[00:00:44] Host Create clip coach man got his eyes with froth ground told of a monster called Captain Booth with the ship from the country, and they barely give someone else the money, Said the government, These people out problems that were never big would incite alarmingly fast. But people crashed on the grass. Nobody paid attention. Set your mind to imagine such a change of scene culture was strong and in fact, wait. Revolution made it happen.

[00:01:54] Host Create clip Hello, New York. My name is Robin Blunder on the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Thank you. So these organizations merged about two years ago because we had the same mission, which was to promote reason, science and humanism, the magic elixir of human progress. So the evidence based community has sort of taken a sucker punch lately, wouldn't you say? Um, newsgathering responsible journalism is fake news. We have expertise being denounced as as partisan dribble, fax or four are fake. Well, there's an antidote to that. And that is the Center for inquiry on the Richard Dawkins Foundation. So? So I'd like to know from the audience how many people here care about the separation of church and state. All right. And how many people here want to make sure that evolution is taught in science classrooms and not creationist

[00:03:20] Host Create clip drivel? Theo, how

[00:03:26] Host Create clip many people want to make sure that children are vaccinated entirely?

[00:03:32] Host Create clip All of us. And finally, how

[00:03:37] Host Create clip many think that it's about damn time that an open atheist was elected to political office? All right. Okay. You can say you inspect. So today, have a wonderful time tomorrow. Think about joining the Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation. You know, when the religious right wants to rally the troops, it gets millions of people responding. And we need a secular army. We need to be able to to challenge the power of the religious right, and we need your help to do it. So have a great time tonight. Join us tomorrow. And now I'd like to introduce the producer of the evening. Travis Pangburn. All right. How's it going, everybody? It's nice to see you all. What do you think of the space paths? Thank you. They kind of look like painter's pants. I'm sure from back there. Sorry about that. Um, yeah, I'm so excited to be in New York again. I just had to come out and say Thank you guys So much for supporting this event. Like it's becoming popular to think.

[00:04:50] Host Create clip Yeah, um, a couple quick announcements. We will have a Q and A about an hour and 15 into the talk, and we will do a book signing in the lobby. Brian and Richard will both be part of that. And, um what else? Okay, our next event that we have coming up very controversial event on November 17th. We're doing a conference here in New York City. You can find out more about that on our website at payment philosophy dot com. Hope you guys come and check it out. We have a lot of great speakers. The topics are very controversial. The first topic of the evening is has me to gone too far. So that kind of sets the stage for what kind of a conference is going to be so hope you guys join us for that again. Payment philosophy dot com and then Matt Delahunty. How many of you guys have heard about Delahunty? Nice. Well, those you don't know Check out Matt Delahunty he's going to be going head to head for the first time with Danish to Souza on. Yeah, denounced the Susan socks on November 29th and s o come out to that. That's gonna be at the Town Hall Theatre here in New York City. It's gonna be a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to that. You should check out the video of Matt Delahunty and Jordan Peterson that we have on our YouTube channel. That's one of our highest training videos, and that's gonna give you a taste of what that event's gonna be like, I think on and then also on December 6, back at Town Hall Theatre. Um, we will have Steven Pinker and Matt Delahunty having a conversation. So I hope you guys come out for that. Uh, anyways, that's way more than enough for for me. Please welcome to the stage, Richard Dawkins and Brian Greene.

[00:06:44] Host Create clip So it's a pleasure to be here tonight. Richard. Welcome back to New York and welcome everybody here to tonight's conversation. Um, just to sort of get things going. You're Richard. We spoke. I guess it was in 2014. We had a conversation that was at 92nd Street. Why? And I could be wrong. But I got the impression from that conversation that you were doing a lot of a lot of work, A lot of self reflection to try toe come to terms with their own religiosity. No, on dhe, but that's exactly right. So you came out with a very strong position on that. But, you know, as as time goes by, people get older. Sometimes their view shifts. If you just give me a yes or no on this. Has anything changed in that regard since we last spoke? Absolutely not. No. Can you hear me? I don't think you can. And you? Yes. I think we, uh could somebody fix it? You know, we don't know each other that well, but, um, you know, this is how you get to know the person that you're gonna be conversing with. You just get that right in there.

[00:08:01] Host Create clip Is that tight? It's the second time it's come off. I think that's good. Right? Well, let's try to go with that and see how they go. Okay, Good. So anyway, so, um, so nothing's changed? No, thank God. That's great. Um, and you know, the You know, when I think about the big questions, I tend to organize them into origin of the universe, origin of life and origin of mind. I'm actually teaching a course with that Seema Columbia. And we read the selfish gene this term as part of that. I hadn't read it since I was in college. So, you know, spectacular To to reengage with the wonderful book that you gave the world a question came up in the class, All right. And, um, I would like to check with you to see if the answer I gave makes makes sense. And along with your thinking. So the question a couple of kids asked. Look, we read this book and we get a very clear sense of of evolution, you know, the gene as the basic unit of heredity, But we're still left with the question, What is life and had life get started. So my response to that which some of them found quite, um unsatisfying, is that that's not as precise a question as you think, right? I mean, in some sense, trying to draw the line between animate and inanimate and trying to have a very precise definition ultimately amounts to words, right? It's a continuum from from inanimate toe animate. And once we have the molecular Darwinism in place, rolling forward life just emerges in that continuum. So my question to you, is that a reasonable way of describing I think it is.

[00:09:47] Host Create clip I think, that there's a greater tendency in the human mind to try to draw lines and try to whether whether is a spectrum Ms Summers, there really is a line, but in other cases, there isn't, and we should not insist that there has to be a line. Well, in the case of life, I suppose you could sort of see a kind of line when the first self replicating entity came into existence, because that was the moment when natural selection and hence Darwinian evolution could start. You can't get natural select unless you've got something equivalent to a gene. So the first gene, which would not have bean DNA, by the way, but for the first gene, um, would be a kind of watershed event, I suppose. But I agree with you. We don't get too hung up on the questions of definition, which didn't like a definition of life as a button on life right, which demand a particular moment in which life came into it. And when you say first gene in that context, can I think of it as the first molecule that discovers this capacity for making copies of itself? Period? Yes, making copies of itself. And that would include making copies of errors in itself, right? So that has to be variety in the population of these replicating entities. The reason, I say wouldn't have bean DNA is that DNA has been described as, ah, hi tech Replicator that requires a rather complicated infrastructure off biochemistry in orderto do its replication.

[00:11:22] Host Create clip So people in the field agree that the first Replicator would not have bean DNA would have been something else that had property of self replication probably much less efficient at it than DNA and DNA would have bean a late usurper off that role could have been, are in a And do you think it was our name? I don't know that that's a current fashionable idea. That, and the reason it's fashionable, is that, um, as you know, there's a kind of divide in biochemistry between the protein, which actors enzyme and the variety of enzymes, which is the key to everything that goes on in in life. The fact that the three dimensional form off a protein molecule when it coils up into a sort of not, which gives it its enzymatic properties. And that is determined by the, um, one dimensional sequence of a minor acids, which in turn is determined by the one dimensional sequence off DNA. Um, so there's this double act between DNA and protein. DNA is not an enzyme. It's an excellent replicator. Protein is an excellent enzyme but cannot replicate, uh, are in a is kind of moderate of both.

[00:12:48] Host Create clip So if our if it started off with our Rene, that could have done both. The enzyme role was in our DNA is a kind of rather bad enzyme and the kind of rather bad replication. But it can do both roles. And so the idea is, then the DNA would have come in and use up the replication row and protein, then came in and use up the enzyme role. So how, how big, how big a molecule do you imagine this first Replicator would be? I suppose it would be quite small with the 1st 1 right? I mean, I don't know. I mean, this is this is a kn active field off. Well, I suppose research, but very speculative, right? Because, you know, you'll see people making the argument that whatever molecule you put forward as the 1st 1 if it has some degree of complexity associated with it, you can then ask yourself, you know, what are the odds that molecule warm and when that number is necessarily quite small? Some people see attention with the natural nous of the process and the unlikelihood that would happen. So how do you answer that? Well, it is a field where there is no answer yet and people are not are not confident off it.

[00:14:07] Host Create clip Their various problems with the so called Catch 22 do you can't get DNA without protein and vice versa. Right there. There are other problems with it. Some people have favored what they call a hyper cycle where there are various stages in the in a chain and each stage give rise to the next. And that is no. One molecule is the is the key replicated. The entire hyper cycle is the key is the is the Replicator, but it's it's not a field which has been sold. It's not a question which has been answered. Um, it is still conceivable that the origin off life, the origin of self replication, the origin of natural selection was a stupendously improbable event right on. The corollary of that would be that there's no other life in the universe. Put it the other way. If you want to believe that there is only one life form in the universe which you're entitled to do, Um then it a corral ary of that is that the origin of life on this planet must have bean a base fantastically improbable events. So much so that any theory we come up with has got to be a very implausible theory because if it were plausible that there would be life all over the universe, which I suspect there probably is, I'm just saying that if you want to believe that life only arose once, then what you're looking for in a theory of the origin of life is not a plausible theory such as you could replicate in the chemistry lab. So, I mean, they're so there is a lot of evidence that all life on Earth comes from a common single felt. And yes, they have evidence for that is is that the DNA code is all about universally the same in every living form that's ever been examined. And the odds of that coming about convergent Lee is extremely low. So I think just about everybody is convinced that every single life form, at least those that have been looked out, descends from a common ancestor because it's got the same machine code at its base.

