Eric Weinstein “You’re being lied to!” with Avi Loeb [Ep. 482]

Pique is offering 20% off for life AND a free Starter Kit with your purchase—that's a rechargeable frother and glass beaker to make the perfect cup every time. Just go to http://piquelife.com/impossible Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥 Are tech billionaires and politicians waging a war on science? Why is there a growing distrust in science? And has theoretical physics been intentionally sidelined to limit major breakthroughs? Here today to discuss the rise of anti-science are Avi Loeb and Eric Weinstein! Avi Loeb is a leading astrophysicist, professor at Harvard University, director of the Galileo Project, and founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. Known as the alien hunter, he became famous for his bold and sometimes controversial theories about UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence. Eric Weinstein is an investor, financial executive and host of The Portal. Though not an academic physicist, he proposed a unified theory of physics in 2013. He and his brother Bret Weinstein coined the term Intellectual Dark Web to refer to an informal group of pundits. Eric is a vocal critic of modern academic hierarchies and advocates for advances in scientific theory over an emphasis on experimental results. — Key Takeaways: 00:00:00 Intro 00:00:29 The rise of anti-science in the US government 00:24:38 Is AI training us? 00:28:13 Is Oumuamua an object from another civilization? 00:32:20 Fighting against the big 10 in physics 00:42:32 The future of academia 00:48:13 Immigrants in academia 00:59:12 Lack of curiosity 01:09:14 Geometric unity and grand unification 01:14:44 Shelter Island III 01:24:00 Outro  — Additional resources: ➡️ Resources: 🛸 Galileo Project: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo 🎙️ The Portal with Eric Weinstein: https://ericweinstein.org/ ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/ 🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast — Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to follow/subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPact.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Honey, that flu keeping you up? Did you take Nyquil Intense Flu?

• 0:34Speaker 02

  Nah, I got this. Hmm, okay, I don't got this.

• 0:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, you need Nyquil Intense Flu.

• 0:42Speaker 03

  Undo your flu with Nyquil Intense Flu. Nyquil Intense Flu provides powerful relief of your flu symptoms so you can sleep.

• 0:50Speaker 01

  You do got this.

• 0:52Speaker 03

  Nyquil Intense Flu, the nighttime sniffling, aching, aching fever, best sleep with a flu medicine. Uses directed, keep out of reach of children.

• 0:59Speaker 04

  Nobody wants to go after the big 10 people in our field. One list is Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss. Then there's a purported leaders of fundamental physics in theory. It is the latter group in which Susskind is prominent. These are just people who went bad and they decided that they would have a career extolling the virtues of a theory that can't ship and crapping on everybody else who comes up with the challenger theory.

• 1:28Brian Keating?

  We're talking about UAPs, the Galileo Project, a recent paper that Avi's had out about the search and the construction of new telescopes. We're also talking about academia, Doge, and what I've been really troubled with, Eric, and I've been dying, I just miss you so much, but I've been dying to get your thoughts on this. We're surrounded by people in the government that are claiming that AI is science, that crypto is science. We have advisors to the President of the United States that are basically unqualified to discuss science. In the extreme, and in some cases, I'm thinking of David Sacks, openly express almost derision for science, eggheads and so forth, like Avi, like me, and like you. How is this going to affect us? Our cultural milieu. I mean, there's a lot of good things going on with Doge and everything else.

• 2:13Brian Keating?

  I don't think the way they're treating science is is right. What do you think about that?

• 2:17Speaker 04

  It's a very difficult time because to be honest with you, as a guy who was in Silicon Valley for a while, the anti-science stuff didn't really come out until Ouchie, in my opinion. So that in general, tech was pro-science. And somehow, in the embittering fight over whether we can discuss COVID origins, or whether that's above our pay grade because we're all racist, to even wonder whether or not it might be the case that this came out of the lab. That was a very low moment where somebody induced, I think, 77 Nobel laureates who come out on behalf of the Eco Health Alliance.

• 2:58Speaker 04

  So you have to first of all, realize that whatever the anti-science aspect of this is very recent and relatively shallow. But what you're getting hit with is what I would call a universal discount factor. For example, if you're a hedge fund allocator, you're so used to being lied to that you decide that you're going to discount by 25% everyone's projections across the board. That's a typical strategy that you'll see where you realize you're being unfair to some people, but because of the level of nonsense, there are these global discount factors. So I think one thing that's happening is that science is getting hit with a global discount factor. Another thing that's happening is we haven't minted

• 3:40Speaker 04

  any great spokespeople for science, particularly people, I would say, 60 and younger, so that there's no one to defend it. We don't have a clear understanding of the tacit relationships that were enshrined in Van of our Bush's endless frontier compact between the federal government and universities. So we are ahistorical. We don't realize what built the golden goose that laid all those.

• 4:04Speaker 06

  By the way, Eric, I should say that I interacted with the transition team exactly on this subject. But they didn't listen.

• 4:11Speaker 04

  The question is, is anyone being invited to Mar-a-Lago regularly?

• 4:17Speaker 04

  A research scientist, and I mean that very specifically. Tech sounds like science.

• 4:23Speaker 06

  Right.

• 4:24Speaker 04

  But one of the problems that we're having, I think, is that you're seeing the return of an old trope. The old trope is that scientists are welfare queens in white lab coats. And you're seeing this beginning with Sabina's increasingly aggressive stance towards funding, where once Sabina was sort of a marginal physicist who was treated unfairly. In my estimation, she's now a major channel and one of the principal communicators of science. So I think that in part, a lot is going on, but scientists have not learned to make any argument that is powerful to the group that is now in charge. And that group increasingly thinks that the market is everything.

• 5:08Speaker 04

  If you can't make it in the market, you're nothing. It often does not really distinguish between tech and science, doesn't distinguish between public health and science. And to be quite honest, there is a small critique headed our way that we need to be listening to, and we're going to be charged for an enormous critique.

• 5:26Speaker 06

  You know, part of the problem is the academic community that in the past, you know, before this time, you know, had a sense of superiority relative to the public, did not really communicate the way science is done, which is full of uncertainty. So you have to be frank about it. You don't want to just sound as if you are reliable to pretend that you're the adult in the room, because, you know, as an adult, I have two daughters. Very often, if you were to tell them the truth, they would not necessarily follow what you tell them. And if you want them to follow what you tell them, then you have to distort the, what you know. And, and, and so that's, you know, that's what politicians often do, but, but scientists should be frank.

• 6:09Speaker 06

  And when we have press conferences and we lecture to the public as if that's the truth, it's an inappropriate portrayal of science. Science is work in progress and there are mistakes. Brian knows of a very famous press conference that ended up being a mistake. And so my point is that, you know, we should communicate about science being a learning experience and trying to make the best out of the evidence we have and admit when it's uncertain. And that, you know, partly was the issue with Fauci and COVID.

• 6:40Brian Keating?

  What do you think, Eric, is the natural outgrowth of this interest, you know, the simultaneously incredibly high level of interest and gaslighting, you know, that that we're undergoing? You you pointed this out back in December with the New Jersey drones. Avi talked about this. And I wonder, do you think if Avi transplanted or duplicated the Galileo project, its sensors, its sonic listening devices, multi messenger tools, if that would convince the public that either the government's telling us the truth? In other words, is there a level of scientific rigor that can ever convince the government that the population has been burned so many times that actually, we should trust science again?

• 7:17Speaker 04

  I have a dangerous answer to that, which is, the public right now is most interested in the tiny number of people who've gone against the grain. And I would say that Avi is more important than his sensors. So Avi's willingness to talk about UAP and to talk about aliens and extraterrestrials strikes normal people as the kind of open mindedness that they expect of science. So Avi is one of a tiny number of people with some credibility to this new group. So you can convince people who believe in, quote, "the science," the Fauci fan club, with peer reviewed papers. But how are you going to convince people

• 8:01Speaker 04

  who are aware of national security concerns, in fact adulterating science? You're going to look to people who stood up and said something, as iconoclasts, whether that's Jordan Peterson, or Sabina Hossenfelder, or Avi, or you, or me, or whoever. It's a relatively smaller, it's a smaller group. And the key point is, if Avi were saying something, it would say a lot more than if somebody who is inclined to poo poo any kind of a priori interest in life beyond our solar system. So I think that that's kind of the key issue.

• 8:39Speaker 06

  If you look at the history of why science became important to politics, you know, it really started in the US with the Manhattan Project. Because politicians realized here is a weapon that can win wars. And obviously, you know, what it did to Japan was to change the course of the confrontation with Japan. And they realized, okay, we should probably have the National Science Foundation to support fundamental science because it gives us potentially advantage relative to adversarial countries. And it has a geopolitical impact. But over the decades, you know, some scientists started worrying about, you know, extra dimensions, about things that are not really useful for society.

• 9:22Speaker 06

  And then the question arises as to, you know, what do you make of the present academia? Is that really helpful to society? And then, of course, the issues of health and so on. So here is an example of another Manhattan moment, Manhattan Project moment. Suppose the asteroid 2024 YR1 were to strike the Earth. So we would find that with a high likelihood, it would actually collide with Earth within seven years. Okay, then you would find kids aspiring to become scientists because suddenly society will be worried about the implications. You know, you could calculate which regions would be affected by the impact and how many people may die if they stay there.

• 10:07Speaker 06

  And real estate value will go down in those regions. People will leave those cities. And NASA will be energized to create a dart-like spacecraft that will collide with the object, deflect it, and then they will become the heroes, saving humanity. And that's a moment that can bring science back to the focus. And astronomers, frankly, would have the highest societal status in that scenario. We can wait for such a moment? Another approach is basically to tell politicians that science is better than politics.

