. It's equivalent to like geocentrism, you know,

1:01:08.040 --> 1:01:10.520
<v Speaker 4>to put ourselves at the center of the intellectual universe

1:01:10.560 --> 1:01:12.680
<v Speaker 4>and say this is the only way. And I'm looking

1:01:12.720 --> 1:01:15.720
<v Speaker 4>forward to that. I want my mind blown. I want

1:01:15.760 --> 1:01:17.680
<v Speaker 4>it to be bizarre and difficult. I want it to

1:01:17.720 --> 1:01:22.160
<v Speaker 4>take decades to understand what they're even talking about and

1:01:22.240 --> 1:01:25.280
<v Speaker 4>how they think about things, because then we're going to

1:01:25.360 --> 1:01:27.720
<v Speaker 4>learn something about ourselves, not just the aliens. We're gonna

1:01:27.800 --> 1:01:32.000
<v Speaker 4>learn about what's unusual about us. Where do we stand,

1:01:32.560 --> 1:01:34.640
<v Speaker 4>what is weird about being human? And it's going to

1:01:34.680 --> 1:01:36.680
<v Speaker 4>help define what it means to be human and to

1:01:36.680 --> 1:01:39.400
<v Speaker 4>be a human scientist. This is how we think about things,

1:01:39.440 --> 1:01:41.360
<v Speaker 4>This is how we ask about things. These are kind

1:01:41.360 --> 1:01:44.800
<v Speaker 4>of answers that we find satisfying and that we accept

1:01:44.880 --> 1:01:46.920
<v Speaker 4>and don't ask more questions about. And these are the

1:01:46.960 --> 1:01:50.320
<v Speaker 4>things that drive us and make us curious. You know,

1:01:50.800 --> 1:01:54.800
<v Speaker 4>So I think, I hope, I guess I have a hunch,

1:01:54.880 --> 1:01:57.400
<v Speaker 4>and I hope that aliens do science in a much

1:01:57.440 --> 1:02:01.160
<v Speaker 4>weirder way than anybody imagines that even is imagined in

1:02:01.240 --> 1:02:03.360
<v Speaker 4>this book, right, I don't claim that what we've described

1:02:03.360 --> 1:02:05.560
<v Speaker 4>in this book spans the whole space of ideas. I

1:02:05.600 --> 1:02:07.840
<v Speaker 4>just want to give people a flavor that there are

1:02:08.000 --> 1:02:11.160
<v Speaker 4>many ideas out there that we haven't even imagined because

1:02:11.200 --> 1:02:14.080
<v Speaker 4>we might not have the capacity to think outside of

1:02:14.120 --> 1:02:14.880
<v Speaker 4>our little box.

1:02:15.760 --> 1:02:19.600
<v Speaker 3>The book is called Do Aliens Speak Physics? Daniel Whitson,

1:02:19.640 --> 1:02:21.320
<v Speaker 3>Thank you so much for joining us today.

1:02:21.640 --> 1:02:25.240
<v Speaker 4>Thank you very much, super funing conversation. Thank you.

1:02:27.320 --> 1:02:27.720
<v Speaker 1>All right.

1:02:27.800 --> 1:02:31.680
<v Speaker 3>So much appreciation to Daniel Whitson for joining us today.

1:02:31.880 --> 1:02:35.600
<v Speaker 3>The book Do Aliens Speak Physics is slated for release

1:02:35.640 --> 1:02:38.680
<v Speaker 3>on November fourth, twenty twenty five, but you can pre

1:02:38.840 --> 1:02:41.360
<v Speaker 3>order your copy now. And if you want to check

1:02:41.360 --> 1:02:46.000
<v Speaker 3>out Daniel's podcast, it is called Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe.

1:02:47.160 --> 1:02:49.360
<v Speaker 3>If you're new to the show, Stuff to Blow Your

1:02:49.400 --> 1:02:52.840
<v Speaker 3>Mind is a science and culture podcast with core episodes

1:02:52.840 --> 1:02:55.920
<v Speaker 3>publishing on Tuesdays and Thursdays of every week. Usually I'm

1:02:56.000 --> 1:02:59.120
<v Speaker 3>joined by my regular co host Robert Lamb for those,

1:02:59.800 --> 1:03:02.560
<v Speaker 3>and then also on Fridays we do a different kind

1:03:02.600 --> 1:03:06.000
<v Speaker 3>of show called Weird House Cinema, which is just about

1:03:06.040 --> 1:03:10.680
<v Speaker 3>weird movies. They can be old, new, good, bad, well known,

1:03:10.800 --> 1:03:13.200
<v Speaker 3>or obscure. The only real criterion is they've got to

1:03:13.200 --> 1:03:16.640
<v Speaker 3>be weird, so we do that on Fridays. On Wednesdays

1:03:16.640 --> 1:03:20.040
<v Speaker 3>we usually have a short form episode. On Saturdays and

1:03:20.120 --> 1:03:23.200
<v Speaker 3>Mondays we feature older episodes of the shows. You'll get

1:03:23.680 --> 1:03:25.840
<v Speaker 3>a rerun of a core episode from the Vault on

1:03:25.920 --> 1:03:31.840
<v Speaker 3>Saturdays and a Weird House cinema rewind on Mondays. Let's see.

1:03:32.200 --> 1:03:34.440
<v Speaker 3>If you would like to follow us on social media,

1:03:34.560 --> 1:03:37.520
<v Speaker 3>you can find us there. We're on I think most

1:03:37.520 --> 1:03:40.680
<v Speaker 3>of the major places. Some we're called something like blow

1:03:40.720 --> 1:03:44.280
<v Speaker 3>the Mind or Stuff to Blow your Mind, and I

1:03:44.280 --> 1:03:47.200
<v Speaker 3>guess that does it. So huge thanks as always to

1:03:47.360 --> 1:03:52.040
<v Speaker 3>our excellent audio producer JJ Posway, and today big thanks

1:03:52.080 --> 1:03:55.640
<v Speaker 3>again to Daniel Whitson for joining us. If you would

1:03:55.720 --> 1:03:57.640
<v Speaker 3>like to get in touch with us with feedback on

1:03:57.720 --> 1:04:00.200
<v Speaker 3>this episode or any other, to suggest a topic for

1:04:00.240 --> 1:04:03.080
<v Speaker 3>the future, or just to say hello, you can email

1:04:03.160 --> 1:04:14.720
<v Speaker 3>us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.

1:04:14.720 --> 1:04:17.680
<v Speaker 2>Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For

1:04:17.760 --> 1:04:20.520
<v Speaker 2>more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,

1:04:20.720 --> 1:04:37.680
<v Speaker 2>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.