[00:16:21] Host Create clip Does that strike you as as a puzzle or just something that we need? No, I don't think it's a puzzle. I mean, it could be that more than one life form arose originally, we just don't say that and we did, Ondas Darwin said. Originally, Darwin said, one of them it up, all the others, right, that that's a possibility. Paul Davis, your physics colleague um, things is worth looking to see if there are other life forms that just they maybe around on Earth, but never bean Bean found. I liken that to the looking for your keys under the lamppost when somebody lost his keys, and so he's looking under under the lamppost for the keys. And somebody else asked him Why you looking under the lamppost? Is that where you lost your keys? No, but that's where the light is. So, uh, if you're asking the question is there life elsewhere in the universe? We can't go elsewhere in the universe yet. It's very difficult for the universe. Can't come to us. And some have suggested that maybe the origin of life in some may have come here on a on a meteor humbled off Mars. Well, that's not so implausible as it was once thought to be patents of the theory of panspermia invented by a Swedish sweetest biologist called a radius of about a century ago. Now Andi was espoused by Fred Hoyle, the astronomer, Very distinguished astronomer. Level it.

[00:17:53] Host Create clip He kind of went to drift a bit on evolution. Anyway, um, directed panspermia is it is a war farfetched idea, which was actually favorite, I think a bit tongue in cheek. I mean, they're actually someone centers. See, Francis Crick, the great co discoverer of the structure of DNA, together with Leslie Orgel, suggested that, um, we left our planet. Could have been deliberately seeded by an alien civilization. I think it was a joke. I mean, they they sort of presented it as though it was a serious theory. But so So when you consider the rich spectrum of life on Earth that all say arose from this singular starting point do you find that the the range is sensible relative to the environment that life found itself trying to adapt to? Or do you find it strange that we don't have beings with, you know, nine eyes or eyes at work under completely different principles? Or, I don't know, some being that would be sensitive to gravitational waves. Yes, you know that I'm very fascinated by that kind of question, and you couldn't get a long way by looking around the animal kingdom and asking how many times different things have evolved and you couldn't work out how many times they live, all because you couldn't work out what the tree of life actually is. You know which animals or close relations of which.

[00:19:29] Host Create clip So we know, for example, that there are, I think it's nine different principles of eyes, different route ways of doing doing the optics on the eyes have evolved independently several dozen times. One estimate is is more than 40 times. So I is actually evolved with great ease, with great frequency on dear, all sensitive to the same part of the spectrum, because that's exactly the same. But it's overlapping, right? Insect eyes move toward the ultraviolet, for example. Um, but it's nice to think that all the ways of making an eye that physicists have thought off have Bean thought off by evolution. Um, in rather interesting ways. I mean, the the compound I works in a totally different way from the camera I which is what? Which is what we have. There are molluscs which have a a reflector. I a parabolic reflector. You mean like a radio dish out there? Yeah, but but optical wow s. So, um, that their scallops that have what have that? Um and there's lots of different kinds of compound I a lot of different kinds of camera. I they've evolved independently. Other things like, say, echolocation, navigating by sono by by sound waves that's evolved four times independently in bats, whales and two different families of birds in the cave dwelling birds independently. So that's rather more reluctant to evolve But nevertheless, it has evolved more than once that some things have evolved only once. And so you feel that improbable things, right? So so in trying to understand the likelihood or not of the emergence of life in the effort to try to gain some insight into the question that you made reference to whether we're alone or there's other life out there in the universe. You know, sometimes people write down this thing is Drake Equation, which I Every time I see it, I always feel like it's It's misrepresenting the situation because it's not so much an equation describing the actual likelihood of theorizing of life. It's more a way of encapsulating our ignorance of old variety qualities of the universe that we really don't have any insight into. So any number that comes out of it is really just totally dependent on the ignorance that we have regarding the numbers that go into it. But be that as it may, when when you think about that, life may have just started. Once on this planet, does that diminish your expectation that the search for extra tests trust your life, will be successful? We can't escape for the fact that it did arise on this.

[00:22:20] Host Create clip That's a it's a wet. So it's a sample size of wants and what you do with that I would love another one. I mean, because we just don't know. And I'm very intrigued by the question. How much off? What we know about this, this form of life? Yeah, had to be so because there's only one way for it to be. For example, does that have to be something like a gene? I think the answer is yes. Does it have to be me just because you need something to care? Team doesn't have to be a one dimensional array doesn't have any digital right? I think that probably has to be digital digital because otherwise errors were too much too much air. Or does it have to be one dimensional string of data which DNA is? I don't think that's clear. I could imagine a two dimensional matrix right which could be read, not three dimensional because you can't get inside the right that the three dimensional blob. So that's kind of question doesn't have to be sex. Would you expect to get eyes? I bet you get eyes because Because I have happened so many times. Presumably if it was a star that admitted strongly in a completely different part of the spectrum that sensitive there something of that sort? Yes. Exactly. So, um, so it leads to the question that if you had your choice in some sense, as to what we would find if we encountered life in another world, would you want it to be the same in order that you would have a unified theory of life in some sense, Or would you rather it be different so that now you just see this grand spectrum A possibility with us just being one of men, it I'd be delighted by either. I mean, if if it if it were, if it were too similar. If, for example, you found life on Mars and it was DNA based on the DNA code was the same right that it's probably the same. Got to be contamination, right? Because we know we know that that would mean we're Martians. It could have come from their way. We know that a lot of meteorites have come from from Mars, But if it's, um if it were dear name of a different DNA code.

[00:24:37] Host Create clip That would be rivetingly exciting, right? If it were not DNA, but something likes you knitted another. Um Ah, polymer. Um, gosh, it would be fascinating. Yeah, Amazing. Um, I would be the most exciting discovery ever, actually, to find to find something like like, that way, As you say, we've got a sample of one life on this planet is uniforms at the biochemical level. Even even great big creatures like us. We do our biochemistry quite largely, using tricks that were discovered. Bye. Primordial bacteria. And in many of them are in us doing the same trick we just commandeered. Yeah, no, be exciting. Almost exciting is drink theory. Come on to that. Yeah, but So So? So, you know, as we enter an age when we can begin to actually tinker with the actual structure of life's a crisper cast nine. Um, do you imagine that we'll be able to gain some insight into these questions in the laboratory as a baby, and I would, but I'm ever meet a biochemist. I was asked them, Can you imagine an alternative biochemistry could construct an alternative biochemistry or if you can't constructed at least imagine it. Um, does it have to be carbon based, for example? I think the answer. That is probably yes. Would you agree with that? Well, I mean, carbon is certainly the natural. Go to species. If I didn't know anything about life and you gave me a list of criterion that you want have a very active molecule, You wanted to be ableto bond with all sorts of other molecules. The environment you want it to be, Ah, species. It's commonplace so that it's not a rare species that we deal with, but there are other pretty active species to Well, silicon is Mason right for his element, which which could could possibly do the same job. Right? Um but, um, I asked Harry Kroto famous. Okay, sure. Yeah.

[00:26:43] Host Create clip And he he's confident it will be that they have to be carving bears come. But that leaves a lot of freedom. Nevertheless, I mean, even even within carbon with with inorganic chemistry, enormous freedom that to devote, devise alternative by chemistry's right. Now you do think that there will come a point when we just can create life from scratch in the laboratory? I mean, is that in our future. Yes, I think so. Yes. Well, Craig Venter has already created sort of replicate way produce the same thing, but ah, yes, so so. And if you want to save a Craig has done just thio. Well, um, he has recreated a particular bacterium from scratch. Um, but it's it is just it just one that already existed. But if you could do that, then you could theoretically create one that doesn't exists already on DDE eso. And from that I suppose you could he might even go ahead, go on to multi cellular right life. And so, you know, this is obviously this is an exciting possibility. Does it? Scarier.

[00:28:02] Host Create clip It excites me more than it scares me. I I'm just fascinated by it and by the possibilities. So I'm Ah, I do think we have to exercise a precautionary principle. And have you had How would you imagine doing that? As you know, Sydney Brenner, great molecular biologist person. Yeah. Keep the lid on your Petrie dish. Well, screwed down. Yeah, you know, but any any, You know, uh, criterion and restrictions you place in this country or in your car, right? I mean, this is not a worldwide type of No. So but there have been attempts. I mean, there was there was a meeting of molecular biologists at one point devise a kind of moratorium list of things that you mustn't do. And I get it held for a while. Um, but, uh, yeah, I mean, I suppose a greater, more present worry would be if the techniques of creating or varying microorganisms were to fall into the wrong hands. I mean, biological warfare has bean experimented on by some of the great powers. And if that if the techniques fell into the hands of terrorists, it, especially the terrorists for religious reasons, want to die and therefore don't care whether they destroy the world right it is.

[00:29:38] Host Create clip I think that's probably more of a worry than the kind of thing you were raising right of creating life. But the but the bottom line then, um, summary, if I hear you correctly, is you would agree prism of the statement that whatever 100 years or 500 years from now, people will look back at this era and sort of smile at the mystery that we once thought was embedded in life. And it will just be another concoction of chemicals that happens to be able to carry out certain processes and people will shrug as opposed to revere this entity that forms, at least on this planet. I suppose it's a lit if there's a lesson from history that we always want to look back on earlier eras and fuel that way. Yes, well, I mean, you know, at the end of the you know, 19 century, there's a famous statement in physics. I'm sure you're familiar with Lord. Kelvin is usually credited with saying it. It's unclear that he actually did that. You know, all the laws of physics were worked out. Except, you know, this or that constant of nature that need to be evaluated to the six or seven decimal place and course that was before the discovery of special relativity. General relativity, quantum mechanics of spectacularly wrong spectacular for excited. Yes, but do you? I think it's possible that there is a discovery. Ah, Faiza, step on par, say with quantum mechanics, which for physicists is the revered step in our understanding of the natural world that were completely missing right now is a different kind of precautionary principle. you got to pay precautionary about what you say and not fall into the Lord Kelvin era, right? I think it was Lord Kelvin. Author said, um, radio will turn out to be a hoax.