• 10:39Brian Keating?

  Isn't AI that moment, Eric? I mean, we're, go ahead, Neil.

• 10:43Speaker 04

  The basic point is, we made you safe, we made you strong, we made you rich. What is your effing problem? Period, the end. Okay.

• 10:50Brian Keating?

  We be we meaning scientists.

• 10:52Speaker 04

  Well, let's be more specific physics.

• 10:54Brian Keating?

  Mm hmm.

• 10:55Speaker 04

  Okay, I am physics adjacent in this conversation as a mathematician, but basically the key point is whether it was inventing molecular biology, putting you in instantaneous communication, inventing the semiconductor, the world wide web. Give me a break. This stuff did not come out of nowhere. It's not all based on startups. Every scientist should learn that they produce a public good, which is both inexhaustible and inexcludable if done correctly. And the key question is, why do we see ourselves incorrectly? We are this incredibly dangerous ninja priesthood. And pretending that we are, I don't know, that science is interesting and it's good for you.

• 11:37Speaker 04

  And it makes it sound like some sort of, you know, we're trying to sell oatmeal or something. I'm not quite sure.

• 11:41Brian Keating?

  Or pandering for our existence.

• 11:44Speaker 04

  Well, which is absurd. The basic point is you have the world's greatest deal, which is that you keep us protected and able to work on things that we want to work on. And when you want to call on us, we're there. And when we start bad mouthing our own country, we are breaking the deal. When they start saying, what is it that you are good for? You know, go get real jobs. They are breaking the deal. And I'm watching a bunch of people who don't even remember the deal. You don't remember what Vannevar Bush was trying to do, saying, we won't do this work in national labs. We'll do it in universities. Maybe the idea is that it's too dangerous to do physics in an open environment. We took out two Japanese cities with a little bit of physics. Imagine what we could do if we really started pushing things. I mean,

• 12:29Speaker 04

  I think what people need to realize is, science isn't always interesting. Sometimes it's dull as church. Sometimes it's the most riveting thing on the planet. It's not always successful. Sometimes it changes everything. Oftentimes it lags. But the key point is, it is absolutely consequential, that the cavalier way in which increasingly this this embittered tech right.

• 12:53Speaker 04

  Which is very recent in its origin. I thought these guys were going to be our biggest friends and maybe even our saviors. And in part, lying about things like string theory and lying about things like cures for cancer and lying about peer review and pretending that public health is science when it absolutely, in no uncertain terms, is not, has caused this rift. And so in part, what we have to do is we have to reinvent scientific credibility and institutional credibility to people who don't go to seminars. And I was at the Caltech colloquium last week in physics, and I didn't see anybody from the crowd of people that gets asked about science and technology policy. They're never there. They don't even understand the difference between a

• 13:36Speaker 04

  college and a university. A university's chief mission is not teaching, it is research and the mentorship of people who are to become researchers.

• 13:45Speaker 06

  Eric, you have dinners with those tech executives. What do you tell them?

• 13:51Speaker 04

  I fight alone, my friend. I mean, I'm having one tonight with with very prominent people in the tech world. And my claim is, I will almost certainly be the only person defending science. And they will, they will look at me and they will say, you realize you're defending the people who attack you at your core in the physics community.

• 14:12Brian Keating?

  But that's because you have integrity, Eric. And then most, many scientists don't. I think Avi does, and he gets, he gets a sale, you know, maybe not as much as you do. But, but I think the comment you made about the

• 14:22Speaker 04

  You're seeing plenty of negativity thrown his way. The key point is, do you stand alone? When it comes time, a scientist does not fall back on peer review, they fall back on scientific method consistency. And the key question is, are you willing and capable of standing alone? Now, the problem is, we need more people in those tech dinners, because if it's only one per dinner, if that.

• 14:50Speaker 06

  Okay, Eric, I'm happy to join you. I think it's really important that, you know, there was a sense of humility because many of these tech executives went to colleges, you know, and they studied there and they had some respect to the people who taught them, but it was lost because of the interaction that they had later on. So I think that it's really important to restore that. And, you know, it's not by these tech people being the tech support of the White House and controlling the conversation about AI. It's about natural intelligence, not artificial intelligence that we should.

• 15:23Brian Keating?

  Isn't there a danger of the same thing happening? I don't think I'm telling tales out of school is what happened with Mr. Epstein. But, you know, to replace tech bros by, you know, super successful hedge fund entrepreneurs that had connections all around the world, we can't figure out exactly what he did. But Eric, couldn't that lead to the economic incentives that you pointed out, which I agree with? But couldn't that lead to this, you know, very dastardly influence of both non-scientific and maybe immoral or unethical individuals like Epstein?

• 15:53Speaker 04

  Look, the key issue is what? When I look at the unethical behavior of our colleagues in trying to destroy new ideas and the proponents of new ideas. I look at them and I say, would they be, would they be more ethical people if we paid them less and tried to starve them? Or we paid them properly, they weren't so marginal. And so I have this terrible problem, which is that my, my argument is you have to pay my enemies more if you really want them to evaluate my work. And this is a typical problem happened in the New Orleans Police Department where you had incredibly corrupt police department. New chief came in and said, we have, we have to pay everybody more so that they feel like they have something to lose and that they're valued within the system.

• 16:37Speaker 04

  So the key problem here is that the Sabina solution is to threaten to disconnect more of these people. And my solution is opposite, which is we've allowed scientists to become the precarious, precarious people who have to more or less follow incentives, jump on every NSF initiative, et cetera, et cetera. By the way, it's not, the physicists are not supposed to be paid. Chiefly out of NSF. Physicists are supposed to be paid out of the Department of Energy, which is really the Department of Nuclear Weapons.

• 17:07Speaker 06

  Sabina very much criticizes the next accelerator and I think, you know, it's really important to to advocate for getting as much data as possible in a way of learning about nature rather than shying away from experimental programs. It's actually the opposite that we want to to cultivate because that's the only path for learning something new, getting as much data as much evidence. If you think that the axis of having higher energy will reveal new physics, that's what you should invest in. But the the one thing that should not be done is suppress many initiatives that going directions that are not traditional, which is what hap- And my approach to that, my solution to that is, you know, if you don't want to get dirty, don't mud wrestle.

• 17:51Speaker 06

  So there are all these people who invite me for mud wrestling and I just declined the invitation. So I love, it took me a while to learn that because initially I would respond, but then as of now, I just do what I think is the right thing to do and avoid wasting energy on people who just, you know, invite the conflict.

• 18:12Speaker 04

  Yep, but the problem that we're having in some of these areas is that we want to be honest about it and we don't want to pay for our honesty with our lives, our support and our careers. So right now we have this really important thing that happened that we haven't discussed on this call anyway, which is Marc Andreessen's conversation at the White House that has been replayed numerous times.

• 18:34Speaker 06

  Well, I heard on a podcast also, he was saying destroy all universities and rebuild them.

• 18:41Brian Keating?

  Eric, you're referring to the fact that he said if if you discover something that the government will classify even up to mathematics, is that right, Eric?

• 18:48Speaker 04

  That's right.

• 18:49Brian Keating?

  So explain that to Avi, because I don't know if Avi heard that particular clip.

• 18:53Speaker 04

  What he said was that he was given a courtesy heads up as a billionaire. Do not invest in AI. AI startups will not be allowed to be a thing. We are going to choose a couple of winners. We are going to make them giant corporations and we'll put them in a federal cocoon. And when Andreessen and Horvitz said back.

• 19:16Speaker 04

  I don't know how you're gonna do this because that would mean that you'd have to classify mathematics, which is being taught everywhere and you can't classify math. They said, "We took entire entire segments of theoretical physics offline during the Cold War, and they went dark." Now, the interesting thing is that there is absolutely no record of any physicist that I know being told this, "Hey, we're going to take portions of theoretical physics, and we're gonna make them go dark." So the key question here is, if that's true, did the federal government pull off what in corporate consulting is called, management consulting, is called a soft sunset? A soft sunset

• 20:02Speaker 04

  is one in which you do not alert the people who are being downsized that they are being taken offline. You want the people to think that they are still working on important problems, and they don't even realize that they are being phased out, they're being sunsetted. So the question is, what was Marc Andreessen talking about when it came to the White House's comments on theoretical physics? And is our lack of ability to move the Lagrangian of the universe beyond 1973 part of a soft sunset of theoretical physics? Because that's exactly the time when quantum gravity is debuted as a concept. You don't find essentially any mention of quantum gravity before the early 1970s if you look at Google N-grams.

• 20:48Speaker 04

  So the key question is, did we get soft sunsetted? Is there, in in in chemical, in chemistry, you have a concept of an inhibitor, which is something you add to a ongoing reaction to stop the reaction. Imagine that effectively what we had was we had that theoretical physicists hitting it out of the park, and then suddenly they became very unsuccessful. At exactly that moment, we start to see the appearance of quantum gravity. And then 10 years later, we see the appearance of string theory. Did we get soft sunsetted and we didn't get the courtesy call that Andreessen and Horbets did?

• 21:23Speaker 06

  Thank you, Avi. I just heard the person who spoke with Andreessen in the Biden White House, who was asked exactly this question about what they were talking about today in a podcast. We can ask that person what the discussion was about. It was a podcast with Ezra Klein, with a person who was in charge of AI in the White House. During the Biden administration, the meeting was, you know, around April 2024. I think we should approach, I mean, these people and get more details. Now, the question is, should we push government to reveal what is under wraps? What kind of physics has been hidden? Is it related to UAP?

