#455 – Adam Frank: Alien Civilizations and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

The following is a conversation with Adam Frank, an astrophysicist interested in the evolution of star systems, and the search for alien civilizations in our universe. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description, it's the best way to support this podcast. Let me say as a side note that I had to put a bunch of podcast episodes on hold to focus deeply on preparing for conversations with world leaders. So I apologize to include more sponsors on this episode than usual. They really wanted me to mention them this year and I'm not sure when I'm going to do another episode. We were going to do eight episodes this month, but instead I think we're doing two, we'll see every single day, every single hour changes the plan, changes the situation, changes my life. So please be patient with me. There are no sponsor reads in the middle, so you can skip this long and beautiful list. But I do try to make them interesting in case you do listen, and I hope you do. In either case, please still check out the sponsors by their stuff. It is the best way to support this podcast. The sponsors are on cord for your ML stack, H sleep for naps, Shopify for e-commerce and that sweet for business, better help for the mind, notion for notes, element for electrolytes and age you want for nutrition. If you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfreamer.com/contact. Perhaps you could tell from my voice on top of everything else. I'm also sick. I want a wonderful, beautiful, challenging life this is, and I'm grateful for every second of it. All right. And now on to the full adderies, let's go. This episode is brought to you by Encore, a platform that provides data-focused AI tooling for data annotation, curation and management, and for model evaluation. For example, if you are an independent private or government agency that is running the drones that is flying all over New Jersey and the tri-state area, you might be doing the same kind of a data annotation and collection curation and management that Encore excels at. So if you're an extraterrestrial species performing the same, I wonder what kind of computation tools alien civilizations have at the physics level, computation is fundamentally a part of the fabric of the universe. So every advanced civilization would or surely would discover how to leverage that computation, how to organize that computation, how to access and communicate with that computation. Anyway, think of it. If you have a swarm of drones and you are the ruler of an alien civilization, want to collect some data about New Jersey, you are going to have to do some great machine learning and great machine learning is not just about the algorithms, it is so much more about the data. So whoever you are running the drone program over New Jersey, go try out Encore to curate and annotate and manage your AI data and Encore.com/lex, that's Encore.com/lex. By the way, in all seriousness, I will probably talk about drones in New Jersey soon. I think it's a fascinating mystery. Is it China, is it aliens, is it the U.S. government, is it private companies within the U.S. government, is it other nation states? Are nuclear weapons involved? And what are the mechanisms that ensure that the U.S. government is transparent about communicating with the discover? These are essential questions. Okay. Onto A sleep. This episode is brought to you by A sleep and it's pod 4 ultra. You know, sleep makes me think about the night and I've been watching a lot of war movies. I've been watching a lot of war reporting. I've been watching a lot of conversations with soldiers and I've been talking to soldiers and there's something about the night. There's something about the quiet night that serves as the break from the hell of war. Dum ne noch to kapulisistianistipi, that's a song from the Second World War, a song about a soldier writing to a woman he loves. That's just it. Just like a man search for meaning in the darkest hours of war. Those are the things that keep the flame of the hard gun. Looking about these topics makes it difficult for me to then talk about A sleep and the technology and the comfort of a good night's sleep somewhere in America. That's one of the things you discover when you travel, especially travel to a country that's participating in war at the basic comforts, the basic securities, the basic dreams and hopes and the ways of life are taken away and still the human spirit persists. Anyway, this is supposed to be an ad read, go to a sleep dot com slash lex. Use code lex to get up to 600 dollars off your pot for ultra purchase when bundled. That's a sleep dot com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anyway with a great looking online store. I've been reading a lot about the long history of the Silk Road, especially before and after the Mongol Empire and James Khan. I've been reading a lot about James Conan. The influence he had on revolutionizing the trade network. A lot of networks, the trade of not just goods, but information of knowledge of languages, of ideas, of religions, of peoples, and is fascinating how roads of that nature, trade, first and foremost, can break down the barriers that divide peoples. I suppose it all starts with incentives. People are people and they have stuff they don't need and they want to sell it and other people have stuff they want and they are willing to buy it and those incentives that scale overpower any kind of emotional, psychological, historical hatred and all those kinds of things. It's funny the little incentives and the mechanisms of capitalism at its best can heal the wounds of war. Of course, they can also fuel the military industrial complex, which is the fuel of war. Oh, the double edged sword. Anyway, take the silk road and fast forward to today and we have Shopify that you can sign up to for $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com/lex. That's all over case. Got a Shopify.com/lex to take your business to the next level today. This episode is also brought to you by Nest Suite and all in one cloud business management system. I think about Nest Suite and all the different administrative modules and the language standardized language that allows them to communicate with each other. I think about all the empires throughout history