[00:31:29] Host Create clip And, um, what else did you say? I don't know if I know that one. Hey, said, um uh, heavier than air flight is impossible. Um, uh, you're really taking my hero and just cut the legs out when he was a great physicist for his time. But he also he also gave Darwin some grief because I opened a can of worms. He gave Darwin some grief because he calculated that the sun was too young to have allowed time for evolution. And that's because he thought the sun was a fire burning, burning fuel, um, and had no way of knowing the sun is a nuclear reactor. And and so Darwin was in intimidated because physics was was the senior science. And so in a way, Kelvin kind of came a bit heavy on Darwin and said, Well, physics proves evolution not possible. What Darwin should have said, Well, the evidence revolution is overwhelming. So your physics must be wrong to check. Yeah, So, um, you know, if we go from from life to intelligence, your conscious self awareness, There's a similar collection of puzzles, obviously different in detail, but revered by many through the centuries. And in the modern era, you know, David Chalmers is famous, you know, down in my, you know, famous for articulating the so called hard problem of consciousness, right? The problem that if matter is all there is matter and field. And if electrons and quarks and the entities that they built up protons and neutrons if they have no inner world if the lights aren't on inside an electron, if it has no inner sensation of 1/3 person account precisely described what's going on with an electron, there's nothing else. How could it possibly be that when these particles swirled together, they somehow generate an inner sensation, a quality that simply is absent at the level the fundamental ingredients? So you know, he was dividing up the problems in neuroscience and brain signs into those that have to do with the mechanism the function of the brain, which ultimately can be difficult to work out. But it's clear what to do to figure out what's going on when you know my arm goes up and down. What sort of brain signals are making that happen? But he considered a qualitatively different question to be the one that I was referring to. Namely, how can the lights turn on you? Do you see that distinction? Well, I always invest myself baffled by it. I mean, I I do. You see, it is a deep is a profoundly difficult problem. I am committed to the view that there is nothing there other than physics. There's nothing there other than a CZ. You say atoms and electrons.

[00:34:38] Host Create clip And what is what? I mean, I grieve you, but where does that sensibility come from? Is it based on evidence? Um, I suppose it comes from the feeling that, um, as an evolutionist, we start with physics, and then we get chemistry and we get a process. Darwinian natural selection, which gradually builds up nervous system. Step by step, they get more and more complicated. Um, I cannot understand. I can't because he any other way. But that, um could that be even limited mental acuity and creative powers? I think it has to be that, but I, um I mean, I'm more curious to know what you think. But as a as a physicist, I thought I was asking the question. No, it's good. No, no way. Actually, we're going to go back and forth on questions and, um, I I agree. I can't imagine that there's something beyond Schrodinger's equation of quantum mechanics and the interactions of particles that's going on inside this physical structure inside of my head.

[00:35:56] Host Create clip But I still feel deeply puzzled by how it is that I can sit here and have this this inner world. Everything that we do in physics and think signs more generally is so focused on the third person account, we can look out objectively, see data in the world, find the patterns in the data, articulate the patterns and mathematical equations used a mathematical equation to predict what's gonna happen next, or the probability of what's gonna happen next in a quantum mechanical framing. And that's what we do. We never have this turn inward to try toe have that same kind of rigor and description of what's happening inside of our heads Now, what David Chalmers says is, he says, that's that's That's not just a small issue. That's a huge issue. If I understand what he's saying correctly, he's saying, we perhaps are missing a side of the story, which would endow perhaps electrons and quartz and other particles would the degree of proto consciousness. Maybe there's something beyond mass in charge and spin. Maybe there's something there. And only by taking to account that quality that we've been missing can a lot of those particles yield the sensations that we're all having. Right now it starts to sound dangerously like Deepak Chopra. If you're looking well, I'll tell David that you said that. I mean, I've also intrigued by philosophers thought experiments where they say things like Imagine that you could make an exact copy of your everything atom of your view of you. And there are. And, um, they're two of you standing side by side. Which one? Which one is yours? I have no doubt that they're both Yes, but then But then presumably what? You would have the same consciousness. Same. But then they would just drift. There was Dr Drift. Drift apart would be two of me. You know, I'm not sure that's such a good thing for the world, but Yeah, that that's That's, uh, on that question. I feel I feel sick cure in saying that, Uh, obviously, if one day we can do this, it will be the best way to find out but part of that sensibility for me. And I'm wondering if it's the same for you. I don't think that consciousness has to take place inside a particular physical structure. You know, the human brain of the brain of any other, any other animal. You know, I think that once you replicate the function, you've replicated the experience. Do you? Yeah. And I mean, I think if you if you could somehow upload everything into a computer that that that also would have to have our consciousness and but the's, I agree with David Chalmers. It is the hard problem, and it's certainly too hard for me, but I'm But I wouldn't take the leap to say that. Therefore, something like, you know, every atom must have a little smidgen of consciousness, right? Something like, No, I don't think he took that step without ah, great deal of difficulty was basically banging into every possible avenue that he pursued for many years and and it almost felt like there was no other place to turn.

[00:39:04] Host Create clip And having not gone through the journey that he and others who spend their lives trying to figure out consciousness have gone through. It's hard to know whether I, or perhaps even you, would feel the same way after hitting wall after wall after wall. But it's certainly the case that, um um, even on planet Earth, where we discuss that life may have had a unique origin, the arising of intelligence and conscious self awareness that also seems to have been a miraculously improbable event that allowed that to happen. Yes, I mean, what if the meteor hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs? I mean, would we all be sitting here and we'd all be dinosaurs and having this conversation? Or would we never have gotten to that place? I suspect not. I mean, I think I think that there were lots of dinosaurs around with it, but it's it's think it's a I think it's a it's a major step. We were talking about whether the origin of life was a big step, and perhaps itwas s o. We don't know that, but I said that was a Kerala re off whether we think there's life elsewhere. So so it might be swarms or over the universe of bacterial job life. But if we ever discovered at life elsewhere, it would have to be by radio waves coming in.

[00:40:23] Host Create clip And that means it would have to be technologically sophisticated life. And that means would have to have overcome another barrier so that the barrier from bacterial level life, maybe there are several intermediate ones, and then up to the kind of life that's capable of producing radio waves that we can detect right so long, if it's far enough away, if it's near enough by in principle, we could is enough. By God, I'm suspecting that's probably not. I suspect that if we ever do discover extraterrestrial life, it will be by city by by. In that case, we have the question. Do we have a second barrier or maybe 1/3 or fourth barrier, right? Pretty produce the sort of intelligence we don't have to get into consciousness. I mean, it could be unconscious, but But if you talk to work, so be good. But if it can produce radio signals and that that's a that's a much more mundane question, then the question of whether whether the lighters there, the consciousness, lightest terms So do you think you mean, if we if we discovered life that's not intelligent, wouldn't make much of a difference Ultimately toe life here. I mean, it would be exciting moment and so on, But with it, then you know, you know, we have what you used to be that you had ah, week you saw in the 24 hour news cycle. Now it's like every 10 minutes. So would this be like from 10 30 10 34 bacteria found on Mars and then by 11 Trump would do something else and forget about it.

[00:41:54] Host Create clip I like to think that it that it would change the way we think about our own life, but it maybe maybe it wouldn't. I think it really would if we if we were contacted by intelligent life forms us. But especially as if it was intelligent enough to get it signals here, it would have to be a lot higher level than us on. So we would be that we would have a lot more to learn from them. Then they would learn from arson so right that really ought to shake our confidence and Shakaar, you know, if it was for our way, it would be a pretty slow conversation. You couldn't have a conversation. That's right. But you could listen to them, right? So? So let's say we did have this conversation going. Let's say we get over the barrier. Somehow we learn how to communicate with each other and fancifully, let's imagine that the competition has more quickly than 500 years or so. Let's put all that to the side for just a second. Uh, which is certainly a technical detail.

[00:42:53] Host Create clip Could you imagine that the logic by which this intelligent extraterrestrial society lived and thought and work and created would be fundamentally different from the logic? Here? I love that question. I mean, I know you've heard this before. Well, frequently asked, you feel so hackneyed. I thought it was a good question. I love it. I mean, um, clearly they would have Pythagoras is serum. They would have, uh, numbers. They'd have geometry they'd have. But I'm like you. I'm curious to know whether they'd have a completely different kind of, um, question that we don't We don't have because there are in mathematics. You probably familiar where different kinds of logics. Yes. And you know, uh, they're they're interesting. Mathematically, people study these logics. You know, there's, you know, multi varied logic where it's not just true or false, it can be somewhere between. Yeah, there's subject quantum logic, which in some sense is modeled on quantum mechanics, where, you know, it's not just the particles here or over here, but it's, you know, some quantum mechanical mixture of the two. So so is it conceivable that one of those or some other kind of logic would would yield a kind of engagement with the universe that's utterly distinct from ours? Well, it's sometimes suggested that the the way in which we think which is not the way quantum theorists think with the way people think older people think, um is dictated by what that necessary kind of logic that you need in order to survive on the African plains. Yes, on DSO when you're when you're a medium sized object hunting other medium sized objects on moving at medium speeds, then you need a different kind of logic. Then if if somehow you could imagine that we were shrunk to the quantum live level. We would have a different kind of right now you can well imagine that some very forward thinking one of our remote ancestors who's out there in this Vanna and actually thinking about quantum mechanics got eaten. Right? So So that's why uh, you know, takes so much dedicated effort for us, too.

