WEBVTT - Do Aliens Speak Physics, with Daniel Whiteson

0:00:03.040 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, production of iHeartRadio.

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:15.680
<v Speaker 2>Hello, and welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My

0:00:15.840 --> 0:00:19.520
<v Speaker 2>name is Joe McCormick. Today on the podcast, we're going

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:22.119
<v Speaker 2>to be featuring an interview in which I talked to

0:00:22.280 --> 0:00:27.520
<v Speaker 2>returning show guest physicist Daniel Whitson about his upcoming book,

0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:32.879
<v Speaker 2>Do Aliens Speak Physics. Daniel shared in advance copy of

0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:35.320
<v Speaker 2>this book with me and I think it's great. It

0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:39.880
<v Speaker 2>is a fascinating book length thought experiment that is full

0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 2>of insights about what could be universal and what could

0:00:43.680 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 2>be unique in surprising ways about human intelligence, science, language, mathematics,

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:53.599
<v Speaker 2>and culture. A bit of bio about Daniel. Daniel Whitson

0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.360
<v Speaker 2>is a particle physicist and physics professor. He's the co

0:00:57.440 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 2>host of the podcast Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe and

0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:06.040
<v Speaker 2>co author of We Have No Idea, also co creator

0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:10.199
<v Speaker 2>of the PBS kids show Eleanor Wonders Why. His book,

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:14.080
<v Speaker 2>Do Aliens Speak Physics? Is co written and illustrated by

0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:21.720
<v Speaker 2>Andy Warner. And now onto my conversation with Daniel. Daniel Whitson,

0:01:22.000 --> 0:01:23.039
<v Speaker 2>Welcome back to the show.

0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:25.680
<v Speaker 3>Thanks so much for having me on. Excited to talk

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:26.200
<v Speaker 3>to you. Again.

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:31.280
<v Speaker 2>So the book is do aliens speak physics? And I

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:35.120
<v Speaker 2>have really really been enjoying this book. I planned to

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:38.360
<v Speaker 2>finish it with a full read for today, but my

0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 2>last night, my toddler was having some sleep disturbances. That

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:43.320
<v Speaker 2>was an all night thing, so I was rushing to

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 2>get through the last couple chapters. Maybe you can fill

0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:49.040
<v Speaker 2>me in with the greater detail that I missed in

0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:50.800
<v Speaker 2>the skimming of the last two or three.

0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:52.960
<v Speaker 3>Maybe you should have read the book to you toddler

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:53.920
<v Speaker 3>to help put them to sleep.

0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:57.840
<v Speaker 2>Maybe I think she would really like the illustrations actually,

0:01:58.120 --> 0:02:00.320
<v Speaker 2>but the problem is I had digital version, so that

0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 2>would involve showing it to her on a screen, which

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:04.600
<v Speaker 2>is a whole other thing. You know, that just turns

0:02:04.600 --> 0:02:07.320
<v Speaker 2>into want to see other things on the screen. So

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:10.560
<v Speaker 2>can't wait for my print copy. That'll be slighting. But

0:02:10.840 --> 0:02:13.200
<v Speaker 2>I guess we should start with the elevator pitch. What

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:16.400
<v Speaker 2>is the central question you're exploring in this book.

0:02:17.240 --> 0:02:21.600
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the question the book asks is whether aliens do science,

0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:24.760
<v Speaker 3>and specifically physics, the same way we do. You know,

0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:28.919
<v Speaker 3>when aliens arrive, can they just tell us the secrets

0:02:28.919 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 3>of the universe? Can they leap us forward a thousand,

0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 3>a million, a billion years into the scientific future. Is

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:39.640
<v Speaker 3>science really just one track that way, one line and

0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:42.240
<v Speaker 3>we could just sort of like skip forward, you know,

0:02:42.520 --> 0:02:45.200
<v Speaker 3>with the benefits of all their time and energy. Or

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:49.040
<v Speaker 3>is science more complicated? Is it multiple paths? Are there

0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:53.600
<v Speaker 3>multiple solutions? Do aliens even do science? So this book

0:02:53.639 --> 0:02:58.239
<v Speaker 3>is an exploration essentially of like how universal is our

0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:01.320
<v Speaker 3>theory of physics? Is what we're learning something about the

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:04.240
<v Speaker 3>universe or is it something about the way we think?

0:03:04.400 --> 0:03:07.239
<v Speaker 3>Or both? And can we try to figure that out

0:03:07.360 --> 0:03:09.079
<v Speaker 3>before the aliens arrive.

0:03:09.880 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 2>One of the metaphors or kind of shorthand that you

0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:15.360
<v Speaker 2>use in the book is the idea of an interplanetary

0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 2>physics conference. You're asking the question, if we ever make

0:03:20.639 --> 0:03:24.359
<v Speaker 2>you undeniable contact with an alien species, can we get

0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:28.840
<v Speaker 2>our heads together and communicate meaningfully about the laws of physics?

0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:32.960
<v Speaker 2>And so to illustrate those kinds of meetings. One thing

0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.000
<v Speaker 2>I really liked about your book is that each chapter

0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:38.680
<v Speaker 2>comes with what you call a contact hypothetical, where you

0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:41.040
<v Speaker 2>kind of tell a little story. There's some fiction writing

0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:44.400
<v Speaker 2>in this book. It's mostly you know, nonfiction scientific writing

0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:48.280
<v Speaker 2>and philosophical writing. But I like these little fictional scenarios,

0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:50.040
<v Speaker 2>and I think we might want to get into a

0:03:50.040 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 2>couple of these as we go along. But before we

0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:57.200
<v Speaker 2>do that, to sort of frame how you explore the

0:03:57.280 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 2>question of do aliens speak physics? And could we communicate

0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:05.120
<v Speaker 2>about physics with them? You extend the classic Drake equation,

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 2>So could you explain that? Maybe first explain what the

0:04:09.280 --> 0:04:12.880
<v Speaker 2>original Drake equation is and how it works, and then

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 2>also explain the way you extend it and the terms

0:04:15.920 --> 0:04:18.120
<v Speaker 2>you added to it to get at this alien physics

0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:18.960
<v Speaker 2>conference question.

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:24.160
<v Speaker 3>Yes, so the Alien Physics Conference is in there because

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:27.560
<v Speaker 3>it's a literal fantasy of mine, you know. I mean

0:04:27.600 --> 0:04:30.279
<v Speaker 3>I got into physics to understand the universe and I

0:04:30.320 --> 0:04:33.080
<v Speaker 3>want to figure it out. But sometimes I feel like, gosh,

0:04:33.240 --> 0:04:37.440
<v Speaker 3>progress is frustratingly slow, and you know what if there

0:04:37.440 --> 0:04:39.640
<v Speaker 3>are aliens out there that just have the answers, It's

0:04:39.640 --> 0:04:42.920
<v Speaker 3>so tantalizing and frustrating to think that, like somebody out

0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 3>there has figured out what is quantum gravity? How do

0:04:45.920 --> 0:04:48.919
<v Speaker 3>you build wormholes? How did the universe begin? Like somebody

0:04:49.080 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 3>maybe knows these answers and they could just tell us,

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 3>beam them to us, email us your textbooks, you know, imagine,

0:04:56.160 --> 0:04:59.640
<v Speaker 3>you know, Newton getting to read Einstein's a relativity theory,

0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:03.440
<v Speaker 3>or you know, Aristotle getting to read modern physics, like

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:06.200
<v Speaker 3>that could be us. Wow, so that's in there because

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 3>that's my literal, like I can taste it, but you know,

0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:13.120
<v Speaker 3>I also wonder if it's really true, and so I

0:05:13.160 --> 0:05:16.360
<v Speaker 3>sort of The book is a meditation on like, all right, Daniel,

0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:20.520
<v Speaker 3>calm down, Maybe those answers aren't actually out there. And

0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 3>we wrote those little fictional interludes to try to give

0:05:24.880 --> 0:05:29.040
<v Speaker 3>like more concrete examples rather than just thinking theoretically about

0:05:29.360 --> 0:05:31.360
<v Speaker 3>the nature of physics and the structure of and the

0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 3>philosophical underpinnings, like let's walk through what it might be

0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:37.920
<v Speaker 3>like to give people a concrete example. And also we

0:05:37.960 --> 0:05:40.280
<v Speaker 3>didn't want to tackle the whole question at once, like

0:05:40.320 --> 0:05:42.840
<v Speaker 3>it's a lot of pieces, and so we were inspired

0:05:42.839 --> 0:05:45.880
<v Speaker 3>by the way Drake took apart the question of are

0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:49.320
<v Speaker 3>there aliens out there? And why haven't we heard from them?

0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 3>He broke that into pieces, and he starts by calculating

0:05:53.160 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 3>how many stars are in the universe, what fraction of

0:05:55.760 --> 0:05:59.520
<v Speaker 3>those stars might have life, what fraction of stars with

0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:03.720
<v Speaker 3>life develop civilization? How long do those civilizations. Last, it's

0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:05.560
<v Speaker 3>a classic approach in science. You have a problem that's

0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:07.480
<v Speaker 3>too big to solve, so you break it into a

0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:10.200
<v Speaker 3>bunch of pieces, none of which you maybe can solve,

0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:11.640
<v Speaker 3>but some of which you can make a little bit

0:06:11.680 --> 0:06:14.480
<v Speaker 3>of progress on. So you're not completely steymied by your

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:16.440
<v Speaker 3>inability to make progress in one area because you can

0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:19.200
<v Speaker 3>move in another area. And for example, we now know

0:06:19.360 --> 0:06:22.000
<v Speaker 3>that there are lots and lots of stars in the universe.

0:06:22.440 --> 0:06:25.679
<v Speaker 3>Every galaxy that's out there has like hundreds of billions

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:28.520
<v Speaker 3>of stars, and there's hundreds of billions of galaxies, so

0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:31.600
<v Speaker 3>the number of stars out there just in the observable

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:36.080
<v Speaker 3>universe is very, very vast, and shockingly, we've made progress

0:06:36.120 --> 0:06:39.400
<v Speaker 3>on other aspects like how many planets does an average

0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:42.920
<v Speaker 3>star have? And the answer again is surprisingly big. You know,

0:06:43.320 --> 0:06:45.720
<v Speaker 3>there's a lot of uncertainty there and depends on how

0:06:45.720 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 3>you define earth like planet, but like something like twenty

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:52.440
<v Speaker 3>five percent of stars out there have rocky planets that

0:06:52.480 --> 0:06:55.479
<v Speaker 3>are you know, earth like according to some definition, So

0:06:55.520 --> 0:06:58.520
<v Speaker 3>we're talking a huge number of earth like planets in

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:03.160
<v Speaker 3>the universe. But you know, the Drake equation is multiplicative

0:07:03.520 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 3>the number of aliens that contact us is the number

0:07:06.000 --> 0:07:09.280
<v Speaker 3>of stars times the fraction that have life, times the

0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:12.320
<v Speaker 3>fraction that are technological, et cetera. So if any of

0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:15.800
<v Speaker 3>those numbers are zero, were screwed, and we don't know

0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:18.720
<v Speaker 3>what fraction of those planets have life, and what fraction

0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:22.280
<v Speaker 3>of that life becomes technological, and how long that life lasts.

0:07:22.320 --> 0:07:25.040
<v Speaker 3>So that's the structure of the Drake equation, and we

0:07:25.040 --> 0:07:26.600
<v Speaker 3>thought it was a natural thing to do to extend

0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:29.760
<v Speaker 3>that to answer the question how many alien civilizations are

0:07:29.800 --> 0:07:33.200
<v Speaker 3>there out there that we can talk science with? And

0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:35.480
<v Speaker 3>so to do that we broke it into several questions.

0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:38.760
<v Speaker 3>We said, well, what fraction them do science? You know,

0:07:38.960 --> 0:07:42.239
<v Speaker 3>is that even a thing aside of Earth is science

0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:44.920
<v Speaker 3>like a human endeavor? Maybe everybody else is bored by

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:48.720
<v Speaker 3>the question, or you know, maybe they're technological but not scientific.

0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:51.960
<v Speaker 3>And then we asked, well, can we communicate with them,

0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:54.080
<v Speaker 3>you know, can we figure out a way to have

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:58.400
<v Speaker 3>a mental mind meld about these things? Do they ask

0:07:58.480 --> 0:08:01.200
<v Speaker 3>the same kind of questions that we ask? Are are

0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 3>we curious about the same things? Do they find and

0:08:04.720 --> 0:08:08.280
<v Speaker 3>accept intuitively the same kind of answers? Would they even

0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:11.480
<v Speaker 3>take the same path as we would So rather than

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:13.640
<v Speaker 3>tackling this whole big question at once, and the whole

0:08:13.680 --> 0:08:18.080
<v Speaker 3>question and even its parts are essentially unanswerable, but to

0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:20.080
<v Speaker 3>even make some progress, we thought it was useful to

0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:21.239
<v Speaker 3>break it into some pieces.

0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:24.080
<v Speaker 2>So let's look at a few of these pieces one

0:08:24.120 --> 0:08:27.480
<v Speaker 2>by one. One of the earliest questions you look at

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 2>in the book is the question do aliens wonder? Why

0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:36.839
<v Speaker 2>do they even have the motivation to pursue scientific questions.

0:08:37.840 --> 0:08:41.160
<v Speaker 2>It's hard for me to imagine that aliens would ever

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:46.440
<v Speaker 2>develop the ability to travel or communicate between stars without

0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 2>having something like science. Obviously, you can imagine us traveling

0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:52.760
<v Speaker 2>out and going to other star systems and finding bacteria

0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:55.559
<v Speaker 2>and other things that we wouldn't think of as technological

0:08:55.559 --> 0:08:59.360
<v Speaker 2>intelligences but are live on other planets. But assuming that

0:08:59.440 --> 0:09:02.120
<v Speaker 2>they are a to somehow get in contact with us,

0:09:03.160 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 2>a desire to understand and model the principles of how

0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:10.240
<v Speaker 2>reality works just seems like it would almost be a

0:09:10.360 --> 0:09:13.200
<v Speaker 2>must have. But you came up with a hypothetical contact

0:09:13.200 --> 0:09:16.959
<v Speaker 2>scenario to imagine this. Could you briefly describe kind of

0:09:16.960 --> 0:09:20.720
<v Speaker 2>sketch the contact scenario and then talk about some reasons

0:09:20.720 --> 0:09:25.560
<v Speaker 2>for thinking a species maybe could actually communicate between stars

0:09:25.640 --> 0:09:28.080
<v Speaker 2>or travel between stars without science.