that were able to create remarkable administrative systems, the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, as I mentioned. None of it works without paperwork. No bureaucracy rightfully so gets a bad rep, but it is best bureaucracy is necessary to manage the affairs of large organizations. Humans are very good at working with each other when they scale beyond 1,000 people. So you need great administrative systems. And thankfully today we have technology, we have tools like Nest Suite to do just that. Take advantage of Nest Suite's flexible financing plan at nestweed.com/lex. Nest Suite.com/lex. This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp, spelled H-E-L-P- Help. One day in the distant future AI systems will make for great therapists, but I think that's a very dangerous road to walk down in a short term. I am a person who loves conversation and not small talk. To fake nice cities that alleviate social frictions, I'm not for that. I'm in for diving deep through conversation and I think that is something that I just can't quite do yet and I would say not even close, it is an assistant, it is not a therapist. So the distinction, the difference is quite fascinating to analyze, to watch, to try to sort of elucidate and articulate clearly. Yes, I'm a big fan of talking to a human to explore your mind and BetterHelp is a very easy, accessible way of doing that. Check them out at BetterHelp.com/lex and save in your first month as BetterHelp.com/lex. This episode is brought to you by Notion, a note taking system service app that I use and you should use, especially if you're on a large team, to collaborate on all kinds of stuff, including notes and project management, wikis, all that kind of stuff. Nuclear weapons have been on my mind quite a bit and I think about the Manhattan project and I think about the amount of incredible rapid organization that was involved in that project. Let's think about the coordination, the coordination of brilliant people working on separate parts of an incredibly complicated project where all of it has to be Secret so many of the people working on it may not even be aware of the bigger picture of it or the different modules involved Just imagine the coordination required there just truly truly truly incredible and of course, imagine what modern-day tools can do for that Obviously the Manhattan Project is a top secret project in a controversial one and a complicated one and one that Have done many episodes on in terms of its implications, but there's a less controversial Perspective on the Manhattan Project of just seeing it as a project that the entirety of a nation or maybe the entirety of a civilization Takes on the moonshot project. We're going to go to Mars We're going to go out there. We're going to build something big together. I love projects like that at any scale Just the big togetherness where all the bullshit of distraction is throwing away and you just focus So yeah notion helps with that kind of thing and they integrate AI extremely well So you should try notion AI for free when you go to notion.com/lex. That's all lowercase notion.com/lex to try the power of notion AI today This episode is also brought to you by element my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix Did you know that salt in ancient Rome was a currency also referred to as white gold? How crazy is it things like salt or cinnamon or frankly gold and silver are things that all of us humans imbue with value for time and Even do horrific things to each other in order to attain more of it the human greed for salt So dark and so fascinating with humans are Anyway on a basic level just thirst Something I've experienced in the Amazon jungle thirst for water and for that you need electrolyte - not just water Water and salt plus magnesium and potassium That is the basic thing you want the most when it is gone and I got the chance the gift to experience it Get a sample pack for free with any purchase try it to drink elements.com/lex This episode is also brought to you by a G1 a Drink I drink every day to feel better about myself. It's basically a great Multivitamin is delicious and frankly a few are quite sad that I'm out of travel packs and I'm going to be gone for a time and I will not have age you one Age you want an element are things that make me feel like I'm home like everything's going to be okay I am bringing an element with me because there's these packets, but I went through all the age you want travel packs so that's silly little thing It's one of the things that will make me feel homesick funny how that is it's the little things anyways the crazy things I do in terms of physical and mental perturbations to the bodily equilibrium on a daily basis It's something that is rescued in part by making sure I get age you want every single day. What am I going to do without age? You want you know what I'll probably bring something with me. I Changed my mind now and you should do the same. They'll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up and drink Age you one calm slash Lex If you're still listening to this Thank you. I'm deeply grateful for you for your support For being there for so many years. I love you all This is the Lex Freeman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description and now dear friends Here's Adam Frank You wrote a book about aliens so the big question. How many alien civilizations are out there? Yeah, that's the question right the amazing thing is That after two and a half millennia of you know people yelling at each other or setting each other on fire occasionally over the answer We now actually have the capacity to answer that question So in the next 10 20 30 years, we're gonna have data relevant to the answer to that question We're gonna have hard data finally that will one way or the other you know Even if we don't find anything immediately we will have gone through a number of planets will be able to start putting limits on how common Life is the one answer I can tell you which is was an important part of the problem is how many planets are there, right? And just like people have been arguing about the existence of life elsewhere for two thousand five hundred years People have been arguing about planets for the exact same amount of time right you can see Aristotle yelling At democratists about this you know, you can see