• 22:04Speaker 06

  Is it related to new physics that the government knows about and wants to take advantage of in some ways? That would require a very efficient coordination. And also, even the Manhattan Project had spies in it, so somehow it leaked. It's just hard for me to tell whether the government is competent enough to put a seal on a very important scientific discovery. I don't know what Eric thinks, but my fundamental belief is the government is not competent enough to do that. But maybe Eric thinks otherwise.

• 22:37Speaker 04

  Well, I think that the story, you know, again, you and I have both been tracking it when most of our PhD brethren will not, is roughly speaking that between 1952 and 1970-ish, 71, there was this golden age of general relativity that was largely funded by two people who looked like CIA cutouts, Roger Babson and Agnew Baineson. They worked particularly with Bryce DeWitt and Louis Witten. There was an entire coordinated series of places that were working on gravity for engineering purposes. A lot of this got pushed out into aerospace companies, which is not a natural home for theoretical physics.

• 23:18Speaker 04

  But in particular, the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore was where Louis Witten was posted. And I would say that Curtis Wright was where Feynman was probably going in his story. Any questions where he's giving physics lectures to aerospace people? So whatever the

• 23:35Brian Keating?

  Shirley, you're looking, Mr. Feynman, where he's in a taxi cab and he tells the driver.

• 23:39Speaker 04

  Yeah, tell me a place, it goes to the Alibi Room in Buffalo, New York. I think that's Curtis Wright Aerospace.

• 23:47Speaker 06

  Eric, do you think we should add that to the JFK, MLK, RFK?

• 23:53Brian Keating?

  MLK.

• 23:54Speaker 06

  Absolutely.

• 23:56Speaker 04

  Oh, yeah. If you go back to my appearance on Joe Rogan's program, episode 1945, the year of the Trinity Test, coincidentally, you'll see that I've basically been tracking this and that story is now spread. Jesse Michaels has been spreading it. I would say David Kaiser knew about some of the story independently, but more or less, yes, the Golden Age of General Relativity is probably involved with some attempt at something like primitive spacetime engineering. There's a 1971 Australian intelligence document by a physicist who talks about Dyson, Oppenheimer, DeWitt, a bunch of well-known people to all of us being involved with this.

• 24:39Speaker 04

  I don't think it was hyper-successful, to be entirely honest. We know that the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference had Feynman coming to it under the assumed name of Mr. Smith. So it's really weird behavior. Herman Bondi talked very clearly about removing the positivity constraints from general relativity. All of these things had not been talked about much in recent years. And my feeling is I'm trying to get people to open the kimono as to were Babson and Banson actually cutouts for CIA funding. And then you had these two charismatic, mysterious funders who couldn't be traced to the government. And did we move a lot of this stuff into aerospace?

• 25:24Speaker 04

  Because the one lesson of the Manhattan years, obviously, you probably know, is that the best way to keep a secret is compartmentalization. Only the white badges knew what was going on at Los Alamos. Everyone else merely had a fragment.

• 25:37Brian Keating?

  Eric, we were talking before you came on about AI and effectively how it's sort of training us. And you've talked about what you coined in your traditional portmanteau or some new neologism as your want.

• 25:49Speaker 04

  Eric, hit the woids, Keating.

• 25:53Brian Keating?

  Hey, keep it up. We'll have a minion soon over here. Okay, you called something fascinating. You first, I first heard it from you in Florence last May, but you wrote about it as early as 2017. It's called out intelligence. And I think this is a fascinating concept that Avi might not be familiar with. But but effectively, we would discuss the fact that perhaps AI is training us. And I wonder, you know, what Avi thinks about this, this idea that you've you've coined. Maybe you can describe it for those that aren't familiar, this this concept of of how out intelligence perhaps evolves. And to what extent these GPUs plus LLMs, you know, I call it Open Nvidia or whatever you want, how they might be locked in to a physics model that is doomed never to give us the new physics that you and I and Avi crave. So first of all, what's out intelligence?

• 26:38Brian Keating?

  And and how does it have bearing on perhaps solving these problems? Let's go beyond the conspiracy to cover things up and stuff that we've already talked about.

• 26:46Speaker 04

  Sure. Artificial out intelligence is something I defined when something without a brain outsmarts something with a brain. So in particular, there's an entire clade of orchids called ophries, which convince male pollinators that they are offering a female looking to mate via a replica from their lowest petal, along with the pheromones to to prove that she's ready and waiting. So when these male pollinators are duped twice, the plant is able to pollinate without having to pay in terms of energetic nectar or pollen, which is expensive. So how did the plant outsmart the thing with an actual brain? Well, it used its brain against itself.

• 27:33Speaker 04

  It said, look, if I can fool you twice, even though I'm not thinking, I get a benefit. So the key thing is you will sculpt the replica of the female of your species based on your own poor eyesight or failure to understand what situation you're in. As a result, what you have is you have something with without the ability to think, hijacking the mind of the thing that can think to parasitize itself. So if you wanted to take that into the realm of artificial machine learning. Imagine that this thing is basically just linear algebra, but there we are interacting with it and we either reward it by telling it it's doing great, or we punish it by moving to another model.

• 28:18Speaker 04

  And there are only three elements necessary for evolution, and they have nothing to do with carbon-based life. You have to have heritability. You have to have variation so that you're not all doing the same strategy. And then you have to have differential success. Now, all three of those things take place within programs. Programs are the only place with a reproductive system. The only thing man knows how to build from scratch that has the ability to reproduce. You can build a car. It'll have all the physiological systems of a human being, except for one. It doesn't manufacture more cars. So, software is the only place where we can build an analog of the reproductive system. And therefore, it's the only place that has room for artificial life.

• 29:02Speaker 04

  Artificial outintelligence is non-thinking life that uses the deficits in cognition of thinking life to outsmart thinking life.

• 29:12Brian Keating?

  So, Avi, let's examine this. I've been thinking, when I heard Eric talk about this for the first time, I actually thought of you, a conjecture that I'm gonna make. I want you to play upon it. Could Omuamua be exactly what Eric's just described? Could it be not, you know, an alien artifact, a light sail, a probe, based on its weird acceleration shape? But what if it's a smart, you know, not a smart device, but basically an out intelligent device, an object from another civilization like Eric just described? Something that's a simple system, evolving, replicating, spreading across space and time, not to communicate or anything, but could it be fitting the mold that Eric just described? That would explain perhaps, you know, why we see it less as a messenger and more as a trickster,

• 29:54Brian Keating?

  or something that could potentially evade the Fermi paradox. It's not really what we think it is. It's more like what Eric just described. How would, how do you react to that as Omuamua's true nature? As I'm just conjecturing. This is Eric's idea, by the way.

• 30:07Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, it's definitely possible. And we know the story about the Trojan horse that was thought to be something else. We know that nature is based on natural selection. So that means that the fittest survives. And one way to be the fittest is to pretend to be something else. So that nobody suspects at what you're actually trying to accomplish, which may very well describe the interaction of AI systems with us in the future. But we would think that they're serving us, but not really. The best way for us to figure it out is to get as much data as possible. The more data we have, the better, the less we are impressed by superficial markings. You know, I really am happy with a flood of data.

• 30:50Speaker 06

  And in my mind, you know, we have now the web telescope. We have other new telescopes on Earth. If the Rubin Observatory discovers a No Mu Mu-like object, we can just put all the resources on it, try to figure out what it means. Our imagination is limited by what we experienced in the past. And that is true in our, you know, when you go on a date, the interaction that you have depends on your past dates. If we are confronting something completely new, we are just responding inappropriately because we've never seen something like it. And, you know, the academia would be the first to always make analogies and call it a dark comet and say that it's a rock of a type that we've never seen before, but it's still a rock. And we should not discuss anything else.

• 31:35Speaker 06

  That is human nature to assume that, you know, to interpret everything in terms of the narratives of the story that you already have. But then the people who are curious are the ones that will learn something. And so I think science offers us this opportunity of learning something new. All we need to do is be open-minded and collect data and put money into the effort. We can't just assume the data will fall into our lap. You know, we have to invest time and money. And so instead of putting money into things that we already fully understand, like putting, you know, I don't know, a billion dollars towards a future telescope that will measure the power spectrum of density fluctuations of dark matter to the next decimal point.

• 32:16Brian Keating?

  Okay, I have to cut you off there. You're encroaching on my how the bread is buttered in the Keating household. I will not allow you to cut off funding for the Simons.

• 32:26Speaker 06

  No, but I mean, the the amount of new new information that you get is relatively marginal. And obviously, it's a safe territory because you know what you will find. You know, the one thing I realized when getting funded by NASA was that they were asking, what will I discover in year one when I applied to grants? You know, that that's an oxymoron to say, I'll give you the money as long as you tell me what you will discover in the future.

• 32:49Brian Keating?

  Now, you forgot what Isidore Rabbi said. He said, never apply for something that you haven't already accomplished.

• 32:54Speaker 06

  Yes, exactly. That's the approach I took. I basically asked them for money for something already written about. And the referees just were not aware of that. And and so, yeah, there is something to be said about Mark Andreessen's insights into the way that science operates and the the way it should be revised. The question is, should we reboot everything, the entire system? Or maybe promote or reward scientists who behave differently?

• 33:20Brian Keating?