[00:45:23] Host Create clip Figure out these quantum laws, because it's not built into our evolutionary structure, didn't have any survival value. Presumably, that's a reasonable way of thinking about it. Yes, I mean, that's kind of what I meant, but not why should that in those terms, I I mean, I'm I'm curious to ask a an advanced theoretical physicist, which is I don't often get the opportunity, but the weirdness, the sheer utter, utter, mind numbing weirdness of quantum theory. Um, do you Are you one of those physicists who, as it were, takes that in your stride and says, Well, I don't actually, I can't conceptualize it, but the mathematics works, and so I and the predictions that it produces are verified by experiment. And so in some sense, it's got to be true. Or do you lie awake at night? wishing you could understood. Perhaps you doing until you understand that, Uh, well, I don't feel I understand it in the same way that I understand tables and players in a classical experiential perspective. And I do wish that I had quantum mechanical reasoning in my bones. I think I would engage with the universe in an erratically different and quite wonderful way. I mean, look, we all know if I you know, I won't do it. But if I took this and I tossed it to you, you put out your hand. You knew Catch it. Which is an amazing thing because you didn't do the Newtonian calculation of the trajectory, Molly sort of felt it in your bones. And you put your hand there. You catch it. So it's so mundane. But it's so wondrous that we're able to do it, and it just shows the power of imbibing the rules that are relevant on the scale at which survival takes place. And I wish I had that same quality when it came to a new electron in a hydrogen atom that I could just sort of feel the s orbital. And I could feel, you know, the p orbital like being my bones. Right? So if you ask me some question about the hydrogen atom, I wouldn't have to go calculate. I would just sort of be able to do what you do when you put a charm and catch the bottle. So So I don't have that. I wish that I did At the same time. I certainly do use the mathematics to gain a confidence with the ideas. You asked me a question and it doesn't, you know, send me scurrying for cover it because I'm like, Okay, I don't know, really fully had to think about that, but how to set it up? I know to solve the equation. I know how to interpret the mathematics because it's been going on for 80 90 years, and that gives me at least some semblance that I know what's going on. But it isn't in this same intuitive, deep, intuitive way, and that that is a strange way to live, right? You live, you know, is a physicist. You know, your career, whatever. 30 40 50 years, and most of the time, you kind of don't really know what's going on.

[00:48:18] Host Create clip I mean, do your colleagues do? Do any of your colleagues claim toe have built into their bones, so to speak, or do they all Except pretty much what you've said? You know, um, I don't know that I've ever heard anybody really say that. Well, actually, no. There is one. He came over to dinner. Uh, my wife is here. Summer Trace. Remember? Andy Strominger came over to our apartment of Harvard Physicist, and he was really angry at me for saying what I just said in Puppy. Sought in some version of this in some conversation. And he said, You're giving the wrong impression of quantum mechanics. We fully understand it. I was like, Andy, like, what do you really mean by that? But he would remember. That was We have the equations. We have the math. We do. The couch is just what you have it anyway. So I don't know that he would say that he has a job that you I believe that he did not say they had the deep, intuitive understanding, but, um, most people who think deeply about quantum mechanics even say that it's in incomplete subject is currently formulated. We do not know how to go from the fuzzy probabilistic mixtures of the reality that the math is telling us about. The electron is 50% here and 50% there and is in some sort of fuzzy mixture of the two. But yet when we measure the position of the electron, we always find it here. We always find it there. So somehow a transition happens from the fuzzy probabilistic reality to the single definite reality of common experience. And we don't have an equation for that. We just say it happens. Or I should say, people have proposed equations for we have no idea if they're right. Well, shredding a ridiculed the the Copenhagen interpretation with these cats famous. Yeah, Phil, right, thought experiment. Um, and I'm aware that, um, there are others who talk about the many worlds interpretation. I will say it in terms of shredding his cap. There are there are worlds in which the cat is alive and there are other worlds in which the cat is dead.

[00:50:20] Host Create clip That that seems to me to be. Although a hideously unpacked Simoni a swell looking at things. Nevertheless, it's not totally ridiculous the way the Copenhagen deputation, right? Yes, just quickly to the Copenhagen interpretation just says, Hey, uh, we don't understand the process, But here's an algorithm. Here's a procedure. Follow the procedure, or is it usually described? Shut up and calculate Right? That's the summary of the Copenhagen approach. That's not a that's not a theory of physics, right? That that's a set of instructions, I thought in terms of of the Capt satire, so to speak. Yes, the Copenhagen interpretation would say the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box. Which, yes, that's what I'm saying. The algorithm is open the box? Yes, and at that moment, one of the two happens, you know. Does it happen? I don't know. But it happens. We see it happen. Now that's a little bit of, Ah, cartoon description. There have been more refined versions of this story, called D coherence that have been developed over the decades, so it's not like it's stagnant, but it's not really a theory. It was instead of rules. But let me just quickly the one point that you did make about the many worlds UNP, arson, moughniyah CE, and you really need to bring the right barometer that there are many many worlds would be that there are lots of worlds in which the cat is alive and other worlds in which the cat is dead. And that's right. So the many worlds basically says, If quantum mechanics says that this can happen and this can happen and that can happen with some probabilities, then actually, all three do happen. They all happen in their own separate world, So every outcome allowed by quantum physics takes place. Now that sounds incredibly uneconomical, right? The world is just becoming the landscape around. It's coming larger and larger, with all these distinct realities allowed by the unfolding of quantum mechanics. But here's the point.

[00:52:13] Host Create clip It is the most parsimonious theory. When you look at the mathematics, yes, so the equation is pristine and sharp. And if you stare at that equation long enough, this is where the equation takes. You're thinking if you just literally look at the symbols and say, What are those symbols telling me? Whereas all the other approaches at another equations, other ideas, baggage and that sort. So if he used the art, stick up the number of universes out of control. If used yardstick of the mathematics, it is a simple as it can possibly be like. That's good. Um, by the way, have you see It was a lovely New Yorker cartoon of, ah, vets waiting room, and the people were standing around with their dogs and cats. Some things, and the the nurse is coming coming up and talking to a gentleman sitting there and saying about your cat, Mr. Shredding, I have some good news and some bad news. Yeah, it's very nice. So So I'm glad you asked about quantum mechanics because it does give a sense of how our intuition can completely mislead us. The things that our intuition tells us our true or false may not even be describable in that language. In the quantum world, it could be a mixture of both, and that is a fundamental layer of reality that our way of thinking about the world is not tuned into, not tapped into. If you're trained quantum physicists, you can work it out as we're describing, but intuitively, it's just sort of not there. So I guess the question that comes from that sort of relevant to other things that that you're famously talk about, what what does that tell you about the nature of truth. I mean, you spend a lot of time important time going out into the world as an advocate for truth. And we all know what that means in sort of everyday scales. But if we can be a little bit more expansive and are thinking here, does this disjuncture between the truth at the level of fundamental physics and the truth of level of intuition? Excuse me for that spittle that just went halfway across the state does Does that distinction give you any part where we came into this by talking about, um, if if martians had a different kind of yeah, to what extent is our conception of logic untruth governed by the the what's necessary in order to survive on this? And if for some reason you need a different kind of logic to survive on Mars or or Alfa Centauri a somewhere, would we have a different conception of truth? I the day he was trying to be talking about this with fake truth and post truth. Yeah, um, I I said I think of myself as a za naive realist. I mean, I think there is such a thing as truth.

[00:55:17] Host Create clip But quantum weirdness does worry me on. But I'd like to think that although, um, our view of the world is no doubt shaped by the need to survive in, as I said in In In in Africa to hunting buffalos and things Um, I think I want to say that is such a thing as objective truth. I hate the idea that which we hear from some academic circles. I don't know. Truth is a social construct. Yeah, that does make well. Well, obviously I would agree that when it comes to the fact of the matter about the electrons magnetic dipole moment, right, that's a number that quantum mechanics predicts We got measured, they agree, digit by digit by digit 9 10 ditch down the road and that does I feel like it qualifies is truth in some way or close extremely close approximation of truth. But when we go to sort of higher levels, I guess I feel worried about scientists going out into the road and you write is a very curious time because, you know, we're meant to be out there proclaiming the facts about the world in the facts about the matter in the truth of the world. But with my experience in realms that air so different from the truth that we normally talk about everyday life, it gives me some pause.

[00:56:54] Host Create clip Can you make me feel better about that A little bit? No, because I live in a more naive. I mean, I live in a sin, a simpler world and, uh, of objective. Truth is, is something that, but that we all live live with in our everyday lives and that that's the That's the world in which we evolved and so that I don't have that difficulty. I'm just kind of aware. And I have difficulty not just in the quantum field. And I mean, there are other parts of physics which upset me as well. Well, well in because it would help if I can cosmology, for example. And I, um I read that the big bang a bit that that at the moment of the Big Bang, everything was compressed, not it just into a small volume, but into an infinitely small volume, like I mean, that's what worries me. I don't like you. I mean, I could I'm aware that a solid object like a table or a rock is mostly empty space. But nevertheless, if you were to compress it and get rid of all the space between nuclei, it would not just be the size of a proton. I mean, it would be it would still be a fairly substantial e. I went to the spa calculation that if you were to take every person that's ever lived yes, Planet Earth and remove the space between the electron in the nucleus. Yeah, all of their Adam's than the remaining particles Without that space would fit inside of a baseball.

[00:58:28] Host Create clip But baseball is a pretty big, pretty thing. That's my point. I'm agreeing. That is an astonishing calculation, by the way. It really is. Um, is that ready? Right. It's really right. Yeah.