they had very wildly different opinions about how common planets We're gonna be and how unique earth was and that question got answered right Which is pretty remarkable that in a lifetime you can add a two thousand five hundred year old question the answer is there everywhere there are planets everywhere And it was possible that planets were really rare We didn't really understand how planets formed and so if you go back to say the turn of the 20th century There was a theory that said planets formed when two stars passed by each other closely and then material was gravitationally squeezed out In which case those kinds of collisions are so rare that you would expect one in a trillion stars to have planets instead Every star in the night sky has planets So one of the things you've done is Simulated the formation of stars. How difficult do you think it is to simulate The formation of planets like simulator solar system the through the entire evolution of the solar system This is kind of a numerical simulation Sneaking up to the question of how many planets are there that actually we're able to do now There is you can run simulations of the formation of Planetary system. So if you run the simulation really where you want to start is a cloud of gas these giant interstellar clouds of gas That may have you know a million times the mass of the Sun in them and so you run a simulation of that It's turbulent the gas is roiling and tumbling and every now and then you get a place where the The gas is dense enough that gravity gets hold of it and it can pull it downward So you'll start to form a proto star and a proto star is basically the young star of the you know this ball of gas where Nuclear reactions are getting started But it's also a disc So you as the material falls inward because it's everything's rotating as it falls inward It'll spin up and then it'll form a disk material will collect in what's called an accretion disk or a proto planetary disk And you can simulate all of that Once you get into the disk itself and you want to do planets things get a little bit more complicated Because the physics gets more complicated now you got to start worrying about dust Because actually dust which is just dust is the wrong word it's smoke really these are the tiniest bits of solids They will coagulate in the disk to form pebbles right and then the pebbles will collide to form rocks and the rocks will form Boulders etc etc that process is super complicated But we've been able to simulate enough of it to begin to get a handle on How planets form how you accrete enough material to get the first proto planets or planetary embryos As we call them and then don't the next step is those things start slamming into each other to form You know planetary size bodies and then the planetary body slam into each other earth The moon came about because there was a mar-sized body that slammed into the earth and basically blew off all the material Than then eventually formed the moon and all of them have a different chemical compositions different Temperatures Yeah, so the the temperature of the material in the disk depends on how far away you are from the star So it decreases right and so there's a really interesting point So like you know close to the star temperatures are really high and the only thing that can condense that can kind of freeze out It's going to be stuff like metals. So that's why you find mercury is this giant ball of iron basically And then as you go further out stuff you know the gas gets cooler And now you can start getting things like water to freeze right so there's something we call the snow line Which is somewhere in our solar system out around between Mars and Jupiter And that's with the reason why the giant planets in our solar system Jupiter Saturn Uranus and Neptune all have huge amounts of ice in them or water and ice Actually Jupiter and Saturn don't have so much but the moons do the moons have so much water in them that there's There's oceans right that we've got a number of those moons have got more water on them than there's water on earth Do you think it's possible to do that kind of simulation to have a Stronger and stronger estimate of how likely an earth-like planet is Can we get the physics simulation Done well enough to where we can start estimating like what are the possible earth-like things that could be generated? Yeah, I think we can I think we're learning how to do that now So you know one part is like trying to just figure out how to help planets form themselves and doing the simulations like that that cascade from Dust grains up to planetary embryos. That's hard to simulate because it's both you got to do both the gas and you got to do the dust and the dust colliding and all that physics. Once you get up to a planet-sized body, then you kind of have to switch over to almost like a different kind of simulation. They're often what you're doing is you're assuming the planet is this sort of spherical ball, and then you're doing like a 1D, a radial calculation. You're just asking like, all right, how is this thing going to, what is the structure of it going to be? Like, am I going to have a solid iron core? Or am I going to get a solid iron core with that liquid iron core out around it? Like we have on Earth. And then you get a silicate kind of a rocky mantle and then across all of those details, those are kind of beyond being able to do full 3D simulations from Abinitio, from scratch. We're not there yet. - How important are those details like the crust and the atmosphere do you think? - Hugely important. So I'm part of a collaboration at the University of Rochester. We're using the giant laser. It's literally, this is called the laboratory for laser energetics. We got a huge grant from the NSF to use that laser to like slam tiny pieces of silica to understand what conditions are like at, you know, the center of the Earth, or even more importantly, the center of super Earths. Like the most common, this is what's wild. The most common kind of planet in the universe, we don't have in our solar system. Which is amazing, right? So the, we've been able to study enough or observe enough planets now to get a census. You know, we pretty, you know, we kind of have an idea of what, who's average, who's weird. And our solar system's weird because the average planet has a mass between somewhere