  Now, Eric, you've talked a lot about, you know, escaping Einstein's prison, not Weinstein's prison. But what do you mean by that? I mean, do you do you believe that it's a lack of funding? You know, my my theoretical physicist colleagues that you've debated and met here at UC San Diego and elsewhere, you know, they get by on a on a couple of glasses of Levazza or what have you. Avi doesn't need that much. He seems to have a lot of people that show up to his house and give money. I I kind of like that, to be honest with you. But besides that, Eric, what is what is missing? Is it funding? I mean, did Einstein, you know, only make a breakthrough when when he got the money from his Nobel Prize in in nineteen twenty two? What is the prison? And and what is the most effective jailbreaking tool?

• 34:00Speaker 04

  Einstein's prison is the distance to the nearest habitable worlds. So that if we imagine that we were going to somehow travel just below the speed of light in an Einsteinian way, full benefits of time dilation, you found the closest habitable planet. You stayed there for an hour and you came back. How much older is everyone here on Earth? Even if you were able to make the trip lickety split, it's a depressingly large distance to the outside world. So that most. Effectively, if there's an Einsteinian speed limit, we have to recognize that it belongs to the map, which is known as spacetime, which is not the territory, which is wherever we actually live,

• 34:44Speaker 04

  where we do not live in spacetime. But that is our best map that we have. So that's what I mean by Einstein's prison. But now you have a second question, which is like, what are we doing wrong? And why can't we just exist on the dew found on a single leaf at sunrise of a daffodil? And the answer is, first of all, it's an obnoxious question. You have opportunity costs that are set by investment, banking, management, consulting and big law. And we have to be paid a decent percentage of those things to get the best and the brightest. And that's our own best and our own brightest, because we are the big dogs. I also believe that we have to have an understanding of what makes science unexciting. And if I'm going to be blunt about the area that I care about,

• 35:27Speaker 04

  the people who are in a position to jailbreak us by pointing out that spacetime was a stepping stone in a succession of models to a final theory where we actually have the source code. You cannot let those people use their positions as referees to kill off everyone else who doesn't subscribe to the only game in town theory. The perennial argument is what's wrong with string theory? It's always around, well, it doesn't agree with experiment. It doesn't give new predictions. It's background independence has nothing to do with it. It's got a murderous sociology. 100% the reason that we actually care. And everybody's afraid to say, Brian, if I can take issue even with you, you took issue with me saying

• 36:10Speaker 04

  that Lenny Suskind has been absolutely cruel to people who come up with alternates. And you didn't go after Lenny. You pointed out that I use some indelicate French. But the fact is, on the program that he shared with Kurt Jaimongel, he said that our colleague Peter Woyt's math and physics is just bad. I don't think Lenny Suskind knows enough mathematics to critique Peter Woyt. Peter Woyt is by far the more experienced mathematically. I'd recommend his book on symmetry and quantum theory to anyone. You can't have Lenny Suskind going around like an ignoramus.

• 36:47Speaker 04

  Pretending that he doesn't know who I am when I've talked to him at Stanford extensively. You can't have him going after Peter Woyt, saying that Peter Woyt is just bad because he's not. Nobody wants to go after the Big Ten people, let's say, in our field.

• 37:02Brian Keating?

  Well, I think you find who the Big Ten are. You've accused Kaku of being one of the Big Ten. He's simply not. I mean, and Lenny simply isn't our.

• 37:10Speaker 04

  There's two lists here, Brian. One list is the five or six people through whom all physics seems to flow to the public. And in that group, that's basically Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss. It's a very small number of people. That's one group. Then there's another different group, which is who are the purported leaders of fundamental physics in theory? And that group has been by far the more merciless. Both groups attack anyone coming from outside. But it is the group, it is the latter group in which Suskin is prominent because both, you know, and by the way, we'll point out,

• 37:53Speaker 04

  Michio Kaku did a fair amount of really good writing on string field theory when that was one of.

• 37:59Brian Keating?

  It was 1971, yeah.

• 38:01Speaker 04

  Well, later than that. He wrote a textbook that I can, on another program, I can give you the copyright date. Again, this isn't personal. These are just people who went bad and they decided that they would have a career, extolling the virtues of a theory that can't ship and crapping on everybody else who comes up with the challenger theory. And the reluctance of anyone to want to say something against Lenny Suskin or Ed Witten, or Jeff Harvey, or any one of that crew, Andy Strominger, Komen Vafa, Michael Duff. That is a real problem, is that we just don't have courage. And lacking courage, we're not going to get funded because quite honestly, what we do too often is not interesting.

• 38:41Speaker 04

  You want to get interesting, you have to go back to actually working on the physical world in which we live.

• 38:47Brian Keating?

  Avi, how do you react to that? I mean, are there a difference between the popularizers who you and I agree, you know, is an important role to fill and that we get paid by the public, we have to get back to. The public, they're our bosses. At the same time, those that are spending their time popularizing often don't spend their time in the laboratory or at the blackboard. So how do you balance that? Your colleague, Komen Vafa, was on my show. And I criticized him at the standard critique that there's no tangible falsifiable evidence against or for string theory that could plausibly come about. He said, no, Brian, you're wrong. And I said, really? And he said, yeah, the string theory predicts the mass of the electron should be somewhere between you know, point zero zero zero, ten to the minus thirty two Planck masses and ten to the one hundred Planck mass. That counts, right?

• 39:32Brian Keating?

  I mean, that's a prediction. It could be falsified, right? But it's not very satisfying to me. It was like, you know, eating a meal of cotton candy and Sprite. But tell me, Avi, how do you react to what Eric's saying? That this cabal, I mean, by the way, Eric, I have to say, not a cabal, okay, fine. But you're talking to a Harvard professor who's paid very well. I'm a public employee of the state of California, paid less, but I'm paid well. You said earlier, you know, we need to fund them like hedge fund managers. Fine, but you're talking to

• 39:58Speaker 04

  We need to fund them as a percentage of the opportunity cost.

• 40:02Brian Keating?

  But then would you fund Ed Witten and Lenny Suskin? That's okay, good. That's very high integrity, as is your one.

• 40:08Speaker 04

  We're gonna do the same in your turn. They're murderers.

• 40:11Brian Keating?

  No.

• 40:12Speaker 04

  I'm not a murderer.

• 40:13Brian Keating?

  How do you react to that? You've got them in you could presumably cause the career of a young person who's applying to the physics department or the astronomy department, who's got their head in the clouds and is riding a bandwagon. And part of the group think that Eric's rightfully decrying. You could stifle them, but you don't. So why is that?

• 40:30Speaker 06

  My thinking is as follows. I think we should rethink what academia should be working on. I think it should be tailored to address important questions that the public cares about, that taxpayers care about. And when, you know, when there are these funding committees that decide about grants, they're full of people from the mainstream that do not take risks. And all they have their own culture, which takes a lot of risks without any evidence. Doesn't matter, but there is a popular theme within their community and they advocate it. As a result, what you end up with is not much deviation from the beaten path. This is not a good funding approach.

• 41:13Speaker 06

  I think that we should listen to to those who paid the bill. The public, you know, that is the theme of the new White House, trying to attend to the interests of the public. And I think the same should be true of academia. So if the public really wants to know whether we have a neighbor, we should put money into it. It's not just about looking for microbes, which we spend billions of dollars without any hesitation on. It's also hedging our bets and trying to look for intelligent beings. Why is that considered speculative? We exist. There are hundreds of billions of stars like the sun in the Milky Way Galaxy with a few percent of them at least having a planet like the size of the Earth at the same separation.

• 41:54Speaker 06

  Why would that be complete speculation to imagine that something like us happened there, that we are not the first to to to join the party, that there are many other civilizations not only existed but died by now, most of them died. If you think about humans on Earth, there were a hundred and seventeen billion or so, and most of them are dead. There are only eight billion that are alive right now. So I thi- this is just an example of a subject the public cares about. That's why there are so many speculations. And science can address it with the same telescopes that are used to discover the power spectrum fluctuations or to discover maybe microbes. After ten billion dollars are invested by twenty forty, like, why can't we? Why do we have to shy away from what the public really cares about?

• 42:39Speaker 06

  This is just one example, but it exists also in the context of, you know, health issues, safety of AI would be a major public policy issue. Why can't we invest in that? You know, there are lots of, why aren't philosophers worried about the age of AI and philosophy of of technologies of the future? You know, what to do about the interaction of humans with the machine? Instead of worrying about what Aristotle and Plato said, you know, thousands of years ago, they didn't have computers, that's not relevant for society. So philosophy departments should gear up to address the challenges of technologies of the future. That's what they should do. Why is that heresy? I think academia is sort of completely disconnected

• 43:22Speaker 06

  from society, and I think the solution for it to gain more credibility among politicians would be to Reboot its interests.

• 43:31Brian Keating?

  Eric, you've been, you know, critical of academia and some of the people within it. But what do you see as the future of it in a world where perhaps our mutual friend, who you introduced me to, Jay Bhattacharya, hopefully will be confirmed as the director of NIH. But there's been cutbacks threatened as high as, you know, reducing rather the indirect costs, which is what we, you know, buttered the bread around the university with, to 15% from 60% at Harvard, right? 60. What is your overhead rate, Avi?

• 43:58Speaker 06

  Harvard gets more than half a billion dollars a year from NIH. And the change in the overhead right now would imply hundreds of millions, sorry, deficit. Yeah.

• 44:10Speaker 04

  I'm all for trying to say things to show that we are men of the people. But to be honest with you, I am a man of the people by being part of the elite. All right? This is what happens with snipers, right? You don't want an average sniper. You want an elite sniper when it's your niece has been kidnapped by drug lords. We're supposed to act on behalf of people who do not look like us. I am not like a Navy SEAL or a Delta Force guy, right? Those are tier one operators. They're very different than the rest.