0:09:28.720 --> 0:09:31.440
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, this is really counterintuitive. And when I first started

0:09:31.480 --> 0:09:34.880
<v Speaker 3>digging into this, I also thought like, of course, you know,

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:36.640
<v Speaker 3>everybody out there is going to be doing science because

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:38.719
<v Speaker 3>they're gonna be curious about the universe and science is

0:09:38.720 --> 0:09:41.400
<v Speaker 3>the way to figure it out. But the more I

0:09:41.440 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 3>talk to historians and philosophers, the more I unders you know,

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:48.880
<v Speaker 3>science has a lot of humanity in it, the structure,

0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:52.720
<v Speaker 3>the institutions, the process, and it's fairly recent. It's something

0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:55.360
<v Speaker 3>we've been doing, you know, in the way we call

0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:57.680
<v Speaker 3>science for only a few centuries, which is a blip

0:09:57.720 --> 0:09:59.880
<v Speaker 3>of time, and so it could be like an intermed

0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:03.240
<v Speaker 3>it stepped towards something greater, a better way to learn

0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:06.040
<v Speaker 3>about the universe. And so, you know, it's not that

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:09.640
<v Speaker 3>I don't think that aliens are doing science. It's just

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:12.320
<v Speaker 3>that I wanted to make the strongest argument I could

0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:16.560
<v Speaker 3>that maybe they aren't because you know, deeply, because deep down,

0:10:16.600 --> 0:10:19.840
<v Speaker 3>I feel like we're biased towards thinking aliens are going

0:10:19.880 --> 0:10:21.880
<v Speaker 3>to be like us, the sort of star trek fallacy,

0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.200
<v Speaker 3>like they're us with wrinkles on their forehead or with

0:10:24.280 --> 0:10:27.720
<v Speaker 3>pointy ears. Right, But fundamentally they're human, and I think

0:10:27.760 --> 0:10:30.240
<v Speaker 3>that that's narrow minded. So I'm trying to break out

0:10:30.280 --> 0:10:32.600
<v Speaker 3>of it. And you know, the book is an exercise

0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:37.040
<v Speaker 3>essentially convincing myself that aliens might be more alien than

0:10:37.080 --> 0:10:39.960
<v Speaker 3>we imagine. And so your question is, like, is it

0:10:40.040 --> 0:10:43.920
<v Speaker 3>possible to explore the stars, to come visit Earth and

0:10:43.960 --> 0:10:47.800
<v Speaker 3>not be scientific, to be deeply technological? And you only

0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:49.840
<v Speaker 3>have to look back at a history on Earth to

0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:53.080
<v Speaker 3>see that, Like, we have technology, well before we have science.

0:10:53.200 --> 0:10:57.280
<v Speaker 3>You know, people have been like fermenting yeast into bread

0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:01.160
<v Speaker 3>and beer, which is you know, fairly technological without understanding

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:03.280
<v Speaker 3>anything about what was going on in it. Or people

0:11:03.320 --> 0:11:06.720
<v Speaker 3>have been making swords, you know, which requires if you

0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:10.000
<v Speaker 3>want to understand it, like pretty deep level knowledge of

0:11:10.040 --> 0:11:13.320
<v Speaker 3>like solid state physics and metallurgy. But there were masters

0:11:13.320 --> 0:11:18.000
<v Speaker 3>making incredible devices well before they understood why, and even

0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:20.920
<v Speaker 3>people exploring the earth. Right if you say science began

0:11:20.960 --> 0:11:23.560
<v Speaker 3>a few hundred years ago, well, humanity has been like

0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:27.480
<v Speaker 3>venturing from shore to shore for thousands of years. And

0:11:27.600 --> 0:11:30.120
<v Speaker 3>so I took that as an inspiration and try to

0:11:30.120 --> 0:11:33.240
<v Speaker 3>come up with an example of how aliens might get

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:37.320
<v Speaker 3>here without being scientific. And I was thinking about a

0:11:37.320 --> 0:11:40.839
<v Speaker 3>planet where you have some critters and they're floating through

0:11:40.880 --> 0:11:45.480
<v Speaker 3>their oceans, and on their planet, the atmosphere is thicker

0:11:45.480 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 3>than it is on ours, and so the boundary between

0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:51.679
<v Speaker 3>the ocean and the atmosphere is a little fuzzier, and

0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:54.400
<v Speaker 3>so it's not so crazy to imagine that they might

0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:58.000
<v Speaker 3>stumble across some way to not just navigate their oceans,

0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 3>but also navigate their atmospheres, you know, just like we did.

0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:04.319
<v Speaker 3>And in this case, these folks are like little bladders

0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:08.440
<v Speaker 3>that can absorb, can emit air into order to go up,

0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:11.720
<v Speaker 3>or accept ballast to go down. They're like little submarines essentially,

0:12:12.000 --> 0:12:15.120
<v Speaker 3>but they learn to navigate their atmosphere, and then it's

0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:17.480
<v Speaker 3>not too big a leap to imagine that maybe they

0:12:17.559 --> 0:12:20.200
<v Speaker 3>also figure out how to coat themselves in something so

0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:23.880
<v Speaker 3>they can navigate above the atmosphere through their solar system.

0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:26.240
<v Speaker 3>And in their solar system, they don't just have a star.

0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:28.400
<v Speaker 3>They have a binary star system, one of which is

0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:31.840
<v Speaker 3>a black hole, and so they spend millions of years

0:12:31.880 --> 0:12:34.920
<v Speaker 3>like whizzing around this black hole, and they develop an

0:12:34.960 --> 0:12:38.679
<v Speaker 3>intuitive understanding of space and curvature, so they don't have

0:12:38.679 --> 0:12:41.120
<v Speaker 3>an Einstein who's given them an equation. They just have

0:12:41.200 --> 0:12:44.400
<v Speaker 3>a feeling for curvature, you know, the way that curvature

0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:47.439
<v Speaker 3>is very counterintuitive to us. It's like, weird to think

0:12:47.480 --> 0:12:50.400
<v Speaker 3>about space being bent between here and there and distances

0:12:50.440 --> 0:12:53.520
<v Speaker 3>are oscillating, and what It's very hard for people to

0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:57.480
<v Speaker 3>really grock general relativity because we grew up in a

0:12:57.480 --> 0:12:59.480
<v Speaker 3>place where we imagine space is always flat. It's always

0:12:59.520 --> 0:13:01.839
<v Speaker 3>our experience. But what if you didn't, and what if

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 3>you spent millions of years whizzing around a black hole

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:08.240
<v Speaker 3>and really experiencing curvature and somehow intuited your way into

0:13:08.280 --> 0:13:12.840
<v Speaker 3>manipulating spatial curvature and traveling the stars. And so that

0:13:12.960 --> 0:13:16.079
<v Speaker 3>was like hypothetical scenario to try to make a concrete

0:13:16.280 --> 0:13:18.520
<v Speaker 3>to give an example of how aliens could arrive here

0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:22.200
<v Speaker 3>with warped technology effectively and not be able to explain

0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:24.520
<v Speaker 3>it to us because they're like, what do you mean? Like,

0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:26.559
<v Speaker 3>here's how you do it? What do you mean why?

0:13:26.720 --> 0:13:27.400
<v Speaker 3>How Like.

0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:32.319
<v Speaker 2>That kind of thing does seem hard to imagine, But

0:13:32.760 --> 0:13:34.760
<v Speaker 2>I like the way you really like put the work

0:13:34.800 --> 0:13:37.160
<v Speaker 2>in to sketch it out and compare it to I mean,

0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:39.960
<v Speaker 2>as you're saying it seems like it would depend on

0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:41.640
<v Speaker 2>a lot of trial and error, so it might be

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:44.959
<v Speaker 2>a much slower process than the progress of human science

0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:49.640
<v Speaker 2>human technology. But a sort of branching question off of

0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:55.400
<v Speaker 2>that is, do you think the desire to understand why

0:13:55.679 --> 0:13:59.360
<v Speaker 2>to ask the question why is a core feature of

0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:04.400
<v Speaker 2>intelli or could that be a specific feature of just

0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:09.000
<v Speaker 2>human minds? You know, I was trying to think about this,

0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:12.040
<v Speaker 2>and I had a suspicion that I don't know. I

0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:16.040
<v Speaker 2>suspect that the question why has got to be pretty

0:14:16.040 --> 0:14:21.200
<v Speaker 2>fundamental to intelligence, because we define intelligence largely by the

0:14:21.280 --> 0:14:25.840
<v Speaker 2>ability to solve problems or learn, which is almost always

0:14:25.840 --> 0:14:29.480
<v Speaker 2>going to be accelerated by understanding underlying principles.

0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:31.560
<v Speaker 1>But I don't know.

0:14:31.880 --> 0:14:35.000
<v Speaker 2>I could definitely be missing things there. There are contingencies

0:14:35.040 --> 0:14:35.720
<v Speaker 2>I'm not seeing.

0:14:36.440 --> 0:14:38.640
<v Speaker 3>I think you put your finger on the deepest part

0:14:38.680 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 3>of this question, and that's really what we're going to

0:14:41.800 --> 0:14:43.960
<v Speaker 3>get an answer to when the aliens come, is how

0:14:44.040 --> 0:14:47.280
<v Speaker 3>much overlap do we have with them? If they do

0:14:47.400 --> 0:14:49.560
<v Speaker 3>wonder why the same way we do, then we're going

0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:50.880
<v Speaker 3>to have a lot in common and we're gonna be

0:14:50.880 --> 0:14:53.320
<v Speaker 3>able to learn a lot from them. But if they don't,

0:14:53.440 --> 0:14:56.000
<v Speaker 3>then it's going to tell us something. It's going to

0:14:56.040 --> 0:15:00.280
<v Speaker 3>tell us that we are unusual in some way. And

0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:04.080
<v Speaker 3>that's really my fantasy. I mean, I got into this thinking, Wow,

0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:06.600
<v Speaker 3>it would be wonderful if aliens show up and they're

0:15:06.600 --> 0:15:08.720
<v Speaker 3>basically just like us, but further ahead, because then we

0:15:08.760 --> 0:15:11.160
<v Speaker 3>can zoom forward in science. But actually, I think that

0:15:11.240 --> 0:15:13.840
<v Speaker 3>might be the most boring outcome. It might be the

0:15:13.840 --> 0:15:17.080
<v Speaker 3>most amazing. We might learn the most, not necessarily about

0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:20.000
<v Speaker 3>quantum field theory, but about the nature of humanity and

0:15:20.040 --> 0:15:23.320
<v Speaker 3>intelligence and the experience of being alive in this universe.

0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 3>If they're so fundamentally weird and different that they're like,

0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:29.680
<v Speaker 3>don't that these questions don't make sense to them, or

0:15:29.880 --> 0:15:32.160
<v Speaker 3>they don't even ask these questions, that they have another

0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:34.760
<v Speaker 3>way of having a relationship with the universe. Because I

0:15:34.800 --> 0:15:38.360
<v Speaker 3>agree with you, it feels like it's essential. It's part

0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:41.200
<v Speaker 3>of being intelligent, building a model in your mind and

0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:43.800
<v Speaker 3>probing that model and using it to solve your problem,

0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:45.800
<v Speaker 3>even if that problem is like, hey, how do we

0:15:45.840 --> 0:15:48.640
<v Speaker 3>take down this mammoth for dinner? Or you know, how

0:15:48.640 --> 0:15:51.280
<v Speaker 3>do I solve this social problem with my neighbor? You know,

0:15:51.320 --> 0:15:53.520
<v Speaker 3>which I think humans have been doing for hundreds of

0:15:53.560 --> 0:15:56.720
<v Speaker 3>thousands of years. But it could be not you know,

0:15:56.880 --> 0:15:59.680
<v Speaker 3>it could be that that's as fundamental as like eating

0:15:59.720 --> 0:16:02.320
<v Speaker 3>sweat things for breakfast. You know, the first time I

0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:06.160
<v Speaker 3>went traveling and I was like, hmm, wow, people have

0:16:06.240 --> 0:16:09.360
<v Speaker 3>like weird spicy fish soup for breakfast. I didn't even

0:16:09.600 --> 0:16:12.640
<v Speaker 3>imagine that you could have other kinds of things for breakfast.

0:16:12.680 --> 0:16:14.600
<v Speaker 3>Or the first time I saw like a toilet in

0:16:14.640 --> 0:16:16.640
<v Speaker 3>a country where like you don't just sit, you know,

0:16:16.680 --> 0:16:19.840
<v Speaker 3>I was like, oh, whoa mind blowing. There's so many

0:16:19.920 --> 0:16:25.080
<v Speaker 3>areas where we can't imagine beyond our experience, and I'm

0:16:25.120 --> 0:16:28.040
<v Speaker 3>hopeful when the aliens come that they're going to blow

0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:31.359
<v Speaker 3>our minds with their different way of having a relationship

0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:34.560
<v Speaker 3>with the universe. One of my favorite hypotheticals is maybe

0:16:34.600 --> 0:16:38.000
<v Speaker 3>they used to do science. Maybe science is some sort

0:16:38.000 --> 0:16:40.360
<v Speaker 3>of primitive way of understanding the universe, and what they

0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:43.840
<v Speaker 3>have is like you know, science plus the way we

0:16:43.880 --> 0:16:46.680
<v Speaker 3>think about natural philosophy, Like we look at Aristotle and

0:16:46.680 --> 0:16:49.240
<v Speaker 3>we're like, cool, bro, you made a lot of progress

0:16:49.320 --> 0:16:53.080
<v Speaker 3>just thinking about stuff. Why didn't you think about doing experiments?

0:16:53.360 --> 0:16:56.200
<v Speaker 3>You know, empiricism is obvious, like come on, just go

0:16:56.280 --> 0:16:58.840
<v Speaker 3>outside and try it for ten minutes. Why argue for

0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:01.840
<v Speaker 3>hours and hours and hours. It seems obvious to us.

0:17:01.880 --> 0:17:06.080
<v Speaker 3>And in that way, maybe the Aliens have upgraded their science, like, yeah,

0:17:06.119 --> 0:17:07.240
<v Speaker 3>we used to do it that way, but then we

0:17:07.280 --> 0:17:09.960
<v Speaker 3>came up with this other trick that's so much better.

0:17:10.400 --> 0:17:13.040
<v Speaker 3>I can't believe you guys are still doing experiments or whatever.

0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:16.080
<v Speaker 3>And so it could be that they don't do science

0:17:16.080 --> 0:17:19.560
<v Speaker 3>because they've left it behind for something even more powerful.

0:17:30.000 --> 0:17:34.439
<v Speaker 2>So another one of the questions you look at is

0:17:34.720 --> 0:17:39.879
<v Speaker 2>assuming that aliens do ask the question why they do

0:17:39.960 --> 0:17:43.399
<v Speaker 2>have some kind of scientific understanding, would we be able

0:17:43.480 --> 0:17:46.879
<v Speaker 2>to communicate with them about it? And you asked this

0:17:46.920 --> 0:17:48.840
<v Speaker 2>in a number of different ways. I definitely want to

0:17:48.840 --> 0:17:51.280
<v Speaker 2>get into the question of math in just a second.

0:17:51.320 --> 0:17:53.280
<v Speaker 2>But before we look at math, I want to look

0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:58.440
<v Speaker 2>at difficulties in basic just language communication. And you draw

0:17:58.480 --> 0:18:04.560
<v Speaker 2>the analogy with differentficulties in deciphering lost human languages. Could

0:18:04.560 --> 0:18:07.080
<v Speaker 2>you talk a bit about that and how illuminating that

0:18:07.240 --> 0:18:10.200
<v Speaker 2>those kind of troubles we've faced in the past are.

0:18:10.440 --> 0:18:13.560
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, this is fun because you know, we haven't met aliens.

0:18:14.000 --> 0:18:16.639
<v Speaker 3>If we don't know what Amilien language is like so

0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:19.359
<v Speaker 3>you can speculate endlessly, but I wanted to try to

0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:22.600
<v Speaker 3>dig into something more concrete. And the best example we

0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:27.919
<v Speaker 3>have of intelligent civilizations who are a little alien to

0:18:28.040 --> 0:18:31.520
<v Speaker 3>us are ancient human civilizations. So I thought, let's dig

0:18:31.560 --> 0:18:34.439
<v Speaker 3>into what was it like to try to translate the

0:18:34.520 --> 0:18:38.840
<v Speaker 3>writings of ancient intelligent human civilizations who are not around

0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:41.040
<v Speaker 3>to explain it to us, because I thought that would

0:18:41.040 --> 0:18:45.600
<v Speaker 3>be helpful to teach us, like what's important. How challenging

0:18:45.720 --> 0:18:48.040
<v Speaker 3>is this? When do we succeed? When do we fail?