between a few times the mass of the Earth to maybe, you know, 10 times the mass of the Earth. And that's exactly where there are no planets in our solar system. So the smaller ones of those, we call super Earths, the larger ones we call sub-neptunes. And there are anybody's guests. Like we don't really know what happens to material when you're squeezed to those pressures, which is like millions, tens of millions of times the, the pressure on the surface of the Earth. So those details really will matter of what's going on in there because that will determine whether or not you have, say for example, play tectonics. We think play tectonics may have been really important for life on Earth, for the evolution of complex life on Earth. So it turns out, and this is sort of the next generation where we're going with the, the understanding the evolution of planets in life. It turns out that you actually have to think hard about the planetary context for life. You can't just be like, oh, there's a warm pond. And then some interesting chemistry happens in the warm pond. You actually have to think about the planet as a whole and what it's gone through in order to really understand whether a planet is a good place for life or not. - Why do you think play tectonics might be useful for the formation of complex life? - There's a bunch of different things. One is that the Earth went through a couple of phases of being a snowball planet. Like we went into a period of glaciation where pretty much the entire planet was under ice. The oceans were frozen. Early on in Earth's history, there was barely any land. We were actually a water world with just a couple of Australia-sized cratons they called them, proto-continents. So those, we went through these snowball earth phases. And if it wasn't for the fact that we had kind of an active plate tectonics, which had a lot of volcanism on it, we could have been locked in that forever. Like once you get into a snowball state, a planet can be trapped there forever, which is, you know, maybe you already had life formed, but then because it's so cold, you may never get anything more than just microbes, right? So what play tectonics does is it because it fosters more volcanism is that you're going to get carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, which warms the planet up and gets you out of the snowball earth phase. But even more, there's even more really important things. I just finished a paper where we were looking at something called the hard steps model, which is this model that's been out there for a long time that purports to say intelligent life in the universe will be really rare. And it made all these assumptions about the Earth's history, particularly at the history of life and the history of the planet, or have nothing to do with each other. And it turns out, as I was doing the reading for this, that Earth probably early on had a more mild form of plate tectonics. And then somewhere about a billion years ago, it ramped up. And that ramping up changed everything on the planet 'cause here's a funny thing. The Earth used to be flat. What I mean by that, right? It's all the flat earthers out there can get excited for one sec, lit bit. (laughing) What I mean by that is that there really weren't many mountain ranges, right? The beginning of, I think the term is aurogenesis, mountain building, the true Himalayan style giant mountains didn't happen until this more robust form of plate tectonics where the plates are really being driven around the planet. And that is when you get the crusts hitting each other and they start pushing into these Himalayan style mountains. The weathering of that, the erosion of that puts huge amounts of nutrients, things that microbes wanna use into the oceans and then what we call the net primary productivity, the bottom of the food chain. How much sugars they are producing, how much photosynthesis they're doing. Shot up by a factor of almost 1,000, right? So the fact that you had plate tectonics supercharged evolution in some sense, you know, like we're not exactly sure how it happened, but it's clear that the amount of life, the amount of living activity that was happening really got a boost from the fact that suddenly there was plate tectonics. This new vigorous form of plate tectonics. - So it's nice to have turmoil in terms of temperature, in terms of surface geometries, in terms of the chemistry of the planet turmoil. - Yeah, that's actually really true because what happens is if you look at the history of life, that's an excellent point you're bringing up. If you look at the history of life on Earth, we get a biogenesis somewhere around at least 3.8 billion years ago. And that's the first microbes, they kind of take over enough that they really do, you get a biosphere, you get a biosphere that is actively changing the planet. But then you go through this period they call the boring billion. We're like, it's a billion years and it's just microbes. Nothing's happening, it's just microbes. I mean, the microbes are doing amazing things, they're inventing fermentation. Thank you very much for, we appreciate that. But it's not until, sort of you get probably these continents slamming into each other, you really get the beginning of continents forming and driving changes that evolution has to respond to, that on a planetary scale, this turmoil, this chaos, is creating new niches as well as closing other ones. And biology, evolution has to respond to that. And somewhere around there is when you get a Cambrian explosion, it's when suddenly everybody plan, evolution goes on an orgy, essentially. So yeah, it does look like that chaos or that turmoil was actually very helpful to evolution. I wonder if there's some extremely elevated levels of chaos and almost like catastrophes behind every leap of evolution. Like you're not gonna have leaps. Like in human society, we have like an Einstein that comes up with a good idea. But it feels like on an evolutionary time scale, you need some real big drama going on for the evolutionary system to have to come up to a solution to that drama. Like an extra complex solution to that drama. - Well, I think what's, I'm not sure if that's true. I don't know if it needs to be like an almost extinction event, right? 