[00:58:42] Host Create clip Uh, and I have

[00:58:44] Host Create clip the baseball right here to prove it. No. Yeah, but okay. But actually, I'm agreeing with you, you know? And so we have exactly the same Worried that our equations, Einstein's general theory of relativity are the equations that we use here. Those equations actually break down at time. Zero times zero is when everything would be crushed. Yes. Infinite testing. The small size and the equations themselves breakdown, which means that we don't really know what's happening at time. Zero. Which is why, for instance, we've developed ideas that have tried to go beyond Einstein's equations. Really, To answer that very question, that question can be viewed as the motivation for a theory like string theory or other attempts to put quantum mechanics and gravity together to try to resolve that puzzle. We've not yet resolved it yet, but I will say one thing that is often misunderstood. So today we don't know whether the universe is finite or incident right. And in fact, Einstein One's family said there are only two things that might be infinite space and human stupidity. Yes, and he said he wasn't sure about space on, and then we're still not sure about space. But if space does go on infinitely far, then as you go further and further back, yes, it shrinks. But you know, if you take infinity and divided by two, what do you get? Infinity taken today divided by 10 What he get infinity. So things in the universe get closer and closer together. But the grand expanse of reality, a time zero at the big bang would not be infinite testable. It would be infinitely big, but would have infinite density. So the idea of a little tiny dot from which the entire not the observable universe but the entire universe emerges. That's that could well be the wrong picture. Well, I don't know why you make it so difficult for yourself, because you well, in the following sense, Hubble's law and you reverse the process, I could see you know, you crunch it down to something a bit bigger than the baseball. Yeah, why go to something infinitely small? Good, good. You could You could imagine running the film in reverse the cosmic film universe, and you simply stop it a couple frames before times here he said, Let me up. Let's just stop it right here and we'll go forward in our explanations from that starting point. Um, we're really goddamn ambitious as physicists, right? We want to go, you know, we really want to go to times zero. We really, you know, and so we're feel tow us as though we have left out the essential quality of cosmology if we have to sort of by hand. So stop the film. We don't know what's going on and go for it everywhere. But why? When you get two times zero, does it have to be infinite? It's more white. Why shouldn't it be the size of a of a cannonball Remini? If our mathematics told us that, then indeed the mathematics s so so Maybe I didn't say clear before. But in Einstein's general theory of relativity, when you metaphorically wine the cosmic film further and further back, imagine the universe is finite inside door. Okay, identity then indeed, it goes right down to zero size. The radius of the universe goes right down to zero. And if somehow you could correct Einstein's equations, which we hope maybe string theory will d'oh! So that with the correction, when you wind the film back to zero, the universe does not have zero size but the little tiny nugget, like a baseball or some smaller entity, then that would be a very satisfying cosmology. To start from this from that matters don't let you Okay, well, we've come to string theory now, So So I I mean, I often hear the criticism of street string theory is devoid of, um, evidence and, um, result Mr String Theory. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I I've heard that, too. Uh, taking the taxi down at dinner, The taxi governments all about string theory. No evidence. What you guys doing? You know, rational science reason.

[01:03:11] Host Create clip You know, I just sort of coward in the back and pavement, but so what's the real? The real situation is the following. So we have a real issue on our hands. A theoretical issue of putting gravity and quantum mechanics into one consistent theoretical structure. Einstein's general theory of relativity does a fantastic job for gravity, makes predictions, and they're confirmed to high accuracy. Same for quantum mechanics is applied to the small domain. The problem is, you try to put these two theories together, and each claims that the other is wrong. They shoot each other in the foot in it doesn't work. So right there, you see that you've got to make progress of making these theories harmonious because they both are at work in the universe and the universe makes sense of the mathematics has to make sense. Now we have Finally, Einstein is in some sense looking for this theory, but he wasn't really thinking about it in quantum terms. But the unified theory is what he pursued for 30 years. So we have this unified theory in hand, and then the question is, how do you know whether it's right or whether it's wrong? And now we come to the issue of predictions and evidence, and here's the thing. We can use the mathematics to make predictions.

[01:04:20] Host Create clip The predictions, unfortunately, are extraordinarily difficult for us to test. If we had a sufficiently large particle collider than the collision of particles within the context of string, theory would make a prediction that that collider could test now how big with that collider need to be? Well, people done estimates a Newt probably need to be the size of the galaxy. Now here's the thing. The cost of Ah accelerator goes like the square of its energy. And if you're talking about collider that hard to get funding, you know, so so that's what it all comes down to. But But my point is a serious one. Yeah, get his theory was not able to make contact with reality. You really think physicists would Would Would would spend time on it. I mean, you know, we most I think you go around once, and I don't want to waste my time and something that has no chance of ever making contact with the reality. But it's hard now. In lieu of being able to build a collider the size of the galaxy.

[01:05:27] Host Create clip You try to find indirect tests, clever tests that might somehow be extracted from the theory. And we had hoped one such tests would be ah, confirmed at the Large Hadron Collider, which is their collection of particles that naturally come out of strength of the called supersymmetric particles. And name doesn't really matter, but these air particles that no one has ever seen and the hope was that the Large Hadron Collider slam protons against protons. You produce these particles in the debris, and that would be a nice piece of circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory. The fact of the matter is those particles have not yet been produced. They may be produced shortly, which would be a triumph, circumstantial but still a triumph for these ideas. Or it could be the machine is just not sufficiently energetic to produce them, so it's not so much that theory doesn't make any predictions. It's that It's very hard to test a theory. And this will be true of any approach to put grabbed and quantum mechanics together because, yeah, I see over there, I'm just I'm ignoring you. But I see you.

[01:06:30] Host Create clip Yeah, it didn't you, You know, it is going to truth. Any approach to unify. All right, I get that completely. It's one thing to say it is in, in principle, meaningless because there is motive. Yeah. Say that it is testable, but not in practice. Not it. Not not. Not feasibly whether under exist. And I think that's, ah, fundamental distinction that gets lost. And I think it's a vital one. Well, yes, and it's serious. Lose that distinction. It's perfect. Perfectly good distinction. Yeah, so? So can I go back to 2 to 1 line of discussion that we were pursuing a little bit before? Um, yes. Um, because I still have the following question, which is, um, so so do you mind if we talk about God for half a second? I made a joke at the front, but you mind if we don't argue? Just so tired of talking about that. That's already good. Okay. You know, because we've had a conversation on occasion on this subject, and there's a lot we agree on, but there's some stuff that we don't agree on.

[01:07:37] Host Create clip And just as I feel like we made progress on string theory in evidence right now, I'd love it if if you like, you could convince me, Teoh, see the world differently. I would love to leave tonight. That would be a wonderful out come of this evening. And if I could do the same for you, Well, I'm not going to succeed, but you know that that would be a wonderful girl, too. So here's my question. I'm I hear you say that you would like to and stop me if I'm saying things and precisely that you would like to rid the world of religion. Is that is that too strong? That's not too strong. Okay, good. All right. And so when you say that, here's my question. Um uh, are you saying that the structure in the history of religion is something that you just want to get rid of? Or are you saying that you want to get rid of what some people do in the name of religion? Do you make that distinction. That one that's relevant.

[01:08:41] Host Create clip I certainly want to get rid of a Well, um, I see virtue in the effect that religion has had on human culture. I mean, I see virtue in music and and art of on things like that, um, I But if we think of religion as providing an alternative idea for how the universe came into existence, her life give into existence, that kind of thing, then, um, as a scientist, I want to get rid of it. Um, So, um I mean, which I agree with. Okay. Well, what part do you not want to get rid of? Yeah, Good. So So, um well, let me just give you an example, and you could help me where you come down on that so far away. So, um, you know, in Jewish, I'm Jewish. Um, uh, maybe a few others in the audience. Uh, Vega. Uh, and, um so So not all, of course. But many Jews here in New York view their religion in the following way. They're willing to cherry pick it for the parts that enriched their lives. They're willing to throw away the parts that are cake and just have no place, you know, in in the modern world, they're willing to view it as almost poetry, almost as as fiction literature, with the one difference being that it connects them to a long lineage that makes them feel part of a larger narrative. Is there something that you don't like about what? Oh, I get that. Totally. I have no problem with that. No problem with that because, um I mean, you have a heritage, you have ancestors. You you have literature. You have mean that. It's the same as I feel, You know, that you feel to, um, a connection with Shakespeare, right? You know, I don't have any problem with saying, um I have, ah, Christian heritage, Jewish heritage, the case of a Jewish heritage. You haven't even stronger reason, which is the persecution of Jews, which has happened through the centuries and perhaps in the most notably, the 20 century but earlier centuries, too.

[01:11:01] Host Create clip Um, this is a very powerful reason for a kind of loyalty to a tradition. Um, where I part company with it, as you do, is in where it makes claims about the universe and, um, the nature of life and Yeah, that s so when you when you say just for my own clarity when you say that you when you agreed and everyone sort of cheer, which is sort of fun that you want to rid the world of religion, I wouldn't have thought that this would then be your reaction to my desk. Well, I I suppose by religion I meant the scientific, um, falsehood off of religion. I did not. I did not mean tradition because because there's been this Jewish tradition, all sorts of other traditions and traditional literature, tradition in art, right? I don't want to get rid of that. So then I wonder about about the following So religion as, um, you know, as a word, a few 105 100 years old or so. It's not one that really goes back to archaic Hunt. So, um, and there are some who have fought through the history of religious development and have indicated that the use of religion in the ways that you find utterly unacceptable is relatively recent a relatively recent development. So if you take this structure that, you know, go back a handful of 1000 years, wherever you sort of wanna you know, view its origins. You know, uh, won 1,500,000 BC Something of that sort. Let's just say, um uh, does it not feel that you're focusing so intently on the last part of the development of that structure in a way that at least as I've heard it And it's different from hearing tonight which is very interesting for May wipes it all out by virtue of what's happening now, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that, uh, the scientific force with part of religion is released them. Sorry, What? That scientific falsehood part of religion is recent. Um, I I'm aware that there are people who say that Yeah, um, and I think they're wrong. I mean, I just think if you if you go back to, ah, the Old Testament, it's just it would just be nonsense to say that the characters in the Abraham and David and Moses and people were not interested in the, um, scientific quasi scientific aspect sort. Of course they were. They were they were obsessed with it. They were They were, um they believe that their waas a and a person called away who made the world and who actually interviewed the whole time. Who who wrought miracles and things like that? Um, I think it's Karen Armstrong. Who's made made the case. That the scientific part His reason. I just I just think that's not historically accurate.