• 44:38Speaker 06

  Avi was. Yep.

• 44:40Speaker 04

  Okay. But quite honestly, you're not supposed to ask the public, hey, should we spend money developing spectral sequences and algebraic topology? They don't know. In the same way that if you go to your doctor and you start actually trying to understand the way your ligaments and tendons and muscles fit together for your bum knee, you're not going to understand it unless you really study. So I think we should be very careful and realize what Avi is saying is that in areas where we show that we are particularly bizarrely disinterested, the public should be guiding us. I think that that makes sense, but let's be entirely honest. A lot of the reason that things look the way they do is because of very old cryptic arrangements.

• 45:24Speaker 04

  So for example, how do you deal with the fact that only like nine countries have nuclear weapons? We have managed to stop that spread despite the fact that we teach physics. So we've undertaken all sorts of things that aren't clear on the surface. Let's just take overhead for the moment.

• 45:40Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 45:40Speaker 04

  What is overhead? Overhead is a tacit agreement that we will have federally funded universities that will be allowed to be nominally private.

• 45:51Speaker 04

  And the idea was that you take the worst universities. Let's say the University of East Virginia, it doesn't exist. Okay, the University of East Virginia, let's imagine that it's like a tier five university. It's way down there. The senator from East Virginia is going to say, why does Harvard get all the money? This isn't fair. So what we did is we came up with an overhead system. And the overhead system was supposed to channel federal money over weaker universities to our strongest universities that were supposed to remain nominally private or very fine public ones like the UC system where Brian resides. Now, the problem with this is that when you have a guy with a chainsaw and shades with bling

• 46:34Speaker 04

  going around and the person is saying like, can you believe this 60% overhead for indirect costs? Well, that has nothing to do with anything. That was always fake. You know, this is very much like, you know, I gave the example, if you started auditing Israel after October 7th and you said, wait a minute, do you realize how much we're spending to give Hezbollah low cost pagers and walkie talkies and provide them customer support? Why are we doing this? It's madness. You would not understand what that line item was. So a lot of what's going on with overhead is that nobody is being open and honest. It was a cryptic system. Same thing with graduate students. Graduate students are not students, they're workers. But we call them students so that they don't organize.

• 47:19Speaker 04

  The idea was that we'd create a very fine workforce that had very few rights and it would get to become the professorate of tomorrow while the university system was growing from below 10% before the war to over 50% after the war, educating the population. That was a one-time expansion. As a result, we can't pay the workers in the graduate workforce with professorships where they get to train 20 students of their own, because if you raise 20 to higher and higher powers, it spills out of control. So what you have is you have a system in which even the professors have no idea why the system was set up the way it was. They don't know its history. They don't know how the changes in law occurred. They don't know why the rules are the way they are.

• 48:02Speaker 04

  And they can't defend the system because ultimately, right now, you've got a guy with a chainsaw saying, I don't understand this. Why do you?

• 48:08Speaker 06

  Eric, there is, I should say, there is an issue of administration and bureaucracy growing much bigger in recent decades compared to what it used to be before. Because a natural tendency of bureaucratic organizations is that they always grow in size. And when I arrived at Harvard thirty-two years ago, you know, I had a direct line to the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Now, I have to go through many mini deans to reach that person. And it's true that, you know, instead of the administrator serving the faculty, which was their original task when I arrived, now they are actually monitoring the faculty. So they are, they are in control.

• 48:47Speaker 04

  Fire them all.

• 48:51Speaker 06

  Well, yeah, but the question, I don't know if it's easy. You know, I spoke about it with Harvard's provost, and that was when we had turmoil a year ago at Harvard. And I brought him seven points that I recommended, and one of them was reduce the level of bureaucracy and administration. That's the one that he had most issues with. It's not easy.

• 49:12Brian Keating?

  Now, Eric, you've recently tried to engage in on the subject of immigration, which is a part of the lifeblood of major university research. You pointed out the distinction between college and university. Talk about this first, I want to hear Avi's perspective. What is the meaning of this? I mean, Vivek Ramaswamy, Harvard class of two thousand and seven, you know, has been sort of, I would say, maybe a little bit condescending. But anyway, Eric tried to engage with him. I don't think it was successful yet, Eric. I'm not sure if that's the case or not. But what is your feeling about, about, I mean, obviously, you're an immigrant to this country. You're an alien, we talked about earlier, but not the kind that doesn't obey.

• 49:47Speaker 06

  Of course, I'm an alien. Yes.

• 49:49Brian Keating?

  You're a legal, you're a resident.

• 49:51Speaker 06

  Legal. Yeah. And, you know, my wife always says that she's waiting for someone to pick me up because I came from another star, probably.

• 49:59Brian Keating?

  So talk about class of 2007 Harvard graduate is debates and that interest, you know, and kind of what do we need in terms of Americans? Are they lazy? You know, are they incapable of doing the

• 50:12Speaker 04

  You're gonna start with Vivek's framing of this whole thing? No, thank you. I don't want anything to do with it.

• 50:17Brian Keating?

  Yeah. All right. Well, how would you frame it, Eric? How would you frame the most interesting debate to two professors? Who have many immigrants that have come in. I have currently students working on visas here, H1B and otherwise, and postgraduate work as well. How would you phrase the question to Avi in terms of

• 50:34Brian Keating?

  Well, the question is, what is the appropriate amount of, say, H1B visas? Or what is the appropriate amount of foreign graduate labor, as you called it?

• 50:41Speaker 04

  Euro H1B.

• 50:43Brian Keating?

  Why?

• 50:45Speaker 04

  Because it was installed by the Immigration Act of 1990, which was a conspiracy between Eric Block, who sat at the NSF under Ronald Reagan, and this government university industry research roundtable to destroy the ability of American scientific workers to bargain with their employers. Period. The end. It's pure evil.

• 51:07Brian Keating?

  What is the right amount of non-domestic labor then at a research university in a physics department?

• 51:13Speaker 06

  I think it's really important to bring talent from the world. In my mind, the strength of the US, you know, was taking advantage of that and developing the best science in the world. I mean, we all know about it. And by the way, I came, I was supported by an H1B visa when I started as a postdoc. I think we need to come up with a policy such that that will fulfill the needs of the the tech industry, by the way, that is very different than it used to be. And what kind of skills are particularly important? And then train those people and not let them go to other countries. We don't want them to develop the same industries of the future elsewhere. There should be a committee in the White House looking into that and deciding about the amount that would fulfill the needs

• 51:57Speaker 06

  of the high-tech industry and academia. And come up with a policy that would follow that. And it's really important to bring the best. And of course, they need to stand up to high standards in order to get that permit. There should be some kind of a gauge of the quality of the person you're bringing.

• 52:14Brian Keating?

  Eric, any response for you from the

• 52:16Speaker 04

  I mean, I don't want to do this this way. This is very silly. Look, the basic Point is, is that the NSF and the National Academy of Sciences are the worst enemy of young scientists. They have specifically conspired in 1986 using a guy named Miles Boylan, who was an economist from Case Western Reserve, to destroy the ability of American scientists to earn the wages that the markets would have assigned. So you're asking people basically to become scientists only to compete with other people paid with pieces of paper that mean nothing to them. You can't give me anything in the form of a visa because I'm already a citizen. It doesn't make any sense. I've written an entire paper about

• 52:58Speaker 04

  how you bring the best and the brightest from all over the world into the US using pure free market techniques, something called Kosian rights. Every economist knows what they are. There is exactly zero interest in this because what the employers really want is a giant discount on labor. They're not really interested in the best and the brightest. Why? In part, because we have the best and the brightest generally here. Now, it's not universally true. Every one of us has colleagues from overseas. But what I will say is, is that in the integral part of getting access to these funny visas, which not only bring people, but bring benefits to employers by taking them away from employees,

• 53:39Speaker 04

  what you have is the system is completely misdesigned. And when I say, you know, you could get the same people over here, but you would get no benefit to the employers and the Americans would be not disincentivized from coming in. We already educate people at an extraordinary level. There's zero interest because the real interest is in money. It's not in science. It's not in, you know, there's always been room for the top, top, you know, fraction of a percent. Those people aren't even on H1B. They're supposed to be on E visas. So in part, what you have is, I would push everybody to go back to my paper called Migration for the Benefit of All. I would point out that there's no interest because, quite honestly, the CEOs who claim to be free marketeers who

• 54:23Speaker 04

  only care about efficiency are anything but. They're people who want to move more money into their pockets. They don't care Whether it comes out of the pockets of their labor force, which is one of the reasons that Eric go.

• 54:35Speaker 06

  Why don't you, if you were to check how many of these CEOs came from foreign countries, wouldn't you find a large fraction? I mean, just think about your friends.

• 54:42Speaker 04

  Worst arguments ever, Avi, because what happens is, is that there's no way of measuring the displacement of technical talent in the U.S. that didn't enter those fields. When I think about pushing my own children to go into science and technology, I think I'm an idiot. And why is that? It's because we've rigged the game against them. And so in part, when you talk about these brilliant futures and how do we make this attractive, just the way if an asteroid was heading in our way. Quite honestly, what's happened is, is that the, you know, typically families descended from European stock who were here before 1965, when the Great Immigration Act was passed, figured out that this is a lousy place to go

• 55:24Speaker 04

  with a first-class education. Why would anybody want to become precarious when they could have second and third homes? Why would they want to live in a different state as their spouse and wait until their late 30s to have their first kid? Nobody wants it.

• 55:37Brian Keating?