'Cause it's certainly true that we have gone through almost extinction events, right? We've had, you know, five mass extinctions. But you don't necessarily see that like there was this giant evolutionary leap happening after those. So, you know, with the comet impact, the KT boundary, certainly, you know, lots of niches opened up. And that's why we're here, right? 'Cause, you know, our ancestors were just a little basically rodents, rats, living under the footsteps of the dinosaurs. And it was that comet impact that opened the route for us. But it wasn't, I mean, that still took another, you know, 65 million years. It wasn't like this thing immediately happened. But what we found with this hard steps paper, 'cause the whole idea of the hard steps paper was, it was one of these anthropic reasoning kinds of things, where Brandon Carter said, "Oh, look, the intelligence doesn't show up on Earth until about, you know, almost close to when the end of the Sun's lifetime." And so he's like, "Well, there should be no reason why the Sun's lifetime and the time for evolution to produce intelligence should be the same." And so therefore, and he goes through all this reasoning and anthropic reasoning and he ends up with the idea that like, "Oh, it must be that the odds of getting intelligence are super low." And so that's the hard steps, right? So there was a series of steps in evolution that were, you know, very, very hard. And because that, you can calculate some probability distributions and everybody loves a good probability distribution and they went a long way with this. But it turns out that the whole thing is flawed because on, you know, when you look at it, of course the time scale for the Sun's evolution and the time scale for a evolution on life are coupled because life and the time scale for evolution of the Earth is coupled, is about the same time scale as the evolution as the Sun. It's billions of years. The Earth evolves over billions of years. And life and the Earth co-evolve. That's what Brandon Carter didn't see is that actually the fate of the Earth and the fate of life are inextricably combined. And this is really important for astrobiology too. Life doesn't happen on a planet. It happens to a planet. So this is something that David Grinchpoon and Sarah Walker both say and, you know, I agree with this. It's a really nice way of putting it. So, you know, play tectonics, the evolution of oxygen, of an oxygen atmosphere, which only happened because of life. These things, you know, these are things that are happening where life and the planet are sort of sloshing back and forth. And so rather than to your point, about do you need giant catastrophes? Maybe not giant catastrophes, but what happens is as the earth and life are evolving together, windows are opening up, evolutionary windows. Like for example, life put oxygen into the atmosphere. When life invented this new form of photosynthesis about two and a half billion years ago, that broke water apart to work, to do its chemical shenanigans, it broke water apart and pushed oxygen into the atmosphere. That's why there's oxygen in the atmosphere. It's only cuts a life. That opened up huge possibilities, new spaces for evolution to happen, but it also changed the chemistry of the planet forever. So the introduction of oxygen photosynthesis changed the planet forever, and it opened up a bunch of windows for evolution that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Like for example, you and I, we need that amount of oxygen. Big brain creatures need an oxygen rich atmosphere, 'cause oxygen is so potent for metabolism. So you couldn't get intelligent creatures, 100 million years after the planet formed. - So really on a scale of a planet, when there's billions, trillions of organisms on a planet, they can actually have planetary scale impact. So the chemical shenanigans of an individual organism when scaled out to trillions can actually change a planet. - Yeah, and we know this for a fact now, like this is. So there was this thing, Gaia theory, that with James Lovelock introduced in the '70s, and then Lynn Margiela, the biologist, Lynn Margiela's together. So this Gaia theory was the idea that planets, pretty much take a, or sorry, life takes over a planet, like hijacks a planet, in a way that some total of life creates these feedbacks between the planet and the life, such that it keeps the planet habitable. It's kind of a homeostasis, right? I can go out right now outside, it's 100 degrees, right? And I go outside, but my internal temperature is gonna the same. And I can go back to Rochester, New York, and the winter, and it's gonna be zero degrees, but my internal temperature is gonna be the same. That's homeostasis. The idea of Gaia theory was that life, the biosphere exerts this pressure on the planet, or these feedbacks on the planet, that even as other things are changing, the planet will always stay in the right kinds of conditions for life. And now when this theory came out, it was very controversial, people were like, oh my god, you know, what are you, smoking weed? You know, and like, there were all these Gaian festivals with Gaian dances. And so, you know, it became very popular in the new age community. But love lock, actually, they were able to show that, no, this has nothing to do with like the planet being conscious or anything. It was about these feedbacks that, that by the biology, the biosphere can exert these feedbacks. And now that's become, whether or not it's still, we're still unclear whether there are true Gaian feedbacks. In the sense that the planet can really exert complete control. But it is absolutely true that the biosphere is a major player in Earth's history. - So the biosphere fights for homeostasis on Earth? - The biosphere, okay, what I would say right now is, I don't know if I can say that scientifically, I can certainly say that the biosphere does a huge amount of the regulation of the planetary state. And over billions of years has strongly modified the evolution of the planet. So whether or not a true Gaian feedback would be exactly what you said, right, the biosphere is somehow, and Sarah Walker and David Grinspoon and I actually did a paper on this about the idea of planetary intelligence or cognition across a planetary scale. And I think that actually is possible, it's not conscious, but there is a kind of cognitive activity going on. The biosphere in some sense knows what is happening because of