0:18:48.800 --> 0:18:52.119
<v Speaker 3>And I'm kind of shocked to learn the answer, which

0:18:52.200 --> 0:18:53.840
<v Speaker 3>was that this is a lot harder than I thought.

0:18:53.880 --> 0:18:56.120
<v Speaker 3>I mean, these are humans, right, they have the same

0:18:56.119 --> 0:18:58.280
<v Speaker 3>brain as we do, they live in the same world

0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:00.960
<v Speaker 3>as we do, they have the same senses, that's the

0:19:01.000 --> 0:19:05.000
<v Speaker 3>same environment, and they have lots and they left us

0:19:05.040 --> 0:19:07.439
<v Speaker 3>lots of examples. But in some cases we still have

0:19:07.600 --> 0:19:12.240
<v Speaker 3>not decoded their writing. Like, yes, we decoded ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics,

0:19:12.320 --> 0:19:15.439
<v Speaker 3>there's an important caveat in that story, but we have not,

0:19:15.480 --> 0:19:19.280
<v Speaker 3>for example, decoded Etruscan writing. And the Etruscan's like lived

0:19:19.280 --> 0:19:21.800
<v Speaker 3>just a couple thousand years ago next to the Romans,

0:19:21.800 --> 0:19:23.879
<v Speaker 3>and the Romans talk all about them, and we have

0:19:24.000 --> 0:19:28.399
<v Speaker 3>lots of examples, and yet it still remains, you know, undecipherable.

0:19:28.720 --> 0:19:31.679
<v Speaker 3>It's incredible to me. It tells me that like the

0:19:31.800 --> 0:19:36.280
<v Speaker 3>barrier to accessing another intelligence, even one hosted on the

0:19:36.280 --> 0:19:41.000
<v Speaker 3>same substrate, is very, very challenging. And it hints that

0:19:41.119 --> 0:19:43.840
<v Speaker 3>in order to make these mental connections you need one

0:19:43.960 --> 0:19:47.879
<v Speaker 3>essential thing, which is common context. You need to be

0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:50.439
<v Speaker 3>able to like point at something and say, this is

0:19:50.440 --> 0:19:53.000
<v Speaker 3>an apple, right, let's agree on the word apple, or

0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:57.239
<v Speaker 3>you know, this is one, this is two. And you know,

0:19:57.440 --> 0:20:00.119
<v Speaker 3>I read a really interesting set of articles by the

0:20:00.160 --> 0:20:04.879
<v Speaker 3>folks at SETI, or actually anthropologists analyzing SETI, and you know,

0:20:04.920 --> 0:20:09.359
<v Speaker 3>their conclusion essentially was that it's hopeless if the aliens

0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:12.080
<v Speaker 3>communicate with us, if they send us a message SETI like,

0:20:12.800 --> 0:20:15.480
<v Speaker 3>but they don't show up, so we can't like point

0:20:15.520 --> 0:20:17.720
<v Speaker 3>to things and say, here's an apple, here's a doughnut.

0:20:18.240 --> 0:20:22.919
<v Speaker 3>That it's essentially impossible to decode just written language from

0:20:22.960 --> 0:20:25.960
<v Speaker 3>an alien species because we have no idea what it's

0:20:25.960 --> 0:20:27.720
<v Speaker 3>supposed to look like. How do you know when you've

0:20:27.720 --> 0:20:30.800
<v Speaker 3>decoded it correctly? You have no clues, no handles, and

0:20:30.840 --> 0:20:33.720
<v Speaker 3>the best example of that, I think is Egyptian hieroglyphics.

0:20:34.080 --> 0:20:37.320
<v Speaker 3>You know, there's this famous story the Rosetta Stone. They

0:20:37.320 --> 0:20:40.760
<v Speaker 3>had hieroglyphics, nobody could decode them. Then we found this

0:20:40.880 --> 0:20:44.280
<v Speaker 3>cheat sheet, right, it's got Greek on it, and it's

0:20:44.280 --> 0:20:47.119
<v Speaker 3>got the same stuff in hieroglyphics. Since you're like, oh,

0:20:47.240 --> 0:20:49.040
<v Speaker 3>I know how to translate these words from one to

0:20:49.080 --> 0:20:50.760
<v Speaker 3>the other, I can go from there, do dot dot,

0:20:50.840 --> 0:20:53.960
<v Speaker 3>I've cracked hieroglyphics. But that's not the way it happened.

0:20:54.400 --> 0:20:56.480
<v Speaker 3>The way it happened is they found the Rosetta Stone,

0:20:56.760 --> 0:21:02.120
<v Speaker 3>and it still took them twenty years. Twenty years when

0:21:02.160 --> 0:21:05.800
<v Speaker 3>they had examples of decoded text in both languages. Why

0:21:05.840 --> 0:21:08.320
<v Speaker 3>did it take so long Because they were making a

0:21:08.400 --> 0:21:13.880
<v Speaker 3>fundamentally mistaken assumption about the structure of hieroglyphics. They looked

0:21:13.880 --> 0:21:16.240
<v Speaker 3>at hieroglyphics and they were like, oh, these are pictograms.

0:21:17.000 --> 0:21:20.080
<v Speaker 3>The ones that look like birds are mean birds, someway.

0:21:20.119 --> 0:21:22.440
<v Speaker 3>The ones that looked like water mean water some way,

0:21:22.760 --> 0:21:26.159
<v Speaker 3>but they're not. Egyptian hieroglyphics turn out to be phonetic

0:21:26.760 --> 0:21:29.240
<v Speaker 3>in the same way that our language is, and so

0:21:29.400 --> 0:21:33.280
<v Speaker 3>like a hieroglyphic means a sound, not an idea. They

0:21:33.320 --> 0:21:35.400
<v Speaker 3>only realized this when they were doing a deep comparison

0:21:35.440 --> 0:21:38.320
<v Speaker 3>with the Greek and they found some phrases in Greek

0:21:38.359 --> 0:21:41.479
<v Speaker 3>that translated to sounds, and they noticed that these sounds

0:21:41.480 --> 0:21:46.000
<v Speaker 3>were common across these across the translation. And so it

0:21:46.040 --> 0:21:49.159
<v Speaker 3>was only because not only did they have examples of

0:21:49.200 --> 0:21:52.120
<v Speaker 3>the translated Greek, but they understood how this Greek was spoken,

0:21:52.480 --> 0:21:55.080
<v Speaker 3>that they could crack this code. So the key was

0:21:55.200 --> 0:21:58.679
<v Speaker 3>cultural context, was having something in common to sort of

0:21:58.800 --> 0:22:01.840
<v Speaker 3>nail languages to get other And the same is true

0:22:01.840 --> 0:22:05.280
<v Speaker 3>of like Mayan. Mayan was cracked because there's still people

0:22:05.320 --> 0:22:09.119
<v Speaker 3>speaking a variant of Mayan, and so understanding this like

0:22:09.320 --> 0:22:12.840
<v Speaker 3>cultural expression, the way this is spoken and used, is

0:22:12.880 --> 0:22:16.719
<v Speaker 3>absolutely essential to cracking any sort of alien language. And

0:22:16.760 --> 0:22:18.679
<v Speaker 3>so if we get a message from aliens like that

0:22:18.720 --> 0:22:22.240
<v Speaker 3>would be awesome, but it's hard to know, like even

0:22:22.359 --> 0:22:23.800
<v Speaker 3>as a message and what does it mean, Like the

0:22:23.840 --> 0:22:26.159
<v Speaker 3>wow signal is a great example, like maybe we did

0:22:26.240 --> 0:22:28.439
<v Speaker 3>get a message, we just don't know how to decode it,

0:22:28.800 --> 0:22:30.600
<v Speaker 3>or maybe we're getting messages all the time we don't

0:22:30.600 --> 0:22:34.439
<v Speaker 3>even recognize them, right, And so unless aliens arrive and

0:22:34.480 --> 0:22:37.400
<v Speaker 3>we can sit together and build some sort of cultural

0:22:37.440 --> 0:22:40.920
<v Speaker 3>context to establish that real communication. Mind mild, I think

0:22:40.960 --> 0:22:42.040
<v Speaker 3>it's going to be impossible.

0:22:42.440 --> 0:22:45.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, you need the feedback, but I think the hieroglyphics

0:22:45.800 --> 0:22:50.480
<v Speaker 2>is a great example of example to use because it's like,

0:22:50.560 --> 0:22:52.760
<v Speaker 2>what you're doing throughout the book is an example of

0:22:52.800 --> 0:22:55.920
<v Speaker 2>where an assumption that was holding us back is invisible

0:22:55.960 --> 0:22:58.760
<v Speaker 2>to us. And it's not until we realized we had

0:22:58.840 --> 0:23:01.320
<v Speaker 2>the incorrect assumption that we can actually make progress.

0:23:02.800 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 3>And who knows how many more assumptions there are built

0:23:05.400 --> 0:23:07.080
<v Speaker 3>in that we don't even recognize. It's not like we

0:23:07.119 --> 0:23:09.720
<v Speaker 3>have a list of assumptions we can examine them and say, yeah,

0:23:09.720 --> 0:23:12.720
<v Speaker 3>I'm pretty confident in those. The problem is that we

0:23:12.760 --> 0:23:14.879
<v Speaker 3>don't know where the edge of that box is because

0:23:14.920 --> 0:23:17.560
<v Speaker 3>we don't even know how things might be different. You

0:23:17.600 --> 0:23:20.119
<v Speaker 3>know what kind of breakfasts they eat in Alpha Centauri.

0:23:20.520 --> 0:23:22.680
<v Speaker 2>So I want to go on to the other big

0:23:22.720 --> 0:23:25.240
<v Speaker 2>part of the communication question. Obviously, if we're going to

0:23:25.240 --> 0:23:28.560
<v Speaker 2>be sharing information about physics and the laws that govern

0:23:28.640 --> 0:23:32.119
<v Speaker 2>reality with them, our main language for doing that is math.

0:23:32.920 --> 0:23:35.720
<v Speaker 2>And so you have a question a chapter called does

0:23:35.800 --> 0:23:39.600
<v Speaker 2>one plus one equal to everywhere? This starts with a

0:23:39.640 --> 0:23:44.919
<v Speaker 2>fun contact scenario or contact hypothesis about contact that is

0:23:44.960 --> 0:23:48.320
<v Speaker 2>made with the star that's alive, that's kind of bioplasma,

0:23:48.760 --> 0:23:52.600
<v Speaker 2>but doesn't seem to respond to mathematical or numerical information.

0:23:53.880 --> 0:23:57.320
<v Speaker 2>And so you asked the question, is it plausible that

0:23:57.359 --> 0:24:01.000
<v Speaker 2>there could be an intelligent species that maybe even has

0:24:01.160 --> 0:24:04.359
<v Speaker 2>technology in some way we could think about it, or

0:24:04.359 --> 0:24:07.640
<v Speaker 2>at least has you know, capabilities of contact with another species,

0:24:08.000 --> 0:24:11.440
<v Speaker 2>but it doesn't have a concept of counting and arithmetic,

0:24:11.520 --> 0:24:15.840
<v Speaker 2>the most basic numerical thing that we think there is.

0:24:16.440 --> 0:24:17.520
<v Speaker 2>Could you explore that a bit.

0:24:18.119 --> 0:24:20.880
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, this is where it becomes clear if you're reading

0:24:20.920 --> 0:24:24.240
<v Speaker 3>the book that the book really is about the philosophical question.

0:24:24.600 --> 0:24:28.840
<v Speaker 3>You know, is science human or is it universal? And

0:24:28.880 --> 0:24:31.159
<v Speaker 3>this really comes into focus because this is an ancient

0:24:31.240 --> 0:24:34.479
<v Speaker 3>question of philosophy of math. Right, is math something that

0:24:34.520 --> 0:24:37.720
<v Speaker 3>we've discovered or invented? Is it part of the universe

0:24:38.040 --> 0:24:40.280
<v Speaker 3>or is it a shorthand for the way that we think?

0:24:40.880 --> 0:24:44.840
<v Speaker 3>And it's a surprisingly difficult question. You know, on one hand,

0:24:45.480 --> 0:24:49.320
<v Speaker 3>it seems like the universe is awfully mathematical, and there

0:24:49.320 --> 0:24:52.480
<v Speaker 3>are great moments of discovery in the history of physics

0:24:52.720 --> 0:24:55.720
<v Speaker 3>where math has led us to the answer. And you know,

0:24:55.880 --> 0:24:58.800
<v Speaker 3>one of my favorites is pretty recent. It's the Higgs boson.

0:24:59.400 --> 0:25:01.879
<v Speaker 3>You know, Peter Higgs was looking at the structure of

0:25:02.000 --> 0:25:06.280
<v Speaker 3>quantum field theory and he noticed that these particles were

0:25:06.359 --> 0:25:08.480
<v Speaker 3>very similar, the photon and the W and the z,

0:25:09.320 --> 0:25:11.159
<v Speaker 3>but they were different. One of them had mass and

0:25:11.200 --> 0:25:12.920
<v Speaker 3>one of them had no mass. And why is that?

0:25:13.040 --> 0:25:15.720
<v Speaker 3>And anyway, how do you give masses to all the

0:25:15.720 --> 0:25:19.440
<v Speaker 3>fundamental particles without breaking this other symmetry. And he came

0:25:19.520 --> 0:25:22.119
<v Speaker 3>up with a mechanism, a mathematical mechanism. He said, you

0:25:22.160 --> 0:25:25.040
<v Speaker 3>know what, this whole theory is missing a piece and

0:25:25.480 --> 0:25:28.840
<v Speaker 3>clicks together only if you add this one more element.

0:25:28.880 --> 0:25:32.080
<v Speaker 3>And so this is a purely mathematical observation, saying like,

0:25:32.680 --> 0:25:34.960
<v Speaker 3>there's a mathematical structure here, and it seems like it's

0:25:35.000 --> 0:25:38.280
<v Speaker 3>missing something. Fifty years later, we go out and it's there.

0:25:38.520 --> 0:25:41.240
<v Speaker 3>The Higgs boson is there in the universe. It's real.

0:25:41.640 --> 0:25:42.520
<v Speaker 2>It's kind of spooky.

0:25:42.760 --> 0:25:46.760
<v Speaker 3>It's spooky, right, And there's all these great quotes from physicists,

0:25:47.040 --> 0:25:50.919
<v Speaker 3>you know, like Stephen Weinberg saying that physicists often discover

0:25:51.000 --> 0:25:54.320
<v Speaker 3>that mathematicians have been there before them, you know, and

0:25:54.359 --> 0:25:57.280
<v Speaker 3>it goes back deeper. Like Maxwell Maxwell was the same.