[01:14:24] Host Create clip So But if one takes his metaphorical approach, as I was sort of describing it in, yeah, particular case, um, um well, let me actually frame is somewhat differently. So So, um, to what extent are, uh are you okay with I don't know how to say it, but irrational ideas. Kind of just giving an example again. You know, um ah, I don't know. About three weeks ago, you know, I live uptown and my mother lives over here. 81st Street. Uh, she's, you know, in her nineties, and I and I and I called. She's always home. She doesn't really go out without me. I called, you know, the answer machine picked up. She didn't answer. I called again. She didn't answer. Doesn't, like, really freak out. So I get in the taxi cab and I'm racing down to 81st Street. And I'm telling you, in that taxi cab, I was praying to God that you'd be OK. and I'm praying to God. And I know that there I do not think there is a God. Okay, This is a totally irrational thing I'm doing. Let me just please, if you're there, I'm sorry. All right. If you're just gotta hedge my bets, it's a conversation here. I'm just sort of saying I feel so. But I'm like, really, uh, praying. And when I got there and everything, ultimate was fine.

[01:15:41] Host Create clip Um, it felt like, you know, a small miracle to make. Now, I don't believe in miracles. I believe that we're all bags of particles governed by the laws of physics. And there's nothing else besides that. But at the same time, I find it useful to hold these irrational ideas in mind at certain moments. And I don't give a shit that I do. Yeah, I get that. I I think I I'll make us American confession. I would I would hesitate to spend the night in a notoriously haunted house. Fainted. Uh oh. This is good night, man. Uh, but I mean, we're both being irrational, and, uh and and that is a sin. All right. I'm being waved at tau open the discussion for audience questions. I can't see who's out there. I don't know who has a microphone, but whoever you like, Can we have the lights up, please? In the auditorium. That's not so much on us. Yeah. Good. Perfect.

[01:17:03] Host Create clip That's not perfect. It was in your eyes. Yeah. Coming. Just about dimly. See people now? Yeah. Whoever has it might just just jump right in. Good evening. And thank you for a wonderful, wonderful night. I guess my question is, how do you duck tail rationality into the social and political dialogue that's going on? And not just the United States, but in the world today? How do you How do you combat irrationality with rationality at an emotional level? Such tenants. Yeah. So the question is, did you hear it? I hear it. I was hoping you'd answer it. Yeah, I could take a crack, and then you can sort of get up and finish it up. I mean, way live. In a time when rationality and truth are not respected in in corridors of power, Um and, um, how do you reconcile? You Don't reconcile them. What you do is you get out and vote the bugger out. But I wouldn't want one quick thing on that, Um, it's it's it's virtually impossible. I've found to have a conversation with somebody who's not going to play by the same rules.

[01:18:29] Host Create clip And and so it's virtually impossible to use rationality to convince someone who's looking at the world and describing things in an irrational manner. And I I think he wants discusses a mistake. But I saw a video of yours once when you had a long conversation with the woman and trying to convince her about the, um, the, you know, archaeological record. Right? And And I sat there, and I and I felt for you because I have had those conversations with people about, you know, the big bang and things of that sort. But it was clear that you were never gonna make headway in that conference. So So you stayed with it, which is great, but that approach probably is ineffective. She was She was a hopeless case. I know, I know. You mean her name is Wendy, right on dhe. She she was She clearly was not listening. Andi, you're right. That was a totally lost cause. But remember, this was a television program, so Although I was talking to her, right, it's irrelevant whether I could convince her. I clearly couldn't. But there would have bean lots of people watching that to live in progress through who would have bean influenced by it and recognizing that she was being completely irrational. And so I don't buy the argument of that which I've heard often, that because you cannot convince the idiot you're talking to, um, that means that you should should simply give up the right, right? Yeah, I guess the core question. But we have others. It would there be another strategy. And I don't know what the answer to that question is, Uh, and there are one or two questions from the audience. Still, So I think you're yourself.

[01:20:16] Host Create clip So going back to the idea of string theory when you guys were talking about how to actually combine Thio formats of math, I guess, Yes. When we since we were the ones that actually created math to begin with Is it possible that what we use is fundamentally flawed to describe what you're attempting to you totally it's totally possible. I mean, I have I've had, you know, thoughts. I don't know nightmares that when we have these conversations with the alien intelligence that we ultimately talk to, you know, they'll come down and say, Show us guys, what have you done and figure out the universe? We pull out general activity, quantum mechanics. We open it up and they just sort of look math. We tried that, you know, it takes you part of the way, But no, no, you'll never get anywhere with mathematics, you know? And the problem is, when I then try to imagine what it is that they would substitute for mathematics. I don't have the creative imagination to think of anything that isn't ultimately Isom or fix to math math, just with some different formulation that we could map on to mathematics that we currently use. So, yes, it could be that we have a limited set of tools based on the limited thing inside of our head has taken us so far. But maybe it will not take us to the end.

[01:21:34] Host Create clip So when I end up having discussions about science and religion to a surprisingly frequent extent, I end up encountering the viewpoint that science and religion are actually one and the same thought process that science is a form of religion in one way or another, and I tryto debate that in a number of ways, But I would be interested to hear what you would have to say to someone who says, Well, science really isn't any different from religion in the first place. Well, I give a real quick one, and maybe Richard bought up, you know. Ah, there are similarities there. A radical differences in the most radical of all is show me how to use any religious text. I don't care. Pick anyone that you want. Show me how to use that to calculate the spectrum of helium. Right? So there are qualities of the world that we understand rigorously by virtue of the scientific structure. It is mathematics that makes predictions that we can go out and test. Eh? Moreover, if we test the prediction and it's wrong, we throw the thing away because we are incrementally moving toward truth and that that that's quite different. And let me just quickly also add to that just so you know that I'm not just spouting hot air, I really will put you know, my money where my mouth is I would be thrilled if tomorrow string theory was ruled out.

[01:22:54] Host Create clip I've worked on it since 1985. Okay, I had black hair when I started, Okay? But I'm not invested in it. I'm invested in truth or getting closer to truth. And this is the way that we can move

[01:23:12] Host Create clip toward truth. I

[01:23:16] Host Create clip have nothing to add to that. I mean, I think it's absolutely right, and there's a huge difference. This the difference is evidence in massive, massive, massive quantities of evidence. And in the case of religion, there is absolutely none whatsoever, given the singularity at the beginning of the universe, the big Bang on the evidence that that particles are entangled Yes, that if that implies that all particles are thereby entangled with each other, does that intuitively have any implications for consciousness theory? It's a good question, since we don't really understand consciousness, as we were describing here. It's a little hard for me to give you a complete answer to that, but I will say the following It is the case that when particles interact with each other, they do acquire this very strange quantum mechanical quality called entanglement. Einstein again was a key figure in figuring out entanglement, as you no doubt know. But just so that we're all clear. If two particles are entangled, one could be over here. One could be over here that could be on opposite sides of the country opposite sides of the universe. You measure this particle, and somehow it instantaneously affects the particle over there. That's weird, right? Einstein called it spooky, spooky action at a distance. Right now, when you have all these particles interacting near the big Bang, they do all become entangled. But the thing is, the greater the number of particles, the more dilute the entanglement becomes. And it can be diluted to such a degree that to some extent it doesn't really play the kind of fundamental role that it would with just two particles in a pristine environment that you set up to be maximally entangled. So while in some sense everything is connected to everything else and maybe you want to think that consciousness therefore sort of connected to the world through some quantum entanglement with our brains, the degree of in 10 minutes, just so fantastically tiny that it's hard to imagine that that's how things will turn out Richard. Anything? Obviously not. Thank you.

[01:25:38] Host Create clip I'm just fascinated. Thank you very much for both coming out. Um, and the lively discussion I had. I grew up in New York City, and I had a Jewish earth science teacher. But, you know, and so I didn't have the conflict between religion and science that Mr Dawkins grows up with. And he just pointed out, If you believe the world was created in six days, how do we how long, What a day have been by that metaphorical understanding? Um, so I was very grateful for my public school education, but my question. But, hey, I went to PS 87 Eyes 44 right down the street. So I'm with you. My question is entangled with the previous one. The double slit experiment in quantum physics implies that an electron will behave as a wave when it is not being observed, but returns to acting like an particle when we try to observe it. Judging by the interference pattern it produces, this implies that the universe we live in is conscious without personifying this intelligence. Would you agree, Mr Dawkins, that quantum physics implies that our universe is conscious? No, Um, I think course it doesn't imply that had nothing to do with it.

[01:26:53] Host Create clip It's deeply mysterious, but there are different ways of being mysterious just because it but they're both mysterious. It doesn't mean that the same thing. Yet there can be, Ah, an era in thinking that often tries to imagine that consciousness plays a critical role in causing the fuzziness of the quantum world to resolve into definite reality, such as an experiment that that you described so well. But there's no evidence that consciousness is a vital part of that story, we believe. I mean, there were people in the thirties and forties who put this idea forward and very hard to rule it out. Just like it's hard to rule out many things in the world because we always bring consciences to bear on any data that we look at that we become aware of. That we can speak of consciousness is part of it, You could say. Therefore, consciousness was part of ensuring that that reality arose, but as far as we know, it doesn't need to be consciousness that brings a definite route. Doesn't need a physicist with a Ph. D it doesn't. It could be a mouse could do it. It could be a dust mote that could do it. It's any kind of interaction. It could be a photonic, the microwave background radiation that bangs into the electron and that forces it to snap to attention. So I I don't see any direct role for consciousness, but who knows? We could be wrong.