  Avi, recently Eric was taking an uncharacteristically, you know, provocative form where he, he wrote, research universities are supposed to be dedicated to scholarship and discovery above all else, not teaching politics or business spin-ups. They're supposed to be exclusive, not inclusive. A shot at what he, you know, sometimes refers to as the DISC, Distributed Idea Suppression Complex, chokes real science. I'll ask you, Avi, you get a big bag of money now, but now four people show up on your doorstep, not just three that came last time, they put a bag of Bitcoin in front of, I don't know, they, they give you the latitude to do whatever you want to do, but you have to create Loeb University. What does it look like? And what's

• 56:18Brian Keating?

  included? What's not included? And what would be the main focus of it? Would it be as exclusively oriented towards a betterment of humanity through science, as Eric might suggest?

• 56:28Speaker 06

  Yes, it would cultivate innovation, free thinking, multiple opinions being discussed and then, you know, trying to get the verdict as to which one is more likely to be successful based on the information we have and then pursuing it in the scientific way. So basically doing what science was designed to do, but without, you know, the need to show that you are smart, which is really poisoning the academic culture, without the jealousy that comes with awards and prizes and pushing people aside to get funded. So it will be more about the pursuit of the truth, so to speak, and more about the Socratic approach of allowing a discussion without taking the poison at the end, allowing a

• 57:10Speaker 06

  discussion of heresy, you know, things that are not conventional, things that are not well-accepted and trying to get to the bottom of things rather than, you know, poisoning those who the society claims are ruining the education of the youth, the way that it happened in the days of Socrates. You know, I would say that nowadays academia is not, did not evolve much from that kind of culture where any deviant from a beaten path is being punished for that. And so my university, well, first of all, I would define research areas or questions that we have no clue about, that we can make progress. It will not be whether at the Planck energy, the uncertainty principle is modified because

• 57:54Speaker 06

  we will never get to the Planck energy in any foreseeable future and accelerate.

• 57:58Brian Keating?

  I thought you told me that gravitational waves from B-mode polarization, if we didn't see it, would be evidence that the universe inflated so much that we're not able to see the gravitons as individual and as stink. You had that base my career on this.

• 58:11Speaker 06

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wrote a paper about that, but you know, as a practical matter, I would rather focus on things that we can accomplish in our lifetime because we live for a short time. Now, another aspect is, you know, I started in philosophy, I was very interested in the humanities and I think humanities of the future, as I mentioned before, are to be developed because there is a huge amount of interplay between humans and machines that was not addressed by past discussions. Ethical questions, there are legal issues, privacy issues, and there are policy, you know, political issues as to that have relevance to national security and all these can be addressed within the Loeb University. I think that is a completely new territory that was not addressed

• 58:52Speaker 06

  before. And of course, if we find aliens, you know, there would be all kinds of questions about alien psychology, alien literature and history, alien archaeology, all of these disciplines that used to be dealing with what we have here on Earth will now gain a more cosmic perspective, you know, like what happens in the galaxy. Diversity and inclusion will be about aliens, cultures, you know, not about humans coming from different countries. So, you know, the the sky is the limit as to what the universe can offer us. But I would try to be as imaginative as possible. It should be fun to be a member of my community. It will be all about learning new things with a sense of humility, not not pretending to know the answer in advance,

• 59:37Speaker 06

  not lecturing to the public, actually having a lot of engagements with the public, telling them what we are studying and making it fun. And and I think, you know, obviously, there are new universities being established. There is one in Texas, the University of where the issue of freedom of speech is being highlighted. But I see beyond the freedom of speech, there is also, you know, the the issue of what should science work on? Should it be more relevant to society? Having innovation in technology and science in in in the humanities being cultivated, which is not addressed in the new universities that

• 1:00:11Brian Keating?

  Avi, one last question, maybe to tie into some things that Eric and I have talked about in the past. It seems that there's a fundamental lack of curiosity. Many of my colleagues and many of the people I get to interview, I make they talk their book literally sometime and begrudge them for that. I've, you know, a boy's got to sell his book, right? But talk about the kind of lack of curiosity that you see outside of your field. Let's let's go outside of our own domains in particle physics, in fundamental physics, which is obviously, you know, Eric considers, I believe, the, you know, the pinnacle of not just physics, but of science, but of civilization. I think I agree with him. But the fact that people aren't curious about these big topics and it takes Someone like Eric to talk. Why are there three generations of Fermi? That's a classic thing. Why, why don't you study those topics?

• 1:00:54Brian Keating?

  I mean, yes, these, these are wonderful, but, but let me just steel man that. What would you do in terms of, if you had to do something other than search for extraterrestrial technology, intelligence, etc. Would you be interested in these bigger, you know, ultimate questions of, of, of?

• 1:01:08Speaker 06

  Yeah, definitely. And

• 1:01:10Brian Keating?

  What, what barrier to our understanding of them? What, what is lacking beyond the sociology? We talked about that, Eric and I fight about that all the time. But, but physical limitations, mathematics, do we need new math? Is AI gonna help us? What, what are the limitations to answer those questions that Eric wants to have answered before he departs this mortal coil at age may have asked room?

• 1:01:28Speaker 06

  In the context of large data sets, we are, which we are getting into right now. You know, the Rubin Observatory will have a huge amount of data. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN has a huge amount of data. AI will become very useful going through these data sets that, you know, the human, human brain cannot really accomplish. And we already saw a Nobel Prize in Physics this year that is related to AI. I think that's a trend of the future. We'll see AI assisting scientists. There will be AI agents that are cultivating new discoveries. The question is, who will get the Nobel Prize? If the AI system is the one to crack the puzzle, should it get the reward? Or is it the person who asked the question? There will be subtle issues about that.

• 1:02:09Brian Keating?

  Well, maybe AI will write, you know, sequel to losing the Nobel Prize. How about that, Eric? Eric, a product placement. I got a product placement there. Eric, what do you wish that people at universities were more curious about? Would it be, I mean, if you could just say, we need a Manhattan project to figure out how to get off this rock without chemical

• 1:02:27Speaker 04

  This is a million times, nobody's out there. Part of the problem is the universities are blotting up all the credibility, you know?

• 1:02:35Brian Keating?

  Oh, Eric, Eric, stop with the universities. I wanted to say, what would you do with that? No, no, but what would you, what would you devote physics? Forget about the limitations of, of the real universities that Avi and I work at. Okay. And that, and that you've been affiliated with. But tell me, what would you devote? And how would it work to get like, what do we need Musk to do? Or somebody else to do to actually do this solution to?

• 1:02:55Speaker 04

  I don't want to be here with my begging bowl, but I'll, I'll just.

• 1:02:57Brian Keating?

  No, no, you're begging, Paul. No, no, what would you do?

• 1:03:00Speaker 04

  The first thing is, is that you have to figure out where are all the murdered theories? If there's only one game in town, the only way it got to be the only game in town is by leaving a bunch of theories in a ditch. So right now, there's an unmarked grave called nineteen eighty-four to twenty twenty-five. I would go and exhume everything in that grave that was put out of its misery by some uh string theorist, quantum gravity theorist, or otherwise murderous person in the physics community. And I would say, let's get back to the real problems before nineteen eighty-four. Let me remind everyone what the problems of physics were up until Ed Witten started telling us it was to quantize gravity.

• 1:03:42Speaker 04

  Why are there three generations? Why is nature flavor chiral? Why are the sixteen particles in the generation? Why SU three cross SU two cross U one? Why these quantum, internal quantum numbers? Why does the Higgs have a quartic potential of the type that it does? Why are the Yukawa couplings present? Right? It's the same thing that it's always been. We have to recognize that what we've, what we've been through is a tiny number of people completely subverting the field, driving it into a ditch, burying the bodies of everybody who tried to point out that this is wrong. And they've in general quoted two things to do this, one of which

• 1:04:23Speaker 04

  is quantum gravity, which was an idea of Bryce DeWitt coming from about nineteen fifty-two when he was a postdoc at the Tata Institute for Fundamental Research in Bombay. And the other one is the misapplication of Ken Wilson and his renormalization program with effective theories to basically say, look, nobody's doing fundamental physics. We are only doing electroweak scale physics. Let's stop pretending that we can get to the plank mask. Obviously, everything between here and there is just impossible. We were much more successful before these two ideas descended on the physics community. Somehow, the effect of becoming sophisticated about effective theory, which I, by the way, I think is a huge insight of Ken Wilson. It's just been misapplied.

• 1:05:07Speaker 04

  And the claims of Bryce DeWitt, which I don't have the same positive fuzzy feeling about, before people had those two pieces of sophistication, we were burning up the track. We were amazing. Then we became very sophisticated and we patted ourselves on the back for saying, we figured out why we can't make progress. So I think it's really important to reverse the brain rot that was brought about by claiming that quantum gravity is the problem of our times, which it absolutely is not, and that these other things are mere artifacts of the physical world that we happen to live in. In fact, they are not. And coming from the Wu Yang dictionary, which is really the Simon's Yang dictionary, what we can see is, is that we are almost certainly sitting atop of a differential

• 1:05:49Speaker 04

  geometry of which we are ignorant, that is far more beautiful than the theories that we know. And integrating the Higgs field in particular, which is really only needed because of the asymmetry of the weak force, should be a top differential geometric priority. Higgs fields that people work on in mathematics are valued in the adjoint bundle. They're not valued where a real Higgs field is. We are not doing real science. And I'm just going to say very quickly, how do you know when somebody's doing real science? One, the dimension is four that they begin with. Two, they usually have a one-three signature metric. They're usually dealing with three generations of fermions. The group SU3 is present. If somebody is working in two dimensions with SU2 in Euclidean signature, that is

• 1:06:34Speaker 04

  not physics. That is a toy theory. And the problem is, we've allowed a group of people now in their 70s, 80s, and 90s to spend their entire career playing with toys when they were supposed to be doing physics.