0:25:57.600 --> 0:26:00.760
<v Speaker 3>Maxwell was assembling the equations of electromagnetism them and he

0:26:00.840 --> 0:26:03.280
<v Speaker 3>noticed lots of beautiful symmetry, but he also noticed, Hm,

0:26:03.440 --> 0:26:06.640
<v Speaker 3>hold on a second, this would be more symmetrical if

0:26:06.680 --> 0:26:09.320
<v Speaker 3>we added one piece. But you can't just like add

0:26:09.359 --> 0:26:12.560
<v Speaker 3>something to the laws of physics because it's prettier. And

0:26:12.640 --> 0:26:15.560
<v Speaker 3>yet when he went out there to find if there

0:26:15.720 --> 0:26:17.840
<v Speaker 3>is an element of the universe that corresponds to this

0:26:17.840 --> 0:26:19.720
<v Speaker 3>missing piece, he found, Oh, yes, it is. It just

0:26:19.720 --> 0:26:22.879
<v Speaker 3>had been overlooked. So again the math guided him. And

0:26:22.920 --> 0:26:25.720
<v Speaker 3>to me, that's really powerfully suggestive to say, like, Wow,

0:26:25.760 --> 0:26:29.680
<v Speaker 3>the universe isn't just described by math. It runs on math,

0:26:29.720 --> 0:26:33.240
<v Speaker 3>like it is fundamentally mathematical. And I remember having this

0:26:33.359 --> 0:26:36.560
<v Speaker 3>moment where I personally came to believe that as an

0:26:36.640 --> 0:26:40.840
<v Speaker 3>undergrad learning like quantum mechanics and hearing about like bells

0:26:40.840 --> 0:26:43.840
<v Speaker 3>inequality and all these experiments, and I was like, Wow,

0:26:44.200 --> 0:26:47.639
<v Speaker 3>this is too accurate to be approximate, too accurate to

0:26:47.840 --> 0:26:50.760
<v Speaker 3>just be a description, right, this is the rules, this

0:26:50.800 --> 0:26:53.200
<v Speaker 3>is the source code of the universe. So I used

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:56.520
<v Speaker 3>to deeply, deeply believe that. But you know, the more

0:26:56.560 --> 0:26:58.480
<v Speaker 3>you dig into the philosophy of math, the more you

0:26:58.520 --> 0:27:02.320
<v Speaker 3>realize this sits on on a bunch of assumptions, assumptions

0:27:02.320 --> 0:27:05.639
<v Speaker 3>which sound plausible, but when you dig into them, like

0:27:05.680 --> 0:27:09.200
<v Speaker 3>do we really have good arguments for them? And as

0:27:09.240 --> 0:27:12.000
<v Speaker 3>you say, some of them relate to like arithmetic. In

0:27:12.040 --> 0:27:14.800
<v Speaker 3>the last couple of hundreds of years, philosophers of math

0:27:14.840 --> 0:27:18.200
<v Speaker 3>have asked questions like, well, what are the basic foundations

0:27:18.280 --> 0:27:21.840
<v Speaker 3>of math? Like what are the starting rules the few

0:27:21.840 --> 0:27:23.880
<v Speaker 3>things you need to assume from which you can build

0:27:23.960 --> 0:27:28.120
<v Speaker 3>everything else? And the goal of that is not just like, hey,

0:27:28.200 --> 0:27:30.560
<v Speaker 3>let's be nerdy and figure out what the rules are,

0:27:30.560 --> 0:27:33.480
<v Speaker 3>but like, let's examine those assumptions and wonder like could

0:27:33.480 --> 0:27:35.800
<v Speaker 3>they have been something else? You know, the way we

0:27:35.920 --> 0:27:38.840
<v Speaker 3>might like see the fundamental equation of the universe and

0:27:38.880 --> 0:27:40.840
<v Speaker 3>ask like, is it this way? Could it have been

0:27:40.880 --> 0:27:44.080
<v Speaker 3>the other way? You learned something by seeing the fundamental

0:27:44.119 --> 0:27:47.280
<v Speaker 3>nature written down, And in the last couple hundred years

0:27:47.280 --> 0:27:50.119
<v Speaker 3>we've learned We've made a lot of progress, Like, wow,

0:27:50.240 --> 0:27:54.160
<v Speaker 3>most of mathematics is based on arithmetic, and arithmetic itself

0:27:54.240 --> 0:27:57.000
<v Speaker 3>is based on a few basic axioms. They're called p

0:27:57.160 --> 0:28:00.280
<v Speaker 3>and O's axioms, and those can be described in terms

0:28:00.280 --> 0:28:02.919
<v Speaker 3>of set theory, like you know this is inside that,

0:28:03.119 --> 0:28:06.320
<v Speaker 3>and a barber who shaves himselves can shave other barbers

0:28:06.359 --> 0:28:09.280
<v Speaker 3>or whatever. But at the core of it, there's a

0:28:09.359 --> 0:28:13.000
<v Speaker 3>question mark, like Godle's theorem tells us that we can't

0:28:13.040 --> 0:28:16.600
<v Speaker 3>describe everything in math using those fundamental axioms. And then

0:28:16.640 --> 0:28:18.719
<v Speaker 3>even if you have a bunch of fundamental axioms, there

0:28:18.720 --> 0:28:21.199
<v Speaker 3>are always going to be things that aren't captured by it.

0:28:22.119 --> 0:28:25.760
<v Speaker 3>You know, there are things in arithmetic that are true

0:28:26.280 --> 0:28:30.000
<v Speaker 3>that cannot be proven with our axioms, which tells you, like,

0:28:30.560 --> 0:28:34.639
<v Speaker 3>maybe we don't really fundamentally understand what's at the core

0:28:34.840 --> 0:28:35.879
<v Speaker 3>of mathematics.

0:28:36.480 --> 0:28:40.959
<v Speaker 2>Is it possible to do physics without numbers? You explore

0:28:40.960 --> 0:28:44.280
<v Speaker 2>at least one scholar who's attempted to, I think, put

0:28:44.320 --> 0:28:48.000
<v Speaker 2>together a version of Newton's laws of motion or gravitation

0:28:48.520 --> 0:28:51.200
<v Speaker 2>without using numbers. You make it sound like it's kind

0:28:51.200 --> 0:28:53.600
<v Speaker 2>of difficult and painful.

0:28:56.120 --> 0:28:59.200
<v Speaker 3>I love this book. It's not easy to read. It's

0:28:59.200 --> 0:29:01.600
<v Speaker 3>like not written for a popular audience. It's written for

0:29:01.720 --> 0:29:05.000
<v Speaker 3>like nerves of philosophy. So I'll be honest, it was

0:29:05.040 --> 0:29:06.880
<v Speaker 3>hard for me to get through it and to really

0:29:06.880 --> 0:29:09.040
<v Speaker 3>digest it. But it's a great book. It's called Science

0:29:09.080 --> 0:29:12.880
<v Speaker 3>Without Numbers. It's by heartree Field, and it's really an

0:29:12.920 --> 0:29:15.880
<v Speaker 3>effort to give an example of like do we need

0:29:15.960 --> 0:29:19.080
<v Speaker 3>mathematics or is it just really useful? And he puts

0:29:19.080 --> 0:29:23.520
<v Speaker 3>together an alternative theory of gravity. You know. He starts

0:29:23.520 --> 0:29:25.360
<v Speaker 3>with Newton's theory, which you can write in terms of

0:29:25.400 --> 0:29:28.920
<v Speaker 3>like a gravitational potential and a gravitational field, which is

0:29:29.000 --> 0:29:32.080
<v Speaker 3>very handy. And newton theory famously has an equation in

0:29:32.120 --> 0:29:34.640
<v Speaker 3>it and you can like calculate things with numbers, and

0:29:34.640 --> 0:29:37.040
<v Speaker 3>it's like, do we need that or is that just

0:29:37.120 --> 0:29:40.040
<v Speaker 3>really helpful? So he put together this theory of gravity

0:29:40.080 --> 0:29:43.000
<v Speaker 3>with no numbers. There is no gravitational field. He says,

0:29:43.120 --> 0:29:45.640
<v Speaker 3>you can't observe that directly anyway. All you see is

0:29:45.720 --> 0:29:49.280
<v Speaker 3>motion of particles. So maybe that's just like an intermediate

0:29:49.320 --> 0:29:52.480
<v Speaker 3>step that's useful to us. And then he's like, maybe

0:29:52.480 --> 0:29:54.640
<v Speaker 3>you don't need numbers at all. Maybe you don't need

0:29:54.680 --> 0:29:57.840
<v Speaker 3>to say the field has a value here, and you

0:29:57.880 --> 0:30:00.400
<v Speaker 3>know this has this the son has a mass of

0:30:00.440 --> 0:30:03.680
<v Speaker 3>this number. Maybe all you need are relationships. You know

0:30:03.760 --> 0:30:05.600
<v Speaker 3>this one has more mass than the other one. This

0:30:05.680 --> 0:30:08.320
<v Speaker 3>is a greater distance than that one. If he structure

0:30:08.360 --> 0:30:12.600
<v Speaker 3>in terms of relationships, he was able to recover the

0:30:13.360 --> 0:30:15.400
<v Speaker 3>not the equations of motion right because it's not like

0:30:15.440 --> 0:30:19.040
<v Speaker 3>he's not dealing with numbers, but a description of the

0:30:19.080 --> 0:30:24.200
<v Speaker 3>behavior gravitationally without using Newton's theory and without using any numbers.

0:30:24.880 --> 0:30:28.000
<v Speaker 3>So in the philosophy of mass, this approach is called nominalism.

0:30:28.480 --> 0:30:33.560
<v Speaker 3>Essentially says that numbers are something we made up, you know, one, two, four,

0:30:33.800 --> 0:30:36.400
<v Speaker 3>They don't exist anywhere in the world. Like where is

0:30:36.440 --> 0:30:40.440
<v Speaker 3>the number four? It's sort of hilarious philosophy question that

0:30:40.480 --> 0:30:42.800
<v Speaker 3>you could just brush off. It's like, well, it sounds

0:30:42.800 --> 0:30:45.520
<v Speaker 3>like you've been smoking too many banana peels. But you know,

0:30:45.600 --> 0:30:49.280
<v Speaker 3>if four exists outside of human knowledge and before us,

0:30:49.360 --> 0:30:53.120
<v Speaker 3>then like where is it? It's sort of a reasonable question, Like,

0:30:53.680 --> 0:30:55.640
<v Speaker 3>you know, if it's part of the universe, it should

0:30:55.680 --> 0:30:57.640
<v Speaker 3>have a location. Everything else that's part of the universe

0:30:57.640 --> 0:31:00.520
<v Speaker 3>has a location. So maybe it's just some thing we

0:31:00.680 --> 0:31:04.040
<v Speaker 3>constructed to help us think about stuff. And so it's

0:31:04.040 --> 0:31:06.840
<v Speaker 3>pretty hard to grow like a theory of physics without math,

0:31:06.880 --> 0:31:08.560
<v Speaker 3>And that's his point. His point is like look, math

0:31:08.640 --> 0:31:12.440
<v Speaker 3>is very useful, but that doesn't mean it's necessary the

0:31:12.480 --> 0:31:14.920
<v Speaker 3>way like, yes, having a car in Los Angeles is

0:31:15.000 --> 0:31:17.920
<v Speaker 3>very useful, but you could walk everywhere it would be

0:31:17.960 --> 0:31:21.600
<v Speaker 3>a huge pain. Right. It's obviously an advantage, but it

0:31:21.600 --> 0:31:24.560
<v Speaker 3>doesn't mean it's fundamental. And that opens up the door

0:31:24.600 --> 0:31:27.040
<v Speaker 3>to like, well, maybe aliens found some other way to think.

0:31:27.080 --> 0:31:31.080
<v Speaker 3>Maybe math reflects the way our minds work instead of

0:31:31.080 --> 0:31:34.040
<v Speaker 3>the way the universe works, and if alien minds work differently,

0:31:34.480 --> 0:31:37.000
<v Speaker 3>they might come up with something else we wouldn't call math.

0:31:37.640 --> 0:31:41.640
<v Speaker 3>Or if aliens evolved in a similar situation where they

0:31:41.680 --> 0:31:45.040
<v Speaker 3>have bodies that are easy to distinguish and so counting

0:31:45.440 --> 0:31:48.240
<v Speaker 3>makes sense, and they have like, you know, interesting economies

0:31:48.280 --> 0:31:51.000
<v Speaker 3>that are similar hours, they might have evolved the similar concepts.

0:31:51.080 --> 0:31:53.360
<v Speaker 3>So it comes down to essentially how much we have

0:31:53.440 --> 0:31:57.640
<v Speaker 3>in common with them evolutionarily and conceptually, whether or not

0:31:57.680 --> 0:32:01.920
<v Speaker 3>we think they might have math, but it's definitely not necessary.

0:32:01.960 --> 0:32:04.600
<v Speaker 3>And even here on Earth. I was surprised when I

0:32:04.640 --> 0:32:07.080
<v Speaker 3>was doing my research to learn that different cultures here

0:32:07.120 --> 0:32:10.760
<v Speaker 3>on Earth have different relationships with counting. You know, you

0:32:10.840 --> 0:32:12.360
<v Speaker 3>might look at a bunch of stuff on a desk

0:32:12.600 --> 0:32:14.120
<v Speaker 3>and I can ask you like, oh, how many things

0:32:14.160 --> 0:32:16.240
<v Speaker 3>are on the desk and you say, oh, there's four things.

0:32:16.960 --> 0:32:20.240
<v Speaker 3>But somebody who's Japanese, for example, they have different categories

0:32:20.240 --> 0:32:22.920
<v Speaker 3>of counting, and they would never group together things that

0:32:22.960 --> 0:32:25.520
<v Speaker 3>are like long and thin with things that are like

0:32:25.560 --> 0:32:27.840
<v Speaker 3>flat and short. So if you're like pencils and CDs

0:32:27.880 --> 0:32:30.400
<v Speaker 3>on a desk, they would say, oh, there's two pencils

0:32:30.440 --> 0:32:33.760
<v Speaker 3>and two CDs. You can't say that's four things because

0:32:33.760 --> 0:32:37.400
<v Speaker 3>they're different categories, right, And that's a hint where you

0:32:37.440 --> 0:32:39.680
<v Speaker 3>can dig in and say, like, well, when do we

0:32:39.720 --> 0:32:42.800
<v Speaker 3>group things together? Like why do I say this four things?

0:32:42.840 --> 0:32:44.960
<v Speaker 3>What is the category of a thing? Like why do

0:32:45.040 --> 0:32:46.960
<v Speaker 3>I say these things are similar enough that I can

0:32:47.000 --> 0:32:49.320
<v Speaker 3>call them a thing? And in the end, that's a

0:32:49.320 --> 0:32:51.680
<v Speaker 3>bit of an arbitrary distinction. Like if you look at

0:32:51.680 --> 0:32:53.840
<v Speaker 3>a bunch of apples on a table, I could say

0:32:53.840 --> 0:32:56.360
<v Speaker 3>there's ten apples, or I could say, well, there's this apple,

0:32:56.400 --> 0:32:58.320
<v Speaker 3>and there's that apple, and there's the other apple, and

0:32:58.640 --> 0:33:02.320
<v Speaker 3>they're all unique apple and so on what basis am

0:33:02.360 --> 0:33:05.280
<v Speaker 3>I saying they're all the same. That's culture, that's I'm

0:33:05.360 --> 0:33:09.520
<v Speaker 3>saying the differences are not important, and that's arbitrary and like,

0:33:09.680 --> 0:33:12.840
<v Speaker 3>I'm probably right there are about ten apples. Like I'm

0:33:12.880 --> 0:33:16.640
<v Speaker 3>not saying that every apple really is fundamentally different. But

0:33:16.720 --> 0:33:19.800
<v Speaker 3>when you discover that the lines you're drawing are arbitrary,

0:33:19.960 --> 0:33:22.320
<v Speaker 3>then that makes you wonder whether other people are drawing

0:33:22.400 --> 0:33:26.400
<v Speaker 3>different arbitrary lines. And again, this isn't like to say

0:33:26.760 --> 0:33:29.640
<v Speaker 3>math is useless or anything. It's just to point out

0:33:29.840 --> 0:33:32.200
<v Speaker 3>that there are cracks here, that there are assumptions we're

0:33:32.200 --> 0:33:35.240
<v Speaker 3>making that are human that might be made differently elsewhere.