[01:28:16] Host Create clip Good evening, gentlemen. Thank you. One of the tangents we went down tonight was exploring the concept of extraterrestrial life for life outside the galaxy. So from Richard's point of view, you said we're a sample size of one. So all our concepts of what one maybe is what we see before us, regardless of our imagination. And when you look at Hollywood and you look at aliens, they're sort of humanoid. And I kind of my thinking is any superior race has to be sort of like us because we got to be able to make so I can't see something with tentacles making a watch. So are we limited to what are you limited to? What you believe a race maybe outside of or existence because we're human and you we have no other concept to measure against science fiction writers. They're often criticized for a lack of imagination and making them sort of humanoid. But with three eyes, those units a minor difference like that. There are biologists Simon Conway Morris came with university is one who actually thinks that the likelihood is that life would produce human rights on DDE, he goes, I think too far. But he does make the point that convergent evolution is very powerful. And we have spectacular examples in the animal kingdom off different, radically unrelated out animals converging on the same design because that's a very good way to be on. And, um, you're probably familiar with Well, for example, Australian mammals. The marsupial foreigner of Australia produced a range of mammals which were, um, niche furnish convergent upon the members and Asia and independently in South America. Um, so he deploys the power of convergent evolution to suggest that if there is life elsewhere in the universe, quite probably it will look pretty much like us.

[01:30:32] Host Create clip Um, I don't think I go along with that quite, but but the point has been made. Um, we talked a bit earlier about different kinds of life, whether It has to be carbon based, that kind of thing, and I think it's an open question and I think we could get a sort of handle on the question by looking at the Animal Kingdom and looking at the different things that have evolved in the Animal Kingdom with divergent on DDE convergent. But I think it's an open question and I would, as I said before, I would love that. I would love to come across a second sample off of life. Look around outside the parking lot. I didn't hear that. I didn't hear it either, but it was definitely funny. You guys have talked a lot about the zero. What happened after that? I don't think there's been a lot of talk about what happened or not. What happened at zero. What what happened in D zero? What created it isn't that and the universe happened four and 1/2 14 billion years later. We have life, so everything was so precise. Does that imply some kind of God watchmaker something I mean, could you dove into more what you think about what happened before that instant of the Big Bang? Not everything after, Well, I'll start with a big bang that Richard maybe take it into the biological domain. But, uh, the question we're asking is wise or something rather than nothing. And it is the key question, and it's one that we really have absolutely no idea how to answer, and I think we're all up front about that. But once we allow for stuff to exist, space time matter in some sense, the laws of physics. With that minimal architecture, we can then run things forward. And as far as we know, we don't need anybody from the outside tinkering with things in order to get things where they currently are. So could you say that some God created it and then stood back? Of course. And this has long been said, and there's very little that we can ever say to refute that. The point of the matter, though, is it's not very interesting. It may be true. It ain't interesting Why? Because you're just replacing one mysterious collection of words with another word, which to me holds as much mystery. So from the standpoint of explaining science, I don't find that it takes us anywhere forward from the standpoint of understanding the rich structure of of human heritage and our ongoing attempt to figure out who we are and how he fit into the cosmos. I do find there's a lot of value in that way of thinking about the world, but I don't find any value in terms of trying to find scientific splintery power. I think it's worse than that. I think it's worse than then. Um, just not interesting, Um, because the the point is that although it's very difficult to know what happened in the beginning, on where the laws of physics come from, where the physical constants come from, what we can say is that it is relatively easier to understand how simple things came into existence than complex things.

[01:33:49] Host Create clip And, um, a God who thought it all up and created it even a d s stick God, who didn't subsequently intervene whatever else he she or it was, was like they could not be simple. I mean, is there going to be we're going to credit them with the brainpower to devise the laws of physics and divide, and to set the physical constants to some optimal value. Then they've got to be the kind of entity that requires explanation in its own right, of exactly the same kind of explanation as we in biology are used to providing in the theory of evolution. So if we have to be intelligent, in other words and intelligence, intelligence, creativity, inventiveness, qualities like that come late in the universe, we understand where they come from. They come from evolutionary processes to suddenly smuggle in intelligence at the very beginning is to betray the entire scientific enterprise. It's much worse than being un interesting. It's positively anti scientific. So the one thing I would tell you well, things got applause. I'll sort of agree with you. But, you know, um, you know, my, my my suspicion or at least I raises the possibility, the judgment of the complexity and intelligence required to give rise to the universe as we know it. I feel like you're coming at it from what we currently understand, which could well be completely misleading. There. Maybe this incredibly simple starting point that a divine being could have invoked and all of this might, by virtue of some deep symmetry and the structure that isn't even a parent. It's all simple from the standpoint of the ingredients and the laws, and it may be the so So I guess I slightly worry, even though a large degree, they're slightly worry about saying what would be required because we don't know what would be required. That's what I mean by not being able to figure it out. But if it's simple, why call it God? I mean, I know. No, I agree. That's exactly the point that I made it, just replacing one word with another. But I guess I worry about the argument of trying to delineate the degree of intelligence complexity required. I have no idea whether what you said is true in that regard, but if it's just seaplane simplicity, just call it simplicity.

[01:36:27] Host Create clip What? Yeah, so? So that I that I agree with. But it was the attributing, a certain necessary level of complexity intelligence that that I find hard. But But I agree with the larger point that we're just replacing one word with another. So you seem unsatisfied with that. I should have stopped when I convince him to string theory. Okay, good. If I was listening carefully enough earlier, I think it was said that, uh, the whole range of physics, from quantum mechanics to general relativity. You could understand the machine of the brain, but not consciousness. And two things occurred to me about physics that aren't understood. And I'm wondering you have any comment? Is whether consciousness might be fueled by dark energy or by the collapse of Schrodinger's multiplicity into the actual, terrible, singular for dark energy I. It's hard for me to see where their be any connection. You know, the amount of energy in dark energy is so feeble in any volume compatible with everyday experience. That's hard for you to imagine that energy making a significant difference.

[01:37:36] Host Create clip But when you come to, uh, the collapse of the wave function, the Schrodinger equation that you describe, there are some very smart people who do draw a connection to consciousness. Right? Roger Penrose is a very smart man. It was my graduate advisor at Oxford for two weeks, uh, and and, uh, And he is convinced by virtue of analysis that he's done for a decade and experiments that he's done with neuroscientists, that there is a connection between micro tubules and the brain that can collapse the way function. And he believes that That's the seat of consciousness. I've looked at it. I'm not. I don't I don't see it. I'm not convinced of it. But I can't say that I've studied it in great detail. So So is that a possible link? I guess it conceivably could be. I don't feel I've tried to read Roger's book, but I must say, I didn't I don't understand quantum theory enough to write. Hi. So my question It's a fun question that I thought of because we were talking about a little bit.

[01:38:39] Host Create clip Um, how Lord Kelvin, though a really brilliant scientist, was astoundingly wrong about certain things about the universe and earth. And so I wonder if we took two well known scientist from your respective fields, Let's say Einstein and, uh and, uh, Darwin, and we brought them to our time. What do you think that they would be the most astounded, amazed, vying with our current scientific understanding? And what do you think they would find the hardest to accept or be most skeptical about? So I could do I, Your Honor, I want some had to do a television programme in which a Japanese television company brought an actor dressed up his dough in, um to visit me. And I was supposed to bring him up to date as the things that have happened since since his death. And it was an interesting experience because he he was well made up. He had plenty of slack. Farmers kept on dropping off. Um and, um, I size of about very alone. Said, what an order it waas to meet, meet him and things.

[01:39:57] Host Create clip And then I had to explained to him about modern genetics and ah, he this would have Bean very surprising to him, very interesting thoughts about Surprising is revelatory to him because in his own lifetime, um, not only did Lord Kelvin's estimate of time worry him, he was also worried by a man called Fleming Jenkin who, um made the point that because of the prevailing genetics of Darwin and Jenkins time, which was blending inheritance, they were aware that, of course, that animals inherit from both parents, but they thought of it is being a kind of mixture of the mother and father always like mixing two liquids on dhe Fleming Jenkins pointed out that if that were the case, offspring should be intermediate between their two between the two parents. And if that were the case, then there would be a rapidly natural selection would run out of variation on which to select on dhe. This did worry Darwin he should really avoid, because was quite obviously not true. That variation disappears. It's not. It's not the case that as the generations go by, animals become more and more gray and sort of uniform. They do retain that the variation, but nobody understood why.

[01:41:31] Host Create clip And it wasn't well meant. Mendel, who was a contemporary of Darwin, actually didn't discover why. But Darwin never knew about it. It wasn't rediscovered and until after Darwin's death. So I had to explain Mendel in genetics to this actor posing as Darwin and also, um, DNA on dumb. He did his part well, is it? Yes, that's it. Um, so I don't know whether that I mean, I think that that is one thing that would have, as I said, not not quite surprised Darwin, but But he would have felt Yes, everything clicks into place. Now on guy Now, that was the one thing that Darwin got wrong. He got precious little wrong. I mean, if you read the origin of species. It is an amazingly prescient book. Michel Gosselin said he was working Ah, 100 years ahead of his time. Astonishing man. But the genetics he did get get wrong. And so that yes, on the quick than the Einstein one. I think I would be surprised that quantum mechanics is still with us effectively in the form that he detested. Um, and he thought that advances would do an end run around quantum mechanics, and somehow all the weirdness would disappear with the deeper understanding that hasn't happened.

[01:42:50] Host Create clip I also think that, you know, as we described advancing as you described string theory and and and all the qualities of the theory. And and I think you just say you guys are geniuses other gene I have a question for Brian regarding Mass. I understand from Einstein that particle's mass increases with acceleration. At CERN, they take protons and accelerate them to very close to the speed of light over 99.99% of speed of light. My question is, what is the change in the mass of that particle from rest to the point of collision multiplied by one over the square of the one minus V overseas squared Visa velocity. See the speed of light. Thank you. Thanks very much. I didn't understand that. Answer it all and I have to write this, but I'm gonna ask hopefully for a non pessimistic answer to this question, which is, um, I'm a little puzzled by the disappointment in the search for extraterrestrial, intelligent life because it seems challenging by or severely limited by two elements. One is astrobiology, which seems to suggest that the combustible energy sources that would be they would suffocate the species that creates suspicion, advancement to support radio wave broadcasting.