these feedbacks. So it's still unclear whether we have these full Gaian feedbacks, but we certainly have semi Gaian feedbacks. If there's a perturbation on the planetary scale, temperature, you know, installation, how much sunlight's coming in, the biosphere will start to have feedbacks that will damp that perturbation. Temperature goes up, the biosphere starts doing something, temperature comes down. - Now I wonder if the technosphere also has a Gaian feedback or elements of a Gaian feedback such that the technosphere will also fight some degree for homeostasis. Open question, I guess. - Well, that's, I'm glad you asked that question because that paper that David and Sarah and I wrote, what we were arguing was, is that over the history of a planet, right? When life first forms, you know, 3.8 billion years ago, it's kind of thin on the ground, right? You've got the first species, you know, these are all microbes. And they have not yet been, they're not gonna, enough of them to exert any kind of these Gaian feedback. So we call that an immature biosphere. But then as time goes on, as life becomes more robust, and it begins to exert these feedbacks, keeping the planet in the place where it needs to be for life, we call that a mature biosphere, right? And the important thing, and we're gonna, I'm sure later on, we're gonna talk about definitions of life and such. There's this great term called auto-poesis that Francisco Varelova neurobiologist, Francisco Varelo came up with. And he said, you know, one of the defining things about life is this property of auto-poesis, which means self-creating and self-maintaining. Life does not create the conditions which will destroy itself, right? It's always trying to keep itself in a place where it can stay alive. So the biosphere, from this Gaian perspective, has been auto-poietic for billions of years. Now we just invented this technosphere in the last, you know, a couple of hundred years. And what we were arguing in that paper is that it's an immature technosphere, right? 'Cause right now with climate change and all the other things we're doing, we're just, the technosphere right now is sort of destroying the conditions under which it needs to maintain itself. So the real job for us, if we're gonna last over, you know, geologic time scales, if we want a technosphere that's gonna last, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, then we've gotta become mature, which means to not undermine the conditions, to not subvert the conditions that you need to stay alive. So as of right now, it say we're not auto-poietic. Well, I wonder if we look across thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years that perturbations, the technosphere should create perturbations as a way for developing greater and greater defenses against perturbations, which sounds like a ridiculous statement, but basically go out and play in the yard and hurt yourself to strengthen them or like drink water from the pond. - Just strengthen the immune system. - Yeah. Well, you know, it's interesting with the technosphere, we can talk about this more, but like, you know, we're just emerging as a technosphere in terms of as a interplanetary technosphere, right? That's really the next step for us, is to David Greenspoon talks about, I love this idea of anti-acretion, like this amazing thing that for the first time, you know, over the entire history of the planet, stuff is coming off the planet, right? You used to be everything just fell down, all the meteorites fell down. But now we're starting to put it down, meteorites fell down, but now we're starting to push stuff out. And you know, like the idea of planetary defense or such, you know, we are actually going to start exerting perturbations on the solar system as a whole, we're going to start engineering if we make it, right? I always like to say that if we can get through climate change, the prize at the end is the solar system, right? So we will, we'll be changed literally engineering the solar system, but what you can think of right now with what's happening with the Anthropocene, the great acceleration that the, is the technosphere, you know, is the creation, that is a giant perturbation on the biosphere, right? And what you can't do is, you know, the technosphere sits on top of the biosphere and the techn, if the technosphere undermines the biosphere for its own conditions of habitability, then you're in trouble, right? I mean, the biosphere is not going away. There's nothing we could do. Like the idea that we have to save the earth is a little ridiculous. Like the earth is not a furry little bunny that we need to protect. But it's the conditions for us, right? We humanity emerged out of this, out of the holocene, the last 10,000 years interglacial period. We can't tolerate very different kinds of earths. So that's what I mean about a perturbation. Before we forget, I got to ask you about this paper. Pretty interesting, it's an interesting table here about hard steps, a biogenesis glucose fermentation to prove the acid, all kinds of steps, all the way to homo sapiens, animal intelligence, land ecosystems, endoscalectants, eye precursor, so formation of the eye. - Yeah. - Complex multicellularity. - That's definitely one of the big ones. - Yeah, so interesting. I mean, what can you say about this chart? There are all kinds of papers talking about what the difficulty of these steps. - Right, and so this was the idea. So what Carter said was using entropic reasoning. He said there must be a few very hard steps for the evolution to get through to make it to intelligence. Right, so there's some steps are gonna be easy. So every generation, you know, you roll the dice and yeah, it won't take long for you to get that step. But there must be a few of them. And he said you could even calculate what how many there were, five, six, in order to get to intelligence. And so this paper here, this plot is all these different people who've written all these papers. And this is the point actually. You can see all these papers that were written on the hard steps. Each one proposing a different set of what those steps should be. And there's this other idea from biology of the major transitions in evolution, MTEs, that those were the hard steps. But what we actually found was that none of those are actually hard. The whole idea of hard steps, that