0:33:35.760 --> 0:33:38.680
<v Speaker 2>Okay, you ask some other really interesting questions along these

0:33:38.680 --> 0:33:42.560
<v Speaker 2>lines about how our thinking versus alien thinking might influence

0:33:43.000 --> 0:33:45.640
<v Speaker 2>different ways that we could relate to the universe or

0:33:45.680 --> 0:33:49.080
<v Speaker 2>that science could arise. One is you talk about differences

0:33:49.120 --> 0:33:53.560
<v Speaker 2>in perception like native sensory capabilities, and how that could

0:33:53.920 --> 0:33:56.880
<v Speaker 2>probably determine what kinds of questions and answers make sense.

0:33:57.080 --> 0:33:58.480
<v Speaker 2>Maybe we can come back to that, because I want

0:33:58.520 --> 0:34:01.680
<v Speaker 2>to get to your question about your chapter on do

0:34:01.760 --> 0:34:05.120
<v Speaker 2>aliens argue about planets? I found this really interesting because

0:34:05.480 --> 0:34:08.799
<v Speaker 2>I don't think I'd ever considered it this way. But

0:34:08.880 --> 0:34:12.360
<v Speaker 2>you start here with a with a contact hypothetical about

0:34:12.400 --> 0:34:16.920
<v Speaker 2>the inhabitants of a subsurface ocean on Jupiter's moon Europa,

0:34:17.239 --> 0:34:21.680
<v Speaker 2>who see everything in terms of Eddy's kind of swirling

0:34:21.719 --> 0:34:26.759
<v Speaker 2>swarms of matter in motion, and that that's as fundamental

0:34:26.840 --> 0:34:29.600
<v Speaker 2>to their physical view of reality as the idea of

0:34:29.719 --> 0:34:33.400
<v Speaker 2>particles and discrete objects is to us. I thought that

0:34:33.520 --> 0:34:37.080
<v Speaker 2>was really interesting, the idea that we could meet with

0:34:37.120 --> 0:34:39.600
<v Speaker 2>another speci And of course from here you build up

0:34:39.600 --> 0:34:41.360
<v Speaker 2>the idea that we could meet with this other specie.

0:34:41.400 --> 0:34:45.040
<v Speaker 2>We could both have science and both be able and

0:34:45.160 --> 0:34:48.800
<v Speaker 2>willing to communicate with each other, but end up finding

0:34:48.880 --> 0:34:54.440
<v Speaker 2>each other's physical metaphors for describing reality uninteresting and not

0:34:54.719 --> 0:34:57.319
<v Speaker 2>very useful. I don't think I don't think i'd ever

0:34:57.680 --> 0:34:59.920
<v Speaker 2>that had never entered my mind. So could you elaborate?

0:35:00.640 --> 0:35:04.319
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you know, the goal here is like identify the

0:35:04.400 --> 0:35:07.600
<v Speaker 3>assumptions that underpin our science and wonder if they could

0:35:07.640 --> 0:35:10.840
<v Speaker 3>be different. And one of my goals in writing this

0:35:10.880 --> 0:35:14.680
<v Speaker 3>book was to bring to more popular awareness that there's

0:35:14.760 --> 0:35:17.800
<v Speaker 3>like a raging philosophical debate about some of these things

0:35:17.840 --> 0:35:20.440
<v Speaker 3>that a lot of people aren't even aware of, and

0:35:20.480 --> 0:35:23.960
<v Speaker 3>one of them is this principle of emergence. You know. Essentially,

0:35:24.000 --> 0:35:27.160
<v Speaker 3>it asked the question, why can you make chicken soup?

0:35:27.200 --> 0:35:31.000
<v Speaker 3>Without understanding quantum gravity. Like, we don't understand the fundamental

0:35:31.080 --> 0:35:33.279
<v Speaker 3>nature of the universe for sure, we don't, you know,

0:35:33.360 --> 0:35:35.960
<v Speaker 3>like we've zoomed down to electrons and quarks and whatever.

0:35:36.080 --> 0:35:38.320
<v Speaker 3>We know that's not the final story, and we don't

0:35:38.360 --> 0:35:40.719
<v Speaker 3>know how far below that is the final story. Is

0:35:40.760 --> 0:35:44.160
<v Speaker 3>there even a final story? And yet people have been

0:35:44.200 --> 0:35:47.520
<v Speaker 3>like calculating how to lob cannonballs over castle walls for

0:35:47.560 --> 0:35:50.080
<v Speaker 3>a long time. And people live in the world, and

0:35:50.680 --> 0:35:53.560
<v Speaker 3>you know, we have very fancy technology that describes the

0:35:53.600 --> 0:35:56.919
<v Speaker 3>behavior of transistors and all this sorts of stuff. Why

0:35:57.000 --> 0:36:01.080
<v Speaker 3>is it possible to understand the world world without understanding

0:36:01.120 --> 0:36:04.520
<v Speaker 3>the basic rules of it. There's this sort of magic

0:36:04.640 --> 0:36:08.239
<v Speaker 3>trick that all of our science relies on, and it's

0:36:08.280 --> 0:36:11.120
<v Speaker 3>called emergence, and it says that the universe seems to

0:36:11.120 --> 0:36:14.560
<v Speaker 3>operate at different levels, and you can understand the universe

0:36:14.560 --> 0:36:17.360
<v Speaker 3>at sort of our level without knowing the details of

0:36:17.400 --> 0:36:19.960
<v Speaker 3>what's going on inside. Right. We've been able to do

0:36:20.040 --> 0:36:24.799
<v Speaker 3>biology and chemistry well before we were even doing particle physics. Right,

0:36:24.840 --> 0:36:28.200
<v Speaker 3>So it's not like everybody was waiting, y Daniel, particle

0:36:28.239 --> 0:36:30.640
<v Speaker 3>physicists tell us what is the rules so that we

0:36:30.680 --> 0:36:33.719
<v Speaker 3>can then extrapolate upwards to biology, like you could just

0:36:33.719 --> 0:36:35.960
<v Speaker 3>go ahead and do biology, you can go ahead and

0:36:36.080 --> 0:36:40.040
<v Speaker 3>do chemistry, you can do lots of classical physics. But

0:36:40.080 --> 0:36:43.359
<v Speaker 3>why does that happen? Why is that even possible? You know,

0:36:43.480 --> 0:36:45.400
<v Speaker 3>if I told you I'm going to make up a

0:36:45.440 --> 0:36:48.160
<v Speaker 3>bunch of random, arbitrary rules for the way the universe

0:36:48.160 --> 0:36:50.759
<v Speaker 3>works at its fundamental level, you might think, okay, well,

0:36:50.760 --> 0:36:54.600
<v Speaker 3>what are the consequences then for the macroscopic scale, you know,

0:36:54.640 --> 0:36:56.839
<v Speaker 3>And it turns out it's weird that you don't have

0:36:56.920 --> 0:37:00.880
<v Speaker 3>to know the microscopic to understand the macroscopic. And that's

0:37:00.920 --> 0:37:03.239
<v Speaker 3>the thing that makes me wonder if we don't know

0:37:03.560 --> 0:37:06.719
<v Speaker 3>why that works. And this is a deep question in philosophy,

0:37:06.800 --> 0:37:13.399
<v Speaker 3>why does simplicity emerge from complexity and chaos? Then how

0:37:13.440 --> 0:37:16.160
<v Speaker 3>do we know we're not imposing it on the universe?

0:37:16.160 --> 0:37:18.439
<v Speaker 3>How do we know there's not a cultural bias where

0:37:18.440 --> 0:37:21.520
<v Speaker 3>we're like, well, there's a seeding mass of chaos out

0:37:21.520 --> 0:37:23.640
<v Speaker 3>there in the universe, and we're selecting the things that

0:37:23.680 --> 0:37:26.719
<v Speaker 3>are interesting to us because they're relevant to us and

0:37:26.760 --> 0:37:28.799
<v Speaker 3>they come out of the way we live, and we're

0:37:28.800 --> 0:37:32.719
<v Speaker 3>expressing the universe in terms of those things. And so

0:37:33.800 --> 0:37:36.640
<v Speaker 3>I chose this question of planets because talking to a

0:37:36.680 --> 0:37:38.680
<v Speaker 3>mathematician friend of mine early on in his book, he

0:37:38.719 --> 0:37:40.719
<v Speaker 3>was like, yeah, well, but I mean, aliens are going

0:37:40.800 --> 0:37:42.960
<v Speaker 3>to agree with us, but like there are planets and

0:37:43.000 --> 0:37:46.239
<v Speaker 3>stars and galaxies and we have some scientific cultural touch points.

0:37:46.239 --> 0:37:48.080
<v Speaker 3>And I was like, well, I don't know, maybe what

0:37:48.200 --> 0:37:50.759
<v Speaker 3>if they didn't evolve on a planet so they don't

0:37:50.800 --> 0:37:55.239
<v Speaker 3>see like rocks through space as fundamental. I mean, one

0:37:55.239 --> 0:37:58.520
<v Speaker 3>way to understand this is like, think about how we

0:37:58.560 --> 0:38:02.719
<v Speaker 3>describe the Solar System. Is it to scale? It never is.

0:38:03.280 --> 0:38:05.799
<v Speaker 3>Whenever you see a description of the Solar System, it

0:38:05.840 --> 0:38:09.200
<v Speaker 3>takes the planets and it zooms them way out of proportion.

0:38:09.640 --> 0:38:11.600
<v Speaker 3>Somebody looking at that would be like, whoa dude, you

0:38:11.760 --> 0:38:14.640
<v Speaker 3>kind of biased towards planets here, Like, really, planets are

0:38:14.760 --> 0:38:18.840
<v Speaker 3>irrelevant dust compared to the Sun. So if you're an

0:38:18.880 --> 0:38:22.239
<v Speaker 3>alien species that evolves like in a solar atmosphere, you're

0:38:22.280 --> 0:38:24.480
<v Speaker 3>going to think it's awfully weird that we think about

0:38:24.480 --> 0:38:26.640
<v Speaker 3>solar systems the way that we do, where planets are

0:38:26.680 --> 0:38:29.640
<v Speaker 3>front and center. And as I make the argument in

0:38:29.680 --> 0:38:31.960
<v Speaker 3>the book, we don't even have a good definition of

0:38:32.000 --> 0:38:33.799
<v Speaker 3>what a planet is. I mean, we've been arguing about

0:38:33.840 --> 0:38:37.480
<v Speaker 3>it for decades and the definition we have is pretty absurd.

0:38:37.560 --> 0:38:41.000
<v Speaker 3>And it's the reason, like for all this kerfuffle about Pluto,

0:38:41.560 --> 0:38:44.720
<v Speaker 3>it's because we wanted to protect this category. We wanted

0:38:44.760 --> 0:38:48.799
<v Speaker 3>to have something special that made us feel important. And

0:38:48.960 --> 0:38:51.120
<v Speaker 3>anytime we've done that in the history of science, you know,

0:38:51.200 --> 0:38:52.880
<v Speaker 3>like the Earth, this is the center of the universe,

0:38:52.880 --> 0:38:55.000
<v Speaker 3>the Earth is the center of the Solar System. It's

0:38:55.160 --> 0:38:59.439
<v Speaker 3>always let us down the wrong path. And so it's

0:38:59.440 --> 0:39:03.080
<v Speaker 3>hard to imagine aliens who don't understand planets and don't

0:39:03.080 --> 0:39:05.800
<v Speaker 3>think about the universe in terms of rocks orbiting stars.

0:39:06.160 --> 0:39:09.400
<v Speaker 3>But if they evolve in subsurface oceans, maybe they just

0:39:09.400 --> 0:39:13.280
<v Speaker 3>think about, you know, little chaotic vortices and they build

0:39:13.360 --> 0:39:16.080
<v Speaker 3>up their explanation in the universe from that. So that's

0:39:16.120 --> 0:39:17.600
<v Speaker 3>what this chapter is about. And I had a lot

0:39:17.600 --> 0:39:20.920
<v Speaker 3>of fun talking to philosophers about emergence, and it realized

0:39:21.000 --> 0:39:23.359
<v Speaker 3>that I had a lot of assumptions about the way

0:39:23.400 --> 0:39:27.040
<v Speaker 3>emergence works. Like, for example, I assumed that the universe

0:39:27.080 --> 0:39:31.879
<v Speaker 3>has a fundamental level, that there is some firmament where

0:39:31.880 --> 0:39:34.960
<v Speaker 3>the rules are set and everything emerges from that, and

0:39:35.239 --> 0:39:37.960
<v Speaker 3>maybe we don't know exactly how, and it's complicated the

0:39:38.000 --> 0:39:40.359
<v Speaker 3>way that like hurricanes are complicated, but we think they

0:39:40.360 --> 0:39:43.839
<v Speaker 3>follow rules, but that's not necessarily true. Like what if

0:39:43.840 --> 0:39:46.520
<v Speaker 3>there is no firmament. What if it's just like layers

0:39:46.560 --> 0:39:50.600
<v Speaker 3>of emergence all the way down, or what if you know,

0:39:50.640 --> 0:39:54.560
<v Speaker 3>they don't follow from below, Maybe things don't bubble upwards.

0:39:54.880 --> 0:39:57.440
<v Speaker 3>Maybe every layer has its own set of laws that

0:39:57.480 --> 0:40:01.359
<v Speaker 3>are somehow independent. There's a lot of basic philosophical assumptions

0:40:01.719 --> 0:40:03.600
<v Speaker 3>you make when you take a sort of particle physics

0:40:03.640 --> 0:40:07.520
<v Speaker 3>point of view there.

0:40:14.640 --> 0:40:16.920
<v Speaker 2>That gets into your chapter also about the idea that

0:40:17.000 --> 0:40:20.560
<v Speaker 2>maybe there are no underlying laws of physics, but also

0:40:20.760 --> 0:40:23.320
<v Speaker 2>just at the base level of you know, the objects

0:40:23.320 --> 0:40:26.759
<v Speaker 2>we deal with when we're talking about planets and particles.

0:40:27.239 --> 0:40:29.560
<v Speaker 2>There was a great example in this chapter where you're

0:40:29.600 --> 0:40:32.799
<v Speaker 2>trying to illuminate the different zoom settings. I think a

0:40:32.840 --> 0:40:36.279
<v Speaker 2>lot of people will be familiar with the idea that, yeah,

0:40:36.440 --> 0:40:39.279
<v Speaker 2>chemistry maybe is an approximation and you can get more

0:40:39.280 --> 0:40:42.279
<v Speaker 2>exact if you go down into particle physics, and and

0:40:42.320 --> 0:40:44.879
<v Speaker 2>of course you know hire biology is more of an approximation.