[01:44:26] Host Create clip We're suffocating ourselves. And the other element that I find challenging in terms of evidence for extraterrestrial life is the time synchronization needed to collect a radio signal the duration off a species that broadcasting is probably short. The universe. When I was growing up, we thought it was expanding. Now you guys have changed the rules again, still expanding, but it's accelerated, its accelerated. So in some period of time, we're only going to see our own galaxy. So you've got a dual problem problem of combustible energy, suffocating us or others and getting the signals to synchronize. So why would we see? Yeah, I agree. You're pointing out how unlikely these programs are to succeed. I mean, look, life on this planet began very early on in the history of this planet. But in that four billion year window, as you're saying, we've only been radio broadcasting. What, Phyllis? 50 75 years. So even if an extraterrestrial society civilization was trying to find us in a sort of knew where toe look, it wouldn't just be a matter of pointing their scopes in the right direction. They'd have to be waiting for just the right interval of time. So? So I think you're pointing out how hard it is and therefore, perhaps not surprising that we haven't found any. If indeed, life is commonplace throughout the universe. And the other thing is, look, you know, way we now know so many plants, right? That's one of the major changes in the last decade. Right there. So many planets out there. And if a fraction of them support life, right, there could be whatever there could be, you know, 100 million civilization scattered throughout the galaxy. Okay, but that's one per pearl, enormous number of stars, so it's still very sparse even with 100 million civilizations out there, So it's hard to find.

[01:46:31] Host Create clip And what about your take on astrobiology on dhe? The likelihood of a species suffocating itself? I'm curious to hear what a further source of pessimism would be that the interval of time between the civilization working out, how to use send radio waves and destroying itself by warfare of some sort. It could be that could be civilizations winking into existence here, here, there, and then winking out again after a rather short time. I guess that's another aspect of your suffocating so quickly. We're at 10 o'clock, but I think we start a little later. You guys okay to do another 5 10 minutes? Is that okay? There seems to be widespread idea and the culture that in order for life to be meaningful, we all eventually have to die. And I'm a little skeptical of that idea. Um, it seems meretricious like makes us feel better that there has to be some meaning. But if you imagine asking someone 50 years going by in their life, is your life still meaningful are involved in useful projects? Are you advancing things. It seems like life could still be amenable, no matter how old you're getting. So I wonder what your thoughts are about the necessity of death for the meaning of life. Let Richard Well, that I mean, there there is a pretty sound Darwinian reason. What? Why? Why we die, which I couldn't perhaps briefly explain. Um, jeans material at different I mean, whether they're mature, have their effect. There is times during life, and most of them have in effect during early embryology.

[01:48:15] Host Create clip But then they have effects later, later, later on, if you imagine a gene that makes you Daio, for example, cancer at the age of 10 and then another gene that makes you die at the age of 20 another do that makes you Dr aged 30 40 etcetera. Um, the ones that make you die at the age of 10 are never going to get through into the next generation. I want to make you dive into 20 a few of them, or get through one that make you die at the age of 30. Quite a lot of great through et cetera on ones that make you die as you when you're when you're 100 will certainly have got through by the time they kill you. So we are a kind of dustbin off late acting, lethal jeans or sub sub sub little genes, which his wife went Darwinian point of view. We die off old age, Um, and there's a more sophisticated versions of that theory. But you seem to be it talking rather less in a Darwinian way than in a night than in a sort of subjective way. Say, wouldn't it be nice if we wouldn't? Wouldn't, like, feel more meaningful, I think with the way you put it, if we didn't die, No, I was challenging the idea that people spread that in order for life to be meaningful, we have to die like people say life would be meaningful if we live forever.

[01:49:41] Host Create clip I just Well, I definitely says that. I mean, well, like like Bernard Williams says that I mean, there are philosophers who thought this issue through and have make cogent arguments that all the things that give life meaning that we usually lift many of them, would evaporate if we didn't die, right? I mean, you know, if you know those of you who, Uh, your abilities could always improve over time. Well, if you have infinite time, you'll be able to achieve anything. So there'll be no real challenge will be no sense of success. Those of you who your abilities will plateau and hit a limit. Well, for eternity, you're gonna be stuck, right? That's not gonna feel too good either. Right? So, you know, But you know these air. Nice, interesting thought experiments. It's hard to really know. But I guess from a flat footed straightforward perspective, I just wonder if you had the opportunity. Hey, Professor Dawkins, you've done so much humanity. Uh, we're gonna let you live forever. What would you Would you Would you choose that? Maybe 200 years, But But at the end of the 200 they came back to at the end of the 200 said, you know, you two hundreds up. Uh, hey, you want a couple 100 more? Tell you what I think the the only frightening thing about death really is is the term C.

[01:50:59] Host Create clip And I'd rather spend eternity under general anesthetic, which is what's gonna happen. All right, so we have time for all We only have time for two more questions. I have a question for both of you. Uh, I'm curious if you think it's possible or even likely, that the true nature of reality and physics could be something that's fundamentally just inaccessible to the human mind. Yeah, Raines, Air wired. No, I I had a the Nova program years ago on a book I wrote, and in one of the scenes, I'm not a blackboard lecturing to somebody who clearly is not getting cause I'm getting frustrated and ultimate the camera pans. And it's a Labrador retriever that I was that I was, and it was misunderstood by many people. They thought we were trying to say the audiences like the dog, but that's that's not what is the point. WAAS. There are intelligent species that walked this planet that seems to have a limit to what they can understand. Right? Dogs and cats are smart, but they seem not to understand the general theory of relativity. Right? Every time I say that, I always think the dog from fixing motors, that relativity is stupid human, you know. But but barring that possibility near the smart beings that have a limit, why wouldn't be any different from that. That's the point. So exactly like you're saying it could be The truth is right out here staring us in the face. But we just don't have the brain power to grab hold of it. And maybe we never will know the optimistic way of saying it is even with his limited brainpower. Look what we've been able to figure out right? We can figure out laws that tell us how the universe of all from a split second after being able to pry apart matter and understand its constituents, we understand how time elapses, how space expands, why stars shine. I mean, that's pretty great stuff. So maybe we have the brain power and it's just a matter of time. But nobody can say for sure. One of my favorite sounds fiction stories is Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud, despite its obnoxious hero, is probably model after the author. I should imagine, um, but it's the end of the book. The the humans are in touch with a super human intelligence on the human superhuman intelligence. The black cloud communicates to them its knowledge of physics, and they can't take it. The human brain just burns up on day two.

[01:53:26] Host Create clip Really smart physicists die as a result of overheating of the brain. Um, and so that I think is perfectly possible that we are not capable off it. On the other hand, I agree with Brown. Um, I'm amazed at the fact that a brain which was naturally selected on the African savannah to hunt and gather, is capable off devising special general General relativity, quantum theory. And it's a It's astonishing what the human brain can do, given the much more limited tasks which it was required to do when it was being naturally selected. These are emergent properties. It's a wonderful testament to the power of emergence. And so the maybe there isn't a limit. But, um, I don't know, one way or the other. Thanks. Oh, uh, do you think that modern physicists air worried enough or spending enough time on realism and ontology? And specifically, what do you think of Bowman? Pilot waves. That is exactly the question. I'm hoping we'd end on. Uh, So So, yes. So, uh, we just had a conference, for instance, at Columbia last week, where the focus was philosophers were involved and some physicists have sort of described philosophers having no role in physics. That's utterly ridiculous. Thes air folks who have thought hard about quantum physics, forcing us to really try to link up the mathematical symbols with real things in the world and to shake those dictionaries and make sure that they really work. And we're uncertain at the moment. So on the ontology side, people do think about it. But it's typically Maurine the philosophy side of things, and I do think that physicists could doom or to advance that that project in terms of this Bohm in approach that you mentioned, this is a very interesting story that'll just tell in 30 seconds the approach to quantum mechanics that Richard was describing. You know, the Copenhagen approach that was really in some sense promulgated by some very convincing physicists in the 19 twenties 19 thirties. And so for Niels Bohr being sort of the famous father of quantum mechanics, if the Bowman approach had a champion of that magnitude and that level of respect, I think it would likely have been the dominant way that we would have thought about quantum mechanics. Why in the Copenhagen approach, you have to give up, making definite predictions. You can only make probabilistic predictions that's hard to swallow, Okay, but you also have to give up particles having definite trajectories. Particles no longer go along trajectories, as in the Newtonian picture in the Bowman approach. Yes, you also have to deal with probabilities. But particles do have definite trajectories, so you only have to sort of give up one thing in the Bowman framework you have to give up to in the Copenhagen one. So I think people would have had an easier time and would have latched on to this way of thinking about things. People still pushed this theory forward, whether or not it's actually right in the sense of it's the real description, the world nobody knows. But it's a worthy contender in an arena where many are still competing to win out with the right way of thinking about quantum mechanics.

[01:56:58] Host Create clip And with that, thank you very much.

[01:57:02] Host Create clip Let's give a big round of applause for

[01:57:04] Host Create clip Brian Greene and Richard Dawkins.

[01:57:10] Host Create clip Thank you. Wonderful. All

[01:57:16] Host Create clip right, you guys, thank you so much. Please join us in the lobby for a book signing. I think there's a few left to grab Richard has something by Mike Dillon. Okay, on the book signing It's a very large audience on dhe, out of courtesy to people at the end of the signing You. We don't want to take too long at the beginning of the signing Q. And therefore we were we cannot personalize actually dedicate books to particular people. And also please, no selfies. All right, thank you guys so much. Remember to go to payment philosophy dot com Check out our events that are coming up this month and let art and science inspired. Good night,

[01:58:31] Host Create clip Coach. Young man got his eyes with froth ground told of a monster would be called Captain Booth with the ship from the country. And they barely give someone else that the money, the government, these people out problems that were never big would incite alarmingly fast. But people crashed on the grass. Nobody bird attention mind could imagine such a change of scene culture was strong in fact, wait