there are hard steps, is actually suspect. So, you know, what's amazing about this model is it shows how important it is to actually work with people who are in the field, right? So, you know, Brandon Carter was a brilliant physicist the guy who came up with this. And then lots of physicists and astrophysicists like me have used this, but the people who actually study evolution and the planet were never involved, right? And if you went and talked to an evolutionary biologist or a biogeophysicist, they'd look at you when you explained this to the man, they'd be like, what? Like, what are you guys doing? Turns out none of the details for none of the conceptual structure of this matches with what the people actually study the planet and its evolution. - Is it mostly about the fact that there's not really discrete big steps? Is this a gradual, continual kind of process? - Well, there's two things. The first most important one was that the planet and the biosphere have evolved together. That's something that every, you know, most biogeophysicist completely accept. And it was the first thing that Carter kind of rejected. He said, like, no, that's probably not possible. And yet, you know, like if he'd only sort of had more discussions with this other community, he would have seen like, no, there are actually windows that open up. And then the next thing is this idea of whether a step is hard or not. Because for hard, what you mean by a hard step is that like I said, every time there's a generation, every time there's a next generation born, you're rolling the dice on whether this mutation will happen. And the idea of something being a hard step, there's two ways in which something might even appear as a hard step and not be, or actually not be a hard step at all. One is that you see something that has occurred in evolution that has only happened once, right? So let's take the opposite. We should see something that's happened multiple times, like wings, lots of examples of wings over lots of different evolutionary lineages. So that's clearly not a hot, making wings is not a hard step. There are certain other things that people say, no, that's a hard step, oxygen, you know, the oxygen photosynthesis. But they are so, they tend to be so long ago that we've lost all the information. There could be other things in the fossil record that, you know, went, made this innovation, but they're just gone now. So you can't tell, so there's information loss. The other thing is the idea of pulling up the ladder that somebody, you know, some species makes the innovation, but then it fills the niche, and nobody else can do it again. So yeah, it only happened once, but it happened once because basically the creature was so successful, it took over, and there was no space for anybody else to evolve it. So yeah, so the interesting thing about this was seeing how much, once you look at the details of life's history on Earth, how it really shifts you away from this hard step model. And it shows you that those details, as we were talking about, like, do you have to know about the planet? Do you have to know about plate tectonics? Yeah, you're going to have to. - I mean, to be fair at a card on the first point, it makes it much more complicated if life and the planet are coal evolving. Because it's not, it would be nice to consider the planet as a static thing that sets the initial conditions. - Yeah. - And then we can sort of, from our outside perspective, analyze planets based on the initial conditions they create, and then there's a binary, yes or no, it will create life. But if they call it wall, it's just a, it's a really complex dynamical system where everything is, because it's much more difficult from the perspective of setty of looking out there, and trying to figure out which ones are actually producing life. - But I think we're at the point now. So now there may be other kinds of principles that actually, 'cause co-evolution actually has its own, not deterministic, you're done with determinism, but complex systems have patterns, complex systems have constraints, and that's actually what we're gonna be looking for, or constraints on them. And so, you know, and again, nothing against Carter was a brilliant idea, but it just goes to show, this is great, I'm a theoretical physicist, right? And so I love simplified, give me a simplified model with, you know, it's a dynamical equation, some initial conditions, I'm very happy. But this is great, XTC comic. We're like, you know, somebody's working something out on the board, and this physicist is looking over and saying, oh, oh, I just wrote down an equation for that. I solved your problem. Do you guys even have a journal for this? And the subtitle is why everybody hates physicists. - Yeah. - So sometimes that approach totally works. Sometimes physicists can be very good at like zooming in on what is important and casting the details aside, so you can get to the heart of an issue. And that's very useful sometimes. Other times it obfuscates, right? Other times it clouds over actually what you needed to focus on, especially when it comes to complexity. - Speaking of simplifying everything down to an equation, let's return back to the question of how many alien civilizations are out there and talk about the Drake equation. Can you explain the Drake equation? - You know, people have various feelings about the Drake equation, you know, it can be abused, but basically it was, the story actually is really interesting. So Frank Drake in 1960 does the first ever astrobiological experiment, he gets a radio telescope, points it at a couple of stars, and listens for signals. That was the first time anybody done any experiment about any kind of life in the history of humanity. And he does it, and he's kind of waiting for everybody to make fun of him. Instead, he gets a phone call from the government, and says, "Hey, we want you to do a meeting on interstellar communications," right? So he's like, "Okay." So they organize a meeting, like just eight people, a young Carl Sagan is going to be there as well. And like the night before, Drake has to come up with an agenda. How do you come up for an agenda for a meeting on a topic that no one's ever talked about before, right? And so he actually breaks what he does, what's so brilliant about the Drake equation, is he breaks the problem of how many