0:40:45.040 --> 0:40:46.719
<v Speaker 2>It's based on emergence. But I think a lot of

0:40:46.760 --> 0:40:49.440
<v Speaker 2>people would have that in their head, but think, well,

0:40:49.440 --> 0:40:52.680
<v Speaker 2>when you get down to you know, particles, that's the

0:40:52.719 --> 0:40:55.360
<v Speaker 2>base level. But I love the example you use in

0:40:55.400 --> 0:40:59.040
<v Speaker 2>the book of the charge of the electron and how actually,

0:40:59.280 --> 0:41:02.400
<v Speaker 2>while we have good approximation for how that works, that

0:41:02.520 --> 0:41:06.680
<v Speaker 2>still relies on zoom settings. Could you explain that example.

0:41:07.400 --> 0:41:09.359
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I wanted to dig into this because I think

0:41:09.360 --> 0:41:10.839
<v Speaker 3>a lot of people think about it the way you

0:41:10.880 --> 0:41:13.879
<v Speaker 3>just described that. They imagine that eventually you can get

0:41:13.920 --> 0:41:16.080
<v Speaker 3>down to the fundamental truth, right And like number one,

0:41:16.120 --> 0:41:18.440
<v Speaker 3>we don't know if there is and the zoomiest bit

0:41:18.480 --> 0:41:20.600
<v Speaker 3>that we have so far is still kind of a mess.

0:41:21.080 --> 0:41:24.320
<v Speaker 3>Like I make fun of astronomers having a silly definition

0:41:24.440 --> 0:41:27.399
<v Speaker 3>of planet, but like definition of a particle is much

0:41:27.440 --> 0:41:30.680
<v Speaker 3>more of a mess philosophically. You get ten particle theorists

0:41:30.680 --> 0:41:32.320
<v Speaker 3>in a room and you ask them what is a particle?

0:41:32.360 --> 0:41:35.759
<v Speaker 3>You're gonna get ten answers, Like it's crazy. Like this

0:41:35.920 --> 0:41:40.239
<v Speaker 3>concept is historical, it's intuitive for us. It comes out

0:41:40.239 --> 0:41:42.560
<v Speaker 3>of our need to describe the universe in terms of

0:41:42.640 --> 0:41:46.040
<v Speaker 3>like little bits of stuff, and in many ways I

0:41:46.040 --> 0:41:48.560
<v Speaker 3>think it's holding us back. You know, we have a

0:41:48.600 --> 0:41:51.520
<v Speaker 3>glimpse now in quantum field theory that things work differently,

0:41:51.560 --> 0:41:54.920
<v Speaker 3>but we're still sort of like clinging to this idea anyway.

0:41:54.960 --> 0:41:58.560
<v Speaker 3>The current idea of a particle is hard to describe

0:41:58.680 --> 0:42:02.200
<v Speaker 3>because particles are by themselves. Like you think of an

0:42:02.200 --> 0:42:05.800
<v Speaker 3>electron as a tiny dot with a negative charge on it. Cool,

0:42:05.840 --> 0:42:09.239
<v Speaker 3>little ball, Yeah, people think a little ball, right, And

0:42:09.320 --> 0:42:12.839
<v Speaker 3>there it is. There's your intuition, your classical intuition. I

0:42:12.920 --> 0:42:15.240
<v Speaker 3>live in the universe with rocks and little bits of stuff,

0:42:15.239 --> 0:42:17.319
<v Speaker 3>and so everything is made out of little bits of stuff, right.

0:42:17.680 --> 0:42:20.000
<v Speaker 3>It's the way you might laugh at the ancient Greeks,

0:42:20.000 --> 0:42:23.440
<v Speaker 3>and we're still doing it. But you think of the electron,

0:42:23.480 --> 0:42:25.359
<v Speaker 3>even if you like think, well, it's not a ball

0:42:25.400 --> 0:42:27.360
<v Speaker 3>of stuff, it's a point, right, and it's got a

0:42:27.400 --> 0:42:29.719
<v Speaker 3>negative sign on it. And where does that negative sign

0:42:29.760 --> 0:42:32.239
<v Speaker 3>come from? Well, we measure it in experiments, right. We

0:42:32.360 --> 0:42:34.880
<v Speaker 3>know the charge of the electron. We have the famous

0:42:34.880 --> 0:42:38.040
<v Speaker 3>oil drop experiment that told us the mass to charge ratio,

0:42:38.040 --> 0:42:41.480
<v Speaker 3>et cetera. But is that the charge of the electron itself?

0:42:41.680 --> 0:42:45.000
<v Speaker 3>Because the electron, because it has a charge, is always

0:42:45.040 --> 0:42:48.960
<v Speaker 3>interacting with the electromagnetic field. It makes a field and

0:42:49.040 --> 0:42:52.400
<v Speaker 3>as it moves that field ripples, and so the right

0:42:52.440 --> 0:42:54.640
<v Speaker 3>way to describe an electron either is in terms of

0:42:54.680 --> 0:42:57.360
<v Speaker 3>a field around it, or equivalently as a cloud of

0:42:57.440 --> 0:43:01.640
<v Speaker 3>virtual photons. Right, Photons are ripples in the electromagnetic field,

0:43:01.719 --> 0:43:04.080
<v Speaker 3>and so from the particle point of view, you have

0:43:04.200 --> 0:43:07.080
<v Speaker 3>the electron. It's surrounded by this cloud of virtual photons,

0:43:07.520 --> 0:43:10.840
<v Speaker 3>and those virtual photons change the charge that you measure.

0:43:11.320 --> 0:43:13.520
<v Speaker 3>So when you're measuring the charge of the electron, you're

0:43:13.520 --> 0:43:17.200
<v Speaker 3>not measuring the charge of the pure bear electron. You're

0:43:17.239 --> 0:43:20.120
<v Speaker 3>measuring the charge of the electron plus this cloud of photons.

0:43:20.440 --> 0:43:24.440
<v Speaker 3>Because photons can fluctuate into like electrons and positrons, you

0:43:24.480 --> 0:43:27.759
<v Speaker 3>have this cloud of charged particles, and say electrons charge

0:43:27.920 --> 0:43:31.799
<v Speaker 3>polarizes that cloud, and depending on how far into that

0:43:31.840 --> 0:43:34.680
<v Speaker 3>cloud you go, you get a different answer for what

0:43:34.840 --> 0:43:37.080
<v Speaker 3>is the charge that we measure. So really far away

0:43:37.120 --> 0:43:39.360
<v Speaker 3>from the cloud you get the charge that we know

0:43:39.440 --> 0:43:42.800
<v Speaker 3>in loud that Ben Franklin discovered and that we measured

0:43:42.800 --> 0:43:45.040
<v Speaker 3>one hundred years ago. But if you start to probe

0:43:45.040 --> 0:43:47.719
<v Speaker 3>into that cloud, then you're not seeing as much of

0:43:47.760 --> 0:43:51.280
<v Speaker 3>those photons. You're getting through it closer to the bare electron,

0:43:51.320 --> 0:43:54.440
<v Speaker 3>closer to the real truth of the electrons charge, and

0:43:54.480 --> 0:43:57.239
<v Speaker 3>you get a more negative number. And the deeper you

0:43:57.280 --> 0:44:00.759
<v Speaker 3>probe in towards that cloud, the more or you're not

0:44:00.800 --> 0:44:04.240
<v Speaker 3>being affected by those particles, the more negative that number gets.

0:44:04.520 --> 0:44:07.160
<v Speaker 3>And if you extrapolate, what would it be like if

0:44:07.160 --> 0:44:08.640
<v Speaker 3>you went all the way through the clouds, you went

0:44:08.680 --> 0:44:10.680
<v Speaker 3>all the way to the electron. What number would you

0:44:10.719 --> 0:44:13.400
<v Speaker 3>measure for the charge of the electron? The answer is

0:44:13.840 --> 0:44:19.880
<v Speaker 3>negative infinity? Like what? This is another example in physics

0:44:19.880 --> 0:44:22.160
<v Speaker 3>where you get a nonsense answer that tells you that,

0:44:22.320 --> 0:44:27.000
<v Speaker 3>like your theory has been pushed beyond its region of applicability. Right,

0:44:27.040 --> 0:44:30.120
<v Speaker 3>it doesn't make sense. We're not saying the electron really

0:44:30.160 --> 0:44:34.000
<v Speaker 3>does have a negative charge. We're saying the concept of

0:44:34.040 --> 0:44:37.080
<v Speaker 3>the electron on its own with the charge that is

0:44:37.160 --> 0:44:40.520
<v Speaker 3>not an appropriate way to think about what's happening. Really,

0:44:40.600 --> 0:44:44.520
<v Speaker 3>electrons are always tied together with photons. We're making this

0:44:44.640 --> 0:44:48.160
<v Speaker 3>arbitrary dotted line between the electrons and the photons because

0:44:48.200 --> 0:44:50.680
<v Speaker 3>we like to think of it that way, But fundamentally,

0:44:50.760 --> 0:44:53.600
<v Speaker 3>these two are so deeply interwoven that it doesn't make

0:44:53.640 --> 0:44:56.239
<v Speaker 3>sense to imagine the charge of the electron by itself.

0:44:56.719 --> 0:44:59.680
<v Speaker 3>So even this concept of a particle, like the fundamental

0:44:59.719 --> 0:45:01.600
<v Speaker 3>base this of all of our particle physics, and we

0:45:01.640 --> 0:45:04.520
<v Speaker 3>think the universe and even if the electron isn't, we

0:45:04.520 --> 0:45:07.440
<v Speaker 3>think that our particles within it. Right, this basic unit

0:45:07.800 --> 0:45:12.440
<v Speaker 3>of our imagination is something that's not really an appropriate

0:45:12.440 --> 0:45:17.000
<v Speaker 3>description of the universe. And so that to me smells

0:45:17.080 --> 0:45:21.240
<v Speaker 3>of humanity, of cultural choices, of being linked to our intuition,

0:45:21.520 --> 0:45:24.560
<v Speaker 3>the preference, the way that we like to hear the answers,

0:45:24.600 --> 0:45:28.080
<v Speaker 3>and so the language that we express ourselves in. And

0:45:28.239 --> 0:45:32.880
<v Speaker 3>I wonder if aliens argue about particles and argue about planets,

0:45:33.120 --> 0:45:36.520
<v Speaker 3>and it would be amazing. It'd be amazing if they didn't,

0:45:36.719 --> 0:45:40.319
<v Speaker 3>if they came with a completely different way of expressing

0:45:40.360 --> 0:45:43.799
<v Speaker 3>and explaining the universe, that would be mind blowing. That's

0:45:43.880 --> 0:45:44.720
<v Speaker 3>my real fantasy.

0:45:45.000 --> 0:45:47.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, that actually does tie into a later chapter, the

0:45:47.120 --> 0:45:52.200
<v Speaker 2>one where you're talking about alternative alien science. Could there

0:45:52.320 --> 0:45:58.080
<v Speaker 2>be completely different theories of everything, complete theories of physics

0:45:58.600 --> 0:46:03.640
<v Speaker 2>that both correctly predict the behavior of all matter, energy,

0:46:03.680 --> 0:46:07.279
<v Speaker 2>and space time, and yet they're different theories? Is that

0:46:07.320 --> 0:46:10.960
<v Speaker 2>actually possible? Are two different theories that always make the

0:46:11.040 --> 0:46:13.680
<v Speaker 2>exact same predictions actually equivalent?

0:46:14.239 --> 0:46:16.600
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, so this is a great example, like this is

0:46:16.640 --> 0:46:20.640
<v Speaker 3>a question philosophers have been debating for decades and decades

0:46:21.040 --> 0:46:24.919
<v Speaker 3>that's basically unknown in physics. Like I think most physicists

0:46:24.960 --> 0:46:28.120
<v Speaker 3>and most people out there imagine if you find a

0:46:28.200 --> 0:46:32.279
<v Speaker 3>theory that works and is simple and it's basic, like

0:46:32.400 --> 0:46:34.359
<v Speaker 3>say string theory, figures it out and they have one

0:46:34.400 --> 0:46:37.320
<v Speaker 3>equation and it describes everything and it predicts every experiment

0:46:37.360 --> 0:46:39.600
<v Speaker 3>and it all works, then people are like, okay, well

0:46:39.640 --> 0:46:43.600
<v Speaker 3>you're done right, Like that's it. But there's an assumption

0:46:43.719 --> 0:46:47.560
<v Speaker 3>there that there's a unique description, that there's only one description,

0:46:47.719 --> 0:46:51.000
<v Speaker 3>one way to answer this question, And it actually makes

0:46:51.000 --> 0:46:53.480
<v Speaker 3>a lot more sense to imagine that there might be

0:46:53.560 --> 0:46:57.560
<v Speaker 3>multiple descriptions. I mean, like, consider any time you have data,

0:46:58.000 --> 0:47:01.960
<v Speaker 3>you measure something, you have data points, and then you

0:47:02.040 --> 0:47:04.319
<v Speaker 3>try to describe it, describe it by like drawing a

0:47:04.360 --> 0:47:06.239
<v Speaker 3>line through it. Maybe it's a straight line, maybe it's

0:47:06.239 --> 0:47:08.760
<v Speaker 3>a wiggly line. Maybe you have some model you're fitting

0:47:08.800 --> 0:47:12.440
<v Speaker 3>to your data. That model is describing things between your

0:47:12.520 --> 0:47:15.440
<v Speaker 3>data points that you have not observed. And even if

0:47:15.440 --> 0:47:17.640
<v Speaker 3>you take infinite amounts of data, there will always be

0:47:17.760 --> 0:47:20.520
<v Speaker 3>multiple models that fit the data. So it actually kind

0:47:20.560 --> 0:47:23.600
<v Speaker 3>of makes sense to imagine you could have multiple ways

0:47:23.600 --> 0:47:26.759
<v Speaker 3>to describe the same universe, and I think this conflicts

0:47:26.760 --> 0:47:29.600
<v Speaker 3>with your natural intuition. They're like, yeah, but there's a

0:47:29.640 --> 0:47:33.520
<v Speaker 3>true answer. You know, the universe runs some way and

0:47:33.560 --> 0:47:36.200
<v Speaker 3>we just have to figure it out. And maybe we're right,

0:47:36.280 --> 0:47:38.360
<v Speaker 3>or maybe the aliens are right, and maybe our theory

0:47:38.400 --> 0:47:40.960
<v Speaker 3>of quantum fields is wrong and maybe their theory of

0:47:41.120 --> 0:47:44.720
<v Speaker 3>quantum fields is right or whatever. But there is a truth.

0:47:45.000 --> 0:47:49.120
<v Speaker 3>And that's a philosophical assumption saying that there's a single

0:47:49.160 --> 0:47:52.000
<v Speaker 3>objective truth that we could discover and it's unique. How

0:47:52.000 --> 0:47:56.120
<v Speaker 3>do you know you don't know. That's exactly the kind

0:47:56.120 --> 0:47:59.080
<v Speaker 3>of philosophical assumption I want to sort of reveal in

0:47:59.120 --> 0:48:01.279
<v Speaker 3>this book, saying that we don't. I'm not saying that

0:48:01.360 --> 0:48:04.480
<v Speaker 3>there isn't, but I'm saying that we can't be sure.