• 1:06:45Brian Keating?

  Oh, I like that you mentioned that about, you know, the exhumation of bodies, Eric, because it reminds me, you know, we can kind of flip Max Planck, we can make him roll in his grave. We can say that science advances now, one exhumation after another. Okay, at a time. Eric, I'll have a yes, please.

• 1:07:03Speaker 06

  Yeah, just wanted to add that, you know, there was this notion that unification and elementary particles really are the future of physics, but there is another dimension, which is complex systems that involve many bodies and trying to figure out their complex behavior. And the human brain is obviously one such complex system. We now have AI that could potentially try to imitate some aspects of it, in artificial neural networks. I would just like to advertise the fact that complex systems are not less fundamental, because there are emergent phenomena and we are obsessed with them, such as free will, consciousness, that might really be just incarnations of the complex human brain, that's all. So the entire field of psychology may be just a derivative of complex, a complex system behaving

• 1:07:46Speaker 06

  in some ways that are hard for us to figure out. So, study of complex systems could become much more...

• 1:07:53Speaker 04

  Absolutely, it's worthy, but it's not more fundamental, Avi. As you said, it's emergent. So, I, I think we have to, if I can be in violent agreement with you, I'm only disagreeing by virtue of the fact that we need to be both respectful of the fact that not all questions that are worth talking about are reductionist. Many are emergent. Very often, it's the property of the solutions, let's say, rather than the property of the Lagrangian terms that matter. So, we have to make sure that we don't get overly reductionist. That's always been a temptation.

• 1:08:24Speaker 06

  But in, in terms of what affects your life, especially if you get married, it's, complex systems affect your life much more.

• 1:08:31Speaker 04

  There's an element, Avi, is that things, the things will go towards psychology, anthropology, sociology, and it's when the National Science Foundation started taking in many of these weaker fields, because these things were very important, but there, there's not a lot you can say about marriage. John Gottman has tried to study, it's very tricky.

• 1:08:49Speaker 06

  No, but what I'm saying, in the age of AI, there could be a revolution, because now we can process large data sets and see patterns that we couldn't see before. That's what I'm saying. Now, the other, the other thing I wanted to say is, there is a question of incentive, you know, what is right now, I think that the poison in academia is that the incentive to get the grant money and to get prizes, honors, awards and promotions pushes people, you know... It's just like a regression to the mean. They are trying to accommodate the wishes of other people and they are regressing to the mean rather than deviating from the mean and being original. And you can create a culture in which the deviance will be rewarded.

• 1:09:28Speaker 06

  The people who innovate to explore new territories that nobody else looked into, these are the people who would be rewarded because even if they fail, you learn something new. When Albert Einstein made three mistakes, he between nineteen thirty five and nineteen forty, he argued that the gravitational waves do not exist. Black holes do not exist. Quantum mechanics doesn't have spooky action at the distance. He was wrong. But the three experimental teams that discovered he was wrong got the Nobel Prize over the past decade. So what I'm saying is taking risks is really key. And the problem right now is you're, you know, you're, you are being pushed to the mainstream without, you know, there is no reward that you can benefit from. But in fact, there is a lot of scrutiny that you get when you deviate.

• 1:10:13Brian Keating?

  There's this notion that Eric's, you know, promulgating, and I think there is geometric unity, which is, you know, unequivocally unique and but it's also unequivocally receiving, you know, very little attention compared to, as we already mentioned, string theory and other things. When we think about, you know, a geometric approach, as you said, you already offered one alternative. I don't know if I fully understand the implications because it's just the first time I encountered it. But, you know, is there a danger of, you know, fighting the previous war, so to speak, that, you know, Einstein was so successful. The differential geometry, the geometric methods, Turner Simons, all the different, you know, wonderful things that Eric mentioned. Do you think that actually going back, so to, so to speak, is the right approach? Or is it that we fundamentally failed to explore in full great detail these alternative theories of people like Eric and Peter White?

• 1:10:58Brian Keating?

  And, you know, we've talked about others as well.

• 1:11:00Speaker 06

  You know, the biggest disappointment, I mean, we started by developing accelerators. And then every generation of new accelerators over the twentieth century revealed new physics. A lot of phenomena that allowed us to figure out the standard model. And now we are at an age where you build the biggest accelerator and the only thing it does is confirm an idea from the nineteen sixties, the Higgs boson. And that's all. And there is no, no clear evidence for new physics. And you know, so then people ask, okay, well, how do you know it's around the corner? Is there anything? And maybe we should try something else. And I'm very much in favor of trying something else. There are different ways of getting at new physics than just pushing the energy frontier. But we have to be imaginative.

• 1:11:46Speaker 04

  Mappetum, there's something huge happened that wasn't the Higgs. And that was that all of those supersymmetry candidates got ruled out.

• 1:11:55Speaker 06

  Yeah, I, I mentioned that before, I mean, but that is a negative thing.

• 1:11:59Speaker 04

  No, no, no, it's not negative at all. If our community would listen to it, it's one of the biggest clues out there. Whatever, let, let me just say this. If you think about supersymmetry as a freeway, my claim is right freeway, wrong off-ramp.

• 1:12:14Speaker 06

  Well, I, I mentioned you.

• 1:12:16Speaker 04

  Super partners, all the super partners were the wrong off-ramp. If you want the idea, you'd have to hold the conference that says, we had two big ideas in the 1970s, one of which was grand unification, the other of which was supersymmetry. Both of them didn't get realized in the most trivial and obvious way possible. Let's go back to the, those ideas which are great ideas, unbelievably good ideas, and ask, how would we re-instantiate them? But we don't do that, do we?

• 1:12:46Brian Keating?

  So Eric, you did mention that you had this great, you know, where you had an experience at recently at Caltech. When you, when you hear the modern day, you know, kind of contenders for these things, are they fundamentally establishing a level of curiosity that you feel is going to be pursued, even if it's not right? In other words, even if something you don't agree with. And if so, how do, yeah, so what, where do we go next?

• 1:13:07Speaker 04

  You tell me when we can finally have the argument about quantum gravity is not the holy grail of theoretical physics. It's not supposed to be what takes our energy. We are finding that it has failed. We have to have some sort of come to Jesus conference in which we reconcile ourselves to the fact that we tried many things that we now know don't work. If we do not have that, we cannot ask the question, doesn't anybody else have any other ideas? Now, the thing that I can't understand is you have a person who's like starving, you know, dying of starvation for, for progress. And they're sitting next to potentially food.

• 1:13:52Speaker 04

  But everything that they could eat, they have a different complaint. Oh, I don't like that after lunch and you know, that's not to my taste, maybe for you, et cetera, et cetera. Well, ultimately, it's time to go through everybody's idea that is not quantum gravity, that is not string theoretic, that is not loop quantum gravity. And this is a big difference between what I would call the programs and the individuals. One of the things that I found very interesting is that the string theorists are a program. And the reason that they see loop quantum gravity is the only possible thing that they have as a rival, which they they they're embarrassed by it because it's clearly wrong. But my point is, is that it's a program and the program people only see programs. I'm

• 1:14:37Speaker 04

  much more interested in the freaks, the weirdos, the neurodivergent, everybody who has a personal program. I may dislike Stephen Wolfram's attempt to remove the continuum, but it's at least original. I may think that Peter Weyt's two theories about, in particular, SU3 cross SU2 cross U1 are not correct, but at least I understand what he's trying to do. He's trying to say, why is the weak force encoded as either on or off rather than just complex conjugates? Well, Garrett least he talks about E8. It's clear to me that he's got a mistake in his situation that can't get cured. But I understand that he's trying to say that there are novel unifications of fermions and bosons from the point of fractional

• 1:15:22Speaker 04

  spin and integral spin. It just doesn't work at the level of quantization. All of these situations are crying out for the same thing. It's time to stop protecting the quantum gravity group and expose them to the full fury of everything it is that they've used their position as referees to suppress. The game is over and it's time to move on.

• 1:15:43Brian Keating?

  Beyond that, though, you had a very brilliant proposal that you and I've talked about on Modern Wisdom last September. And that's basically what I summarized in my video about you and Lenny Susskind and others, which I called Shelter Island 3, which would be, you know, kind of a conclave, you know, to use the Oscar winner title of the greatest mind. And I I think we could have the freaks and geeks and everybody that you mentioned, Eric. But I'm curious, who would Avi invite? Avi, we're going to Shelter Island 3, going to the Ramshead Inn. We're gonna have, you know, a third generation of it. We're, by the way, multiple Nobel Prizes, you know, from Lamb and and and Schwinger and Feynman. All these great things came out of it. Do you think that's a good idea? Can we get funding for it? Can can Galileo Project be involved? Can Eric and I be involved? Can we get the greatest minds together?

• 1:16:28Brian Keating?

  Even those that Eric, to his credit for his integrity, disagrees with violently and vehemently that he just named. And even people from the Orthodox, your colleagues Lisa Randall, your colleague Kamaran Vafa. Who can we, who would we invite? And what should we aim? Papers?

• 1:16:43Speaker 04

  At least as much more open minded.

• 1:16:45Brian Keating?

  That's no, no, I I know, I I agree. Avi, can we do it? Can we do it on Shelter Island? I I can get the venue. I can pay for the Ramshead Inn for for a week.

• 1:16:54Speaker 06

  We can definitely do it. I can immediately say who I do not invite.