civilizations are out there into a bunch of subproblems, right? And he breaks it into seven subproblems, and each one of them is a factor in an equation that when you multiply them all together, you get the number of civilizations out there that we could communicate with. So the first term is the rate at which stars form. The second term is the fraction of those stars that have planets, F sub P. The next term is the number of planets in the habitable zone, the place where we think life could form. The next term after that is the fraction of those planets where actually an A-biogenesis event life forms occurs. The next one is the fraction of planets on which you start to get intelligence. After that, it's the fraction of planets where that intelligence goes on to create a civilization. And then finally, the last term, which is the one that we really care about, is the lifetime. How long do you have a civilization? Now how long does it last? - Well, you say we humans. - We humans, right, 'cause we're standing, we're staring at the, you know, multiple guns, pointing at us, nuclear war, climate change, AI. So how long in general does civilizations last? Now, each one of these terms, what was brilliant about what he did was, what he was doing was he was quantifying our ignorance, right? By breaking the problem up into these seven subproblems, he gave astronomers something to do, right? And so, you know, this is always with a new research field. You need a research program, or else you just have a bunch of vague questions. You don't even know really what you're trying to do. So, you know, the star people could figure out how many stars were forming per year. The people who were interested in planets would go and find techniques to discover planets, et cetera, et cetera. - I mean, these are their own fields, essentially by creating this equation, he's launching new fields. - Yeah, that's exactly, he gave astrobiology, which wasn't even a term then, a road map. Like, okay, you guys go do this, you go do that, you go do that, and it had such far-reaching effect on astrobiology because it did break the problem up in a way that gave useful, you know, sort of marching orders for all of these different groups. Like, for example, it's because of the Drake equation, in some sense, that people who were involved in SETI pushed NASA to develop the technologies for planet hunting. There was this amazing meeting in 1978 and 1972 meetings, 1978 and 1979, that were driven in some part by the people who were involved in SETI, getting NASA together to say, look, okay, look, how, you know, what's the road map for us to develop technologies to find planets? So, yeah, so, you know, the Drake equation is absolutely foundational for astrobiology, but we should remember that it's not a law of nature, right? It's not something that's, it's not equals MC squared, and so you can see it being abused in some sense, people, you know, it's generated a trillion papers, some of those papers are good, I've written some of those, and some of those papers are bad. You know, I'm not sure where my paper fits in on those, I'm saying, you know, one should be careful about what you're using it for, but in terms of understanding the problem that astrobiology faces, this really broke it up in a useful way. - We could talk about each one of these, but let's just look at excellent planets. - Yeah. - So that's a really interesting one. I think when you look back, you know, hundreds of years from now, what's in the '90s when they first detected the first? - '92 and '95, '95 to me was really, that was the discovery of the first planet orbiting a sunlight star. To me, that was the water, the dam being broken. - I think that's like one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. - I agree, I agree. - Right now, I guess nobody's celebrating it too much because you don't know what it really means, but I think once we almost certainly will find life out there, it will obviously allow us to generalize across the entire galaxy, the entire universe. So if you can find life on a planet, even in the solar system, you can now start generalizing across the entire universe. - You can, all you need is one right now. It's an, you know, our understanding of life, we have one example. We have n equals one example of life. So that means we could be an accident, right? It could be that we're the only place in the entire universe where this weird thing called life has occurred. Get one more example and now you're done. Because if you have one more example and now you're, you know, you don't have to find all the other examples. You just know that it's happened more than once, and now. So you are, you know, from a Bayesian perspective, you can start thinking like, "Yeah, this life is not something that's hard to make." Well, let me get your sense of estimates for the Drake equation. You're also written a paper expanding on the Drake equation, but what do you think is the answer? So the paper, there was this paper we wrote, Woody Sullivan and I, in 2016, where we said, "Look, we have all this exoplanet data now, right? So the thing that exoplanet science and the exoplanet census I was talking about before have nailed is F sub P, the fraction of stars that have planets, it's one. Every fricking star that you see in the sky hosts a family of worlds." I mean, it's mind boggling because every one of those, those are all places, right? They're either, you know, gas giants, probably with moons, so the moons are places you can stand and look out. Or they're like terrestrial worlds where even if there's not life, there's still snow falling and there's oceans washing up on, you know, on shorelines. It's incredible to think how many places and stories there are out there. So, right, the first term was F sub P, which is how many stars have planets. The next term is how many planets are in the habitable zone, right, on average. And it turns out to be one over five, right? So, you know, you know, around 0.2. So that means you just count five of them, go out at night and go one, two, three, four, five. One of them has an earth-like planet, you know, in the habitable zone, like, whoa! What defines a habitable zone? Habitable zone is an idea that was developed in the 1958 by the Chinese American astronomer Shusheng. And it was a brilliant idea. It said, look, this is there, you know