0:48:05.000 --> 0:48:07.920
<v Speaker 3>And you know, there's lots of arguments in philosophy that

0:48:08.080 --> 0:48:10.799
<v Speaker 3>say that there very well could be, and there's lots

0:48:10.840 --> 0:48:14.799
<v Speaker 3>of great historical examples. You know, the history of our

0:48:14.920 --> 0:48:19.600
<v Speaker 3>physics is the history of overthrowing one way of thinking

0:48:19.600 --> 0:48:22.960
<v Speaker 3>about the universe for another one. You know, when Einstein

0:48:23.520 --> 0:48:27.200
<v Speaker 3>upgraded on understanding of gravity, didn't just give us better

0:48:27.200 --> 0:48:31.120
<v Speaker 3>equations that were more accurate. He completely revised the story

0:48:31.320 --> 0:48:34.799
<v Speaker 3>of what's happening. You know, it's not masses pulling on

0:48:34.840 --> 0:48:37.920
<v Speaker 3>each other. It's space itself is bending and curving, and

0:48:37.960 --> 0:48:41.080
<v Speaker 3>gravity is not even a force. So there is history

0:48:41.120 --> 0:48:46.000
<v Speaker 3>of overthrowing our ideas, which suggests that there are other

0:48:46.080 --> 0:48:49.520
<v Speaker 3>ideas out there which could better or at least equivalently

0:48:49.960 --> 0:48:52.440
<v Speaker 3>describe the universe that we see, that we could conceive

0:48:52.440 --> 0:48:55.000
<v Speaker 3>of right now. If you are a super genius, you

0:48:55.000 --> 0:48:57.759
<v Speaker 3>could sit down and come up with another way to

0:48:58.040 --> 0:49:02.880
<v Speaker 3>describe gravity or quantity, fields or whatever that's equivalent or superior.

0:49:03.520 --> 0:49:09.239
<v Speaker 3>And so it's certainly possible to have multiple theories. And

0:49:09.360 --> 0:49:11.880
<v Speaker 3>so in the in the literature, they argue about this,

0:49:11.960 --> 0:49:14.560
<v Speaker 3>and there's a whole group of people like this is

0:49:14.640 --> 0:49:17.960
<v Speaker 3>Guy Norton who says that any alternative theory is quote,

0:49:18.040 --> 0:49:20.920
<v Speaker 3>merely the same theory dressed in different clothes. Right that

0:49:21.200 --> 0:49:24.160
<v Speaker 3>as you say, look, okay, maybe you have fields and

0:49:24.200 --> 0:49:27.680
<v Speaker 3>we have shmields, but they must be equivalent because if

0:49:27.680 --> 0:49:31.040
<v Speaker 3>they're doing the same thing, right, they're making the same predictions,

0:49:31.360 --> 0:49:34.440
<v Speaker 3>how can they really be different? And you know, we

0:49:34.880 --> 0:49:37.880
<v Speaker 3>don't know the answer to that. Because nobody has an

0:49:37.920 --> 0:49:41.800
<v Speaker 3>alternative like this is theoretical. Philosophers say it should be possible,

0:49:42.080 --> 0:49:44.840
<v Speaker 3>and other philosophers say, like, all right, show us, you

0:49:44.880 --> 0:49:48.040
<v Speaker 3>know what are you talking about? Where is this alternative? Right?

0:49:49.680 --> 0:49:51.600
<v Speaker 3>And we don't have that. So all we can do

0:49:51.719 --> 0:49:54.239
<v Speaker 3>is look at our history, and we have some fascinating

0:49:54.320 --> 0:49:59.640
<v Speaker 3>examples there, like you know, Newtonian mechanics was supplanted by

0:49:59.760 --> 0:50:02.800
<v Speaker 3>the Rongen mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics, which is a different

0:50:02.800 --> 0:50:05.680
<v Speaker 3>way to think about like how things move. If you

0:50:05.760 --> 0:50:08.120
<v Speaker 3>want to calculate, you know, how does the ball move

0:50:08.160 --> 0:50:10.799
<v Speaker 3>with the parabola, you can use Newtonian mechanics and we

0:50:10.840 --> 0:50:13.440
<v Speaker 3>do that. You know, F equals MA and that works.

0:50:13.800 --> 0:50:15.920
<v Speaker 3>But as soon as it gets complicated, you have your

0:50:15.920 --> 0:50:17.719
<v Speaker 3>ball and a string, and the string is being held

0:50:17.719 --> 0:50:19.680
<v Speaker 3>by a squirrel and the squirrels on a roller coaster,

0:50:20.160 --> 0:50:22.440
<v Speaker 3>it's way too hard to use Newton's laws, like it

0:50:22.600 --> 0:50:26.720
<v Speaker 3>just becomes unsolvable. So these clever guys, Lagrange and Hamilton

0:50:26.840 --> 0:50:31.040
<v Speaker 3>came up with more effective mechanics that rely essentially on

0:50:31.320 --> 0:50:34.480
<v Speaker 3>energy as the fundamental principle, and you can derive Newton's

0:50:34.560 --> 0:50:37.880
<v Speaker 3>laws from them, and Lagrange and mechanics and Hamiltonia mechanics

0:50:37.920 --> 0:50:40.600
<v Speaker 3>are very similar, but they're all so different, and you

0:50:40.640 --> 0:50:43.759
<v Speaker 3>can use both of them to describe these things. And

0:50:44.360 --> 0:50:46.120
<v Speaker 3>for like more than one hundred years, people have been

0:50:46.200 --> 0:50:50.279
<v Speaker 3>arguing about are these two theories just the same dressed

0:50:50.280 --> 0:50:54.320
<v Speaker 3>in different clothes or are they fundamentally different? And last

0:50:54.520 --> 0:50:57.480
<v Speaker 3>ten years or twenty years or so, they've been digging into, like, well,

0:50:57.480 --> 0:50:59.520
<v Speaker 3>what does it mean to be different? You know, this

0:50:59.600 --> 0:51:02.480
<v Speaker 3>is the way philosophy makes progress. They're like, well, what

0:51:02.600 --> 0:51:04.920
<v Speaker 3>is the word? Meaning of the word is mean anyway?

0:51:05.239 --> 0:51:08.360
<v Speaker 3>So it gets pretty nerdy and abstract. But fundamentally, we

0:51:08.400 --> 0:51:10.960
<v Speaker 3>don't know. We don't know if it's possible to have

0:51:11.040 --> 0:51:16.200
<v Speaker 3>multiple theories that describe the universe equivalently and are fundamentally

0:51:16.239 --> 0:51:20.800
<v Speaker 3>categorically different that they tell different conceptual stories, or if

0:51:21.000 --> 0:51:23.719
<v Speaker 3>both being effective means that they fundamentally have to be

0:51:23.800 --> 0:51:26.440
<v Speaker 3>telling the same story. We just don't know, And we

0:51:26.480 --> 0:51:30.040
<v Speaker 3>have examples on the other side, you know, like quantum mechanics.

0:51:30.360 --> 0:51:33.440
<v Speaker 3>We had matrix equations and we had wave equations. You know,

0:51:33.480 --> 0:51:37.319
<v Speaker 3>Schrodinger and Heisenberg and von Neumann showed okay, guys, these

0:51:37.320 --> 0:51:39.600
<v Speaker 3>are actually the same thing. You know, just you have

0:51:39.640 --> 0:51:42.280
<v Speaker 3>different operators and different kinds of math, and they seem

0:51:42.360 --> 0:51:45.440
<v Speaker 3>pretty different, but actually they are the same, which is

0:51:45.480 --> 0:51:48.640
<v Speaker 3>kind of hilarious because Schortinger and Heisenberg famously sort of

0:51:48.680 --> 0:51:52.680
<v Speaker 3>hated each other and really didn't like the other's approached, Like, ough,

0:51:52.800 --> 0:51:57.960
<v Speaker 3>I find it gross, but yeah, exactly. Yeah, there's some

0:51:58.040 --> 0:52:01.120
<v Speaker 3>German dissing in the in the academic literature which is

0:52:01.120 --> 0:52:03.719
<v Speaker 3>pretty fun to read. But they are fundamentally the same.

0:52:03.760 --> 0:52:06.360
<v Speaker 3>So you can show that's not two theories, right, that

0:52:06.480 --> 0:52:09.759
<v Speaker 3>is just one theory expressed in different clothing. So that

0:52:09.800 --> 0:52:12.279
<v Speaker 3>would be fascinating. Right when the aliens show up with

0:52:12.360 --> 0:52:15.160
<v Speaker 3>their theory, it might be very different and we might

0:52:15.200 --> 0:52:17.480
<v Speaker 3>be able to show that it's essentially the same, or

0:52:17.520 --> 0:52:20.840
<v Speaker 3>we might discover, wow, this is a very different story

0:52:20.840 --> 0:52:23.640
<v Speaker 3>about what's happening in the universe. It really is a

0:52:23.680 --> 0:52:27.880
<v Speaker 3>different way to explain things that can't be mapped to ours.

0:52:28.160 --> 0:52:30.480
<v Speaker 3>And what would that mean? You know, what would that

0:52:30.520 --> 0:52:36.240
<v Speaker 3>mean if the universe has multiple correct descriptions, it means

0:52:36.239 --> 0:52:39.600
<v Speaker 3>something about the nature of truth, right, but what is

0:52:39.640 --> 0:52:43.080
<v Speaker 3>really happening? If there is anything that you can say

0:52:43.239 --> 0:53:02.280
<v Speaker 3>is really happening.

0:52:55.600 --> 0:52:59.319
<v Speaker 2>So I think one reason people are tempted to think

0:52:59.320 --> 0:53:02.480
<v Speaker 2>that aliens would have science and it would be similar

0:53:02.520 --> 0:53:05.239
<v Speaker 2>to us, similar to our science, is because when we,

0:53:05.920 --> 0:53:08.120
<v Speaker 2>at least I have this experience, I think a lot

0:53:08.120 --> 0:53:12.960
<v Speaker 2>of people do. When you look back on scientific history,

0:53:13.040 --> 0:53:17.440
<v Speaker 2>you somehow get this feeling that it's kind of faded,

0:53:17.640 --> 0:53:21.800
<v Speaker 2>that it's like on track, maybe because it's not, because

0:53:21.840 --> 0:53:25.840
<v Speaker 2>it feels like different than like artistic you know, creations

0:53:25.880 --> 0:53:29.600
<v Speaker 2>where it's like the scientific discoveries and history are bound

0:53:29.640 --> 0:53:33.480
<v Speaker 2>by nature, and so because they're discovering things about nature,

0:53:33.640 --> 0:53:37.360
<v Speaker 2>just kind of feels inevitable that it would have developed

0:53:37.360 --> 0:53:37.600
<v Speaker 2>in the.

0:53:37.520 --> 0:53:38.319
<v Speaker 3>Way that it did.

0:53:38.920 --> 0:53:42.080
<v Speaker 2>Could you talk about some reasons for thinking that actually

0:53:43.040 --> 0:53:47.399
<v Speaker 2>the history of human science is somewhat contingent, and how

0:53:47.480 --> 0:53:50.280
<v Speaker 2>that could undermine our belief that aliens would develop science

0:53:50.320 --> 0:53:51.360
<v Speaker 2>along the same tracks.

0:53:52.040 --> 0:53:53.960
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, this is really fun. I got to dig into

0:53:54.000 --> 0:53:55.839
<v Speaker 3>a lot of the history here, and I agree with you.

0:53:56.560 --> 0:53:59.200
<v Speaker 3>I used to think of the history of science as inevitable.

0:53:59.560 --> 0:54:02.040
<v Speaker 3>I plead civilization for example, and you know you have

0:54:02.080 --> 0:54:03.960
<v Speaker 3>to develop this, and then gunpowdern and then you can

0:54:03.960 --> 0:54:06.440
<v Speaker 3>build this, and it feels sort of like a natural progression.

0:54:08.239 --> 0:54:10.040
<v Speaker 3>But you know, there's a lot of moments in the

0:54:10.080 --> 0:54:13.399
<v Speaker 3>history of science that were random, that were accidental, where

0:54:13.440 --> 0:54:17.280
<v Speaker 3>we discovered something that we could have discovered much earlier,

0:54:17.320 --> 0:54:20.040
<v Speaker 3>and it could have totally changed the path of our science.

0:54:20.160 --> 0:54:21.480
<v Speaker 3>And this is one of the reasons I wrote the

0:54:21.480 --> 0:54:23.480
<v Speaker 3>book in the structure I did with this Drake equation

0:54:23.880 --> 0:54:26.520
<v Speaker 3>structure because it let me make some assumptions, Like at

0:54:26.520 --> 0:54:27.960
<v Speaker 3>this point in the book, I'm saying, all right, let's

0:54:28.080 --> 0:54:31.160
<v Speaker 3>push aside all of the philosophical questions. Let's assume aliens

0:54:31.200 --> 0:54:33.600
<v Speaker 3>do science, they use math, they ask the same questions,

0:54:33.640 --> 0:54:36.239
<v Speaker 3>they're interested in the same stuff as us. Even then,

0:54:37.280 --> 0:54:40.239
<v Speaker 3>how similar or different might their science be? Or like,

0:54:40.280 --> 0:54:43.600
<v Speaker 3>take aliens out of the equation, imagine running the earth

0:54:44.440 --> 0:54:47.600
<v Speaker 3>a million times, you know, and even start from like

0:54:47.680 --> 0:54:50.360
<v Speaker 3>humans have formed one hundred thousand years ago, When do

0:54:50.400 --> 0:54:52.799
<v Speaker 3>they become technological? How long does that take? What does

0:54:52.800 --> 0:54:55.960
<v Speaker 3>that civilization look like? What science do they develop? Are

0:54:55.960 --> 0:55:00.200
<v Speaker 3>we typically late or early compared to that population? Love

0:55:00.280 --> 0:55:02.680
<v Speaker 3>to know the answer to that question, you know, what

0:55:02.840 --> 0:55:06.320
<v Speaker 3>is the path of science in all of those different earths?

0:55:06.360 --> 0:55:09.040
<v Speaker 3>And so we can't know that, but we do have

0:55:09.040 --> 0:55:11.760
<v Speaker 3>some glimmers, you know. I was able to like dig

0:55:11.840 --> 0:55:17.280
<v Speaker 3>into ancient human civilizations Mayans and Chinese and the Greeks

0:55:17.719 --> 0:55:19.600
<v Speaker 3>before they really talk to each other. It's sort of

0:55:19.600 --> 0:55:24.080
<v Speaker 3>like a little mini experiment to compare proto scientific development

0:55:24.080 --> 0:55:27.680
<v Speaker 3>to see how similar it was. But actually, before we gether,

0:55:27.760 --> 0:55:30.120
<v Speaker 3>you asked about like more recent developments. One of my

0:55:30.200 --> 0:55:32.640
<v Speaker 3>favorites is the discovery of X rays, which was you know,

0:55:32.760 --> 0:55:36.600
<v Speaker 3>essentially just accidental. Guy left a source on top of

0:55:36.640 --> 0:55:40.239
<v Speaker 3>a photographic sheet, came back over the weekend, found this thing,

0:55:40.680 --> 0:55:44.439
<v Speaker 3>He wrote it up, published it the next day, beat

0:55:44.520 --> 0:55:47.600
<v Speaker 3>some English guy by.

0:55:46.760 --> 0:55:48.759
<v Speaker 2>I got his wife to stick her hand in front

0:55:48.760 --> 0:55:49.000
<v Speaker 2>of it.