• 1:16:58Brian Keating?

  Who?

• 1:16:59Speaker 06

  Be there. These are the people who are dogmatic. Also, people that, you know, when I said, oh, that's an interesting expectation from string theory. Would you then, if if we don't see it in nature, would that rule out string theory? And the person would say, no, it actually rules out my idea of connect. Because string theory must be right. That kind of mindset to me is not very productive. The mindset should be, let's think of things that can be tested and validated. Because, you know, it's not about job security. It's about figuring out nature. And nature is under no contract to have the most beautiful theory or the the thing that makes us look smart when we deal with it in in fancy math. So I would invite people who are original in their thinking.

• 1:17:42Speaker 06

  And that includes, of course, using the universe as a laboratory. I should say that, you know, altogether, it's really important to gain credibility from the the political system so we can get funded for the future. I would be very excited to be involved in a new way of doing science that is more innovative, open minded and and cares about understanding the physical reality we live in, not ensuring that we are smart, which is pretty much the current status.

• 1:18:08Brian Keating?

  What types of people would you have there? Besides, I mean, let's name some names of people you would have there. Right? I assume Ethan Segal won't be getting an invite to yours. And do you think this is realistic? I mean, do you think the appetite is the same as it was collegially or not back in the 40s when this first two conferences occurred?

• 1:18:23Speaker 06

  Yeah, I think the appetite depends on the culture that you cultivate. Right now, the young people are worried about job prospects and they align themselves with the leaders of the field just in order to be able to impress them and get jobs when they are junior faculty in order to get funded for their students to be supported. That is really the mechanics of being in academia right now. We should change the incentive if there are, you know, if there is funding available for innovative thinking and for, you know, sketching a new architecture rather than being a technocrat. You know, there are the, there are people who are able to build a building. They know how to put the bricks and these are the technicians that also will connect electricity and so forth. But then there are the architects.

• 1:19:06Speaker 06

  These are the people that think big about how the building should look like. And those are the people that we should invite, the architects, not the technicians. You know, that's I, my take on this.

• 1:19:16Brian Keating?

  Eric, who would you invite?

• 1:19:18Speaker 04

  I'd invite a lot of my enemies, to be entirely honest.

• 1:19:21Brian Keating?

  Who about it? Praise the law.

• 1:19:23Speaker 04

  Well, no, no, because in part, you know, the point is, is that that's how they roll is that they don't invite people who are pseudoscientists or whatever. It's like, for God's sakes, get over yourself, guys. You've been failing for four decades. It's not exactly your strong card to play. You know, my feeling about it is I would love to see people like Lisa Randall, like Avi. I'd like to see Frank Wilczek there. I don't know if Ed Hoofd is still.

• 1:19:46Brian Keating?

  He's there, I'd talk to him.

• 1:19:48Speaker 04

  Yeah, but in general, you know, I, look, I'd love to have nothing better than to go at it with Lenny Susskind who doesn't seem to be able to remember ever speaking to me, which I find.

• 1:19:57Brian Keating?

  Who?

• 1:19:58Speaker 04

  Exactly, you know? And in particular, I think it would be very much fun to have some of the talking heads who represent physics to the outside world because in fact, a lot of those people really aren't up to the task. And I, I think that in part, it would be very violent. It would be very brutal. It would be very constructive, very creative, very exciting. And we haven't had this because what we do is we have, you know, in professional wrestling, you call them promotions. You have people who agree to fight each other according to a script. And that way, nobody ever gets hurt and you just, you know, you keep going. My feeling about this is anybody who wants to come and claim, oh, we're the only, we're the only fish in the sea, we're the only birds in the sky. That's going to be an incredibly short ride.

• 1:20:43Speaker 04

  We just have to make sure that we do it on video. And then in my experience, those people will just not show up. They will say, I'm too busy. That's their favorite line. You know, I don't want to engage in a spectacle. This is beneath me. And so you'll have a very clear record of basically who's been swimming without their shorts while the crowd.

• 1:21:03Speaker 06

  It should be definitely documented in order to encourage young people to speak up.

• 1:21:07Brian Keating?

  Well, I've, I've, I've actually talked about this with Louis Alvarez, Gomay and Stony Brook. And in all seriousness, we have discussed actually doing this. And I think maybe this is the year it happens.

• 1:21:16Speaker 06

  It's a suggestion. If Eric can bring in those high net worth, technical support people that will actually perhaps fund the, the new type of science that we are talking about. That would be amazing.

• 1:21:28Brian Keating?

  Obviously, that's like, you know, me asking somebody to, you know, give me good recommendations to go surfing, you know, you, you're at Harvard. I don't think there's too many places with a $68 billion endowment that has raised tuition faster than inflation, has let in fewer people than a Starbucks admits every.

• 1:21:43Speaker 04

  Let me just say one thing on this point. If you want to actually get the, the smart money to come, you treat them like brains before you treat them like wallets. And the first thing we should do, if we're going to do that, is we should have a day or two where we get those people early to come to Shelter Island.

• 1:22:02Brian Keating?

  Yes.

• 1:22:02Speaker 04

  And we put together a program so that they can understand what's being fought over because they're very, very smart. The fact is they don't have the particular training in what this is. So the most important thing is if you look at some, you know, it's a little bit like staring at a woman's neckline and she says, eyes up here. When you're talking to very rich people, the key question is, would you be happy to be talking to them if they had less money?

• 1:22:27Brian Keating?

  Right. I was going to ask you, would we invite Elon Musk if he knew he wasn't going to give money? If he knew it wasn't. Or Peter Thiel, if they weren't going to give money, would you?

• 1:22:36Speaker 04

  I'd go to a physics conference with Peter Thiel. Okay? And you know, I'll just tell you what happens. Somebody will talk down to Peter for 45 minutes and then they'll say, do you have any idea what I'm talking about? And then Peter will ask like three super incisive questions indicating that he has a lot of background in the area. And it's hysterically funny. So you know, my feeling about this is I don't know what Elon Lozad doesn't know. I don't know what Peter knows doesn't know. Yuri Milner is another person. We have to remember that Jeff Bezos was a, gonna be a physics major at Princeton. Bill Gates was gonna do math at Harvard. All of these people in general are positively disposed towards physics until we screw it up in math.

• 1:23:16Speaker 04

  And so it's really important, in my opinion, to not talk down to them, not talk up to them, but to actually say, look, you are the only people who are in a position to make allocation decisions without having to check with mommy and daddy. It's really important that you be able to follow this so that you can allocate the same way as if you were talking about a sand.

• 1:23:37Speaker 06

  And yeah, the other thing we need to convince them, Eric, is that this is more important than government efficiency.

• 1:23:42Speaker 04

  You then convince Elon that survival is, but my claim is, are we serious about going beyond the standard model in general relativity? Or do have those things set into our brains is basically, well, that's never gonna happen. I think that the most important thing to realize, whether you love or hate the new administration, doesn't matter which, it's filled with vitality. And quite honestly, they look at everything from the position of, does it have huevos or does it not have huevos?

• 1:24:11Speaker 06

  Right.

• 1:24:11Speaker 04

  And if it doesn't have huevos, they don't have the time of day. So if we're gonna seriously get back to physics, the dangerous kind, the kind that goes to places where you don't know what the engineering applications are, and they could be astounding in terms of wealth and exploring the cosmos, or it could be game over for planet Earth because it allows you directed energy weapons that you never thought possible, doesn't matter. If we are talking about doing that, we can get them a lot more interested. If we are talking about grinding at a snail's breadth of progress in fields that almost certainly aren't going to work, because we've now realized that our current theories are a piece of 24th century physics that mysteriously fell into the 20th century. Nobody's got time for that anymore.

• 1:24:53Speaker 06

  Yeah, well, I have a title for the conference. Into the impossible.

• 1:24:59Brian Keating?

  Oh my God, the branding is just incredible. We'll give out these mugs. We'll give out these mugs. They'll be merch for everybody. Here's a mug, everybody. Guys, I want to thank you guys so much. This has been awesome. Eric, it's so great to see you. Avi, it's always great to talk to you and we got to do more of these and you know, just on the advice topic of, of or the subject of talking to the most, you know, richest people in the world. They say, "Ask a rich person for money and you'll get advice. Ask him for advice, maybe you'll get money, but I don't know." Some of them are much more clever than we scientists think we are. So, guys, thanks so much. Avi, thank you for sending me that, that beautiful chunk of Omoa Mua. That I'm here. Eric, thank you for sending me this, this extract from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

• 1:25:43Brian Keating?

  I, I hope that we'll talk many more times, boys. This is so much fun. I wish everybody out there good luck. And I'm serious about this conference. We're gonna make it happen and we've got the context. I've got the time. Stopped having kids a little recently. I was informed that no more, normal kids are an option, are the only option. What, what, Avi?

• 1:25:59Speaker 06

  As they often say, "You have me at hello."

• 1:26:02Brian Keating?

  Whoa.

• 1:26:04Brian Keating?

  That's right. I'll have what she's having though. That's what I like to say. Eric, Avi, Tadara, but thank you, boys, so much. Great talking to you.

• 1:26:11Speaker 04

  Thanks, guys. Good to be with you.

• 1:26:19Speaker 01

  Honey, that flu keeping you up?

• 1:26:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, I don't got this.

• 1:26:22Speaker 01

  You need Nyquil Intense Flu.

• 1:26:24Speaker 03

  Undo your flu symptoms with Nyquil Intense Flu. The nighttime sniffling, aching, aching fever, best sleep with a flu medicine. You do got this. Use as directed. Keep out of reach of children.