0:55:49.520 --> 0:55:53.880
<v Speaker 3>Exactly, and you know, made this discovery. And all the

0:55:53.920 --> 0:55:56.560
<v Speaker 3>tools were there, like people have been using uranium for

0:55:56.600 --> 0:55:59.600
<v Speaker 3>a long time, and we had photography for a while,

0:55:59.680 --> 0:56:01.799
<v Speaker 3>so you could have discovered that much much earlier. It

0:56:01.840 --> 0:56:05.799
<v Speaker 3>was really just an accident. And so I like to imagine, well,

0:56:05.840 --> 0:56:07.680
<v Speaker 3>what if we had what if we had made that

0:56:07.680 --> 0:56:11.200
<v Speaker 3>discovery decades or centuries earlier, because that discovery is what

0:56:11.360 --> 0:56:15.160
<v Speaker 3>kicked off like the Curees and their analysis of radiation,

0:56:15.800 --> 0:56:18.239
<v Speaker 3>and then you know Rutherford and his analysis of the

0:56:18.320 --> 0:56:21.840
<v Speaker 3>nucleus and like basically quantum mechanics right, that was the

0:56:21.920 --> 0:56:25.080
<v Speaker 3>moment that kicked off everything that led to quantum mechanics.

0:56:25.160 --> 0:56:27.920
<v Speaker 3>What if that had happened one hundred years earlier. What

0:56:28.120 --> 0:56:32.440
<v Speaker 3>if little Einstein was taught quantum mechanics in the crib,

0:56:33.040 --> 0:56:36.200
<v Speaker 3>then when he was developing his theory of general relativity,

0:56:36.760 --> 0:56:40.560
<v Speaker 3>would he have come up with some quantum version. I mean,

0:56:40.640 --> 0:56:44.400
<v Speaker 3>it's it's just one example, but it shows you how

0:56:44.719 --> 0:56:47.680
<v Speaker 3>randomness affects the development of our science and it could

0:56:47.680 --> 0:56:50.879
<v Speaker 3>have taken us on different paths. And so the fact

0:56:50.920 --> 0:56:54.560
<v Speaker 3>that we're stuck right now unifying quantum mechanics and gravity

0:56:54.960 --> 0:56:57.800
<v Speaker 3>and that even Einstein wasn't able to do it, maybe

0:56:57.800 --> 0:57:00.640
<v Speaker 3>it's because we started too late with quantu caad And

0:57:00.640 --> 0:57:04.920
<v Speaker 3>if quantum mechanics was more intuitive to the smarty pants

0:57:04.920 --> 0:57:06.840
<v Speaker 3>in the last one hundred years, maybe we would have

0:57:06.880 --> 0:57:10.759
<v Speaker 3>made more progress. Or maybe there's some other crazy and

0:57:10.880 --> 0:57:13.839
<v Speaker 3>kind of obvious discovery we haven't made yet and on

0:57:13.960 --> 0:57:16.680
<v Speaker 3>all the other earths they have and so they're like

0:57:16.840 --> 0:57:19.520
<v Speaker 3>way far ahead of us because we just haven't like

0:57:19.560 --> 0:57:23.560
<v Speaker 3>stumbled across XYZ, you know. Or maybe we're very far

0:57:23.600 --> 0:57:27.400
<v Speaker 3>ahead and most earths they're still using stone tools. Who knows,

0:57:27.480 --> 0:57:30.640
<v Speaker 3>but It would certainly affect what it's like to talk

0:57:30.680 --> 0:57:33.760
<v Speaker 3>to aliens. You know, are they on the same single

0:57:33.840 --> 0:57:36.920
<v Speaker 3>path that we are on? Are there multiple paths up

0:57:36.960 --> 0:57:38.960
<v Speaker 3>this sort of mountain to figure out the nature of

0:57:39.000 --> 0:57:41.960
<v Speaker 3>the universe? And where did their path diverge? You know,

0:57:42.040 --> 0:57:46.080
<v Speaker 3>did they start totally differently from us or do they

0:57:46.120 --> 0:57:49.600
<v Speaker 3>just like randomly discover things in a different order. Really

0:57:49.640 --> 0:57:52.160
<v Speaker 3>really fascinating to learn that, and so that's why I

0:57:52.240 --> 0:57:55.160
<v Speaker 3>dug into the sort of ancient history. You know, we're

0:57:55.200 --> 0:57:59.320
<v Speaker 3>the Mayans being mathematical. If the Mayans, for example, had

0:57:59.360 --> 0:58:03.800
<v Speaker 3>not been devastated by the Spanish, what would their mathematics

0:58:03.840 --> 0:58:06.480
<v Speaker 3>and science be like right now? That would be fascinating

0:58:06.560 --> 0:58:08.960
<v Speaker 3>to know. It's such a tragedy. You know, they might

0:58:09.040 --> 0:58:12.000
<v Speaker 3>have a very different way to think about the universe

0:58:12.040 --> 0:58:14.959
<v Speaker 3>and to express it. They certainly were on the road

0:58:15.000 --> 0:58:18.280
<v Speaker 3>to doing that when the Europeans got there. Their predictions

0:58:18.320 --> 0:58:21.560
<v Speaker 3>for like motions of stars and moons were more accurate

0:58:21.640 --> 0:58:25.960
<v Speaker 3>than the European predictions. So you know, we certainly lost

0:58:25.960 --> 0:58:26.880
<v Speaker 3>a whole thread there.

0:58:27.640 --> 0:58:30.480
<v Speaker 2>Okay, if your game for this, here's the part where

0:58:30.640 --> 0:58:33.600
<v Speaker 2>I would like you to speculate. I want you to

0:58:33.680 --> 0:58:37.440
<v Speaker 2>voice your hunches, if you have a guess or a

0:58:37.480 --> 0:58:41.600
<v Speaker 2>suspicion about what is most likely the limiting factor in

0:58:41.880 --> 0:58:46.080
<v Speaker 2>the original Drake equation, like which of those variables you

0:58:46.120 --> 0:58:48.440
<v Speaker 2>know may be multiple, but which of them is most

0:58:48.520 --> 0:58:51.400
<v Speaker 2>likely to be near zero and is the reason we're

0:58:51.400 --> 0:58:55.880
<v Speaker 2>not hearing from anybody? And then secondly, what do you

0:58:55.880 --> 0:58:59.360
<v Speaker 2>think is most likely to be the filter preventing the

0:58:59.480 --> 0:59:01.160
<v Speaker 2>alien physics conference?

0:59:02.480 --> 0:59:06.360
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, my hunch, again not scientifically, is that there's life

0:59:06.440 --> 0:59:09.280
<v Speaker 3>everywhere in the universe, that it's all over. You know

0:59:10.120 --> 0:59:14.400
<v Speaker 3>that maybe the fraction of planets that have life is small,

0:59:14.680 --> 0:59:18.000
<v Speaker 3>but it can't be that small. You know, it doesn't

0:59:18.040 --> 0:59:20.720
<v Speaker 3>seem like we're that special. So I think there's probably

0:59:20.800 --> 0:59:24.720
<v Speaker 3>at least microbial life everywhere. How often do you get

0:59:24.760 --> 0:59:28.480
<v Speaker 3>like complex multicellular life, I don't know. But still my

0:59:28.640 --> 0:59:31.640
<v Speaker 3>hunch is that the denominator is big enough to tolerate

0:59:31.640 --> 0:59:34.200
<v Speaker 3>a small fraction and that the final result is still

0:59:34.200 --> 0:59:36.360
<v Speaker 3>going to be large. So I'm going to imagine that

0:59:36.400 --> 0:59:41.080
<v Speaker 3>the universe is filled with technological aliens, and you know,

0:59:41.080 --> 0:59:43.840
<v Speaker 3>we haven't heard from them because we don't understand their signals,

0:59:44.320 --> 0:59:47.440
<v Speaker 3>or because you know, time and space have prevented them

0:59:47.440 --> 0:59:50.480
<v Speaker 3>from coming here or communicating with us. So I think that,

0:59:50.600 --> 0:59:54.160
<v Speaker 3>you know, we're starting from a good number. I think

0:59:54.200 --> 0:59:57.280
<v Speaker 3>that when they do arrive, that we are going to

0:59:57.320 --> 1:00:01.400
<v Speaker 3>be shocked by how human are so sciences. I mean,

1:00:01.440 --> 1:00:03.640
<v Speaker 3>I think I persuaded myself when I was writing this

1:00:03.680 --> 1:00:06.960
<v Speaker 3>book that there's a lot of assumptions we're making that

1:00:07.040 --> 1:00:09.240
<v Speaker 3>you know, they're not going to have coffee and croissants

1:00:09.240 --> 1:00:11.920
<v Speaker 3>for breakfast. They're going to be so much weirder than

1:00:11.960 --> 1:00:16.040
<v Speaker 3>we imagine, because even on Earth, life is always weirder

1:00:16.040 --> 1:00:20.960
<v Speaker 3>than we imagine, always discovering super weird, gunky stuff, and

1:00:21.120 --> 1:00:25.520
<v Speaker 3>so it's sort of it's really just hubris to imagine

1:00:26.000 --> 1:00:29.080
<v Speaker 3>that our way of thinking and our way of doing

1:00:29.120 --> 1:00:31.800
<v Speaker 3>things is the only way, is the best way to me.

1:00:31.840 --> 1:00:36.080
<v Speaker 3>It's equivalent to like geocentrism, you know, to put ourselves

1:00:36.080 --> 1:00:38.240
<v Speaker 3>at the center of the intellectual universe and say this

1:00:38.320 --> 1:00:40.560
<v Speaker 3>is the only way. And I'm looking forward to that.

1:00:41.120 --> 1:00:43.360
<v Speaker 3>I want my mind blown. I want it to be

1:00:43.440 --> 1:00:46.520
<v Speaker 3>bizarre and difficult. I wanted to take decades to understand

1:00:47.200 --> 1:00:50.680
<v Speaker 3>what they're even talking about and how they think about things,

1:00:50.720 --> 1:00:54.080
<v Speaker 3>because then we're going to learn something about ourselves, not

1:00:54.120 --> 1:00:57.280
<v Speaker 3>just the aliens. We're going to learn about what's unusual

1:00:57.320 --> 1:01:01.360
<v Speaker 3>about us. Where do we stand? Is weird about being human?

1:01:01.400 --> 1:01:03.160
<v Speaker 3>And it's going to help define what it means to

1:01:03.200 --> 1:01:05.600
<v Speaker 3>be human and to be a human scientist. This is

1:01:05.640 --> 1:01:07.560
<v Speaker 3>how we think about things, This is how we ask

1:01:07.560 --> 1:01:09.760
<v Speaker 3>about things. These are kind of answers that we find

1:01:09.880 --> 1:01:13.520
<v Speaker 3>satisfying and that we accept and don't ask more questions about.

1:01:13.600 --> 1:01:16.520
<v Speaker 3>And these are the things that drive us and make

1:01:16.600 --> 1:01:20.440
<v Speaker 3>us curious. You know, so I think, I hope, I

1:01:20.440 --> 1:01:23.440
<v Speaker 3>guess I have a hunch, and I hope that aliens

1:01:23.480 --> 1:01:27.000
<v Speaker 3>do science in a much weirder way than anybody imagines

1:01:27.120 --> 1:01:29.600
<v Speaker 3>that even is imagined in this book, right. I don't

1:01:29.600 --> 1:01:31.680
<v Speaker 3>claim that what we've described in this book spans the

1:01:31.720 --> 1:01:33.560
<v Speaker 3>whole space of ideas. I just want to give people

1:01:33.600 --> 1:01:36.520
<v Speaker 3>a flavor that there are many ideas out there that

1:01:36.600 --> 1:01:39.200
<v Speaker 3>we haven't even imagined because we might not have the

1:01:39.240 --> 1:01:42.160
<v Speaker 3>capacity to think outside of our little box.

1:01:43.000 --> 1:01:46.880
<v Speaker 2>The book is called Do Aliens Speak Physics? Daniel Whitson,

1:01:46.920 --> 1:01:48.600
<v Speaker 2>thank you so much for joining us today.

1:01:48.880 --> 1:01:52.440
<v Speaker 3>Thank you very much, super fun and conversation. Thank you.

1:01:54.560 --> 1:01:58.360
<v Speaker 2>All right, so much appreciation to Daniel Whitson, for joining

1:01:58.440 --> 1:02:02.240
<v Speaker 2>us today. The book Do As Speak Physics is slated

1:02:02.280 --> 1:02:05.440
<v Speaker 2>for release on November fourth, twenty twenty five, but you

1:02:05.480 --> 1:02:08.360
<v Speaker 2>can pre order your copy now. And if you want

1:02:08.360 --> 1:02:11.080
<v Speaker 2>to check out Daniel's podcast, it is called Daniel and

1:02:11.200 --> 1:02:16.160
<v Speaker 2>Kelly's Extraordinary Universe. If you're new to the show, Stuff

1:02:16.200 --> 1:02:19.000
<v Speaker 2>to Blow Your Mind is a science and culture podcast

1:02:19.120 --> 1:02:22.520
<v Speaker 2>with core episodes publishing on Tuesdays and Thursdays of every week.

1:02:22.720 --> 1:02:26.000
<v Speaker 2>Usually I'm joined by my regular co host, Robert Lamb

1:02:26.000 --> 1:02:29.320
<v Speaker 2>for those, and then also on Fridays we do a

1:02:29.320 --> 1:02:32.840
<v Speaker 2>different kind of show called Weird House Cinema, which is

1:02:32.920 --> 1:02:34.040
<v Speaker 2>just about weird movies.

1:02:34.280 --> 1:02:34.720
<v Speaker 3>They can be.

1:02:35.120 --> 1:02:38.880
<v Speaker 2>Old, new, good, bad, well known, or obscure. The only

1:02:38.920 --> 1:02:42.000
<v Speaker 2>real criterion is they've got to be weird, So we

1:02:42.040 --> 1:02:44.600
<v Speaker 2>do that on Fridays. On Wednesdays we usually have a

1:02:44.640 --> 1:02:48.880
<v Speaker 2>short form episode. On Saturdays and Mondays we feature older

1:02:48.960 --> 1:02:51.800
<v Speaker 2>episodes of the shows. You'll get a rerun of a

1:02:51.800 --> 1:02:54.600
<v Speaker 2>core episode from the Vault on Saturdays and a Weird

1:02:54.640 --> 1:02:57.280
<v Speaker 2>House Cinema rewind on Mondays.

1:02:58.480 --> 1:02:59.080
<v Speaker 3>Let's see.

1:02:59.440 --> 1:03:01.720
<v Speaker 2>If you would like to follow us on social media,

1:03:01.800 --> 1:03:04.760
<v Speaker 2>you can find us there. We're on I think most

1:03:04.800 --> 1:03:07.919
<v Speaker 2>of the major places, some we're called something like blow

1:03:08.000 --> 1:03:11.560
<v Speaker 2>the Mind or stuff to Blow your Mind, and I

1:03:11.560 --> 1:03:14.480
<v Speaker 2>guess that does it. So huge thanks as always to

1:03:14.600 --> 1:03:19.320
<v Speaker 2>our excellent audio producer JJ Posway, and today big thanks

1:03:19.320 --> 1:03:22.960
<v Speaker 2>again to Daniel Whitson for joining us. If you would

1:03:22.960 --> 1:03:24.920
<v Speaker 2>like to get in touch with us with feedback on

1:03:24.960 --> 1:03:27.440
<v Speaker 2>this episode or any other, to suggest a topic for

1:03:27.520 --> 1:03:30.360
<v Speaker 2>the future, or just to say hello, you can email

1:03:30.440 --> 1:03:41.880
<v Speaker 2>us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.

1:03:42.000 --> 1:03:44.960
<v Speaker 1>Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For

1:03:45.040 --> 1:03:47.800
<v Speaker 1>more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,

1:03:47.960 --> 1:04:01.400
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.

1:04:01.880 --> 1:04:03.040
<v Speaker 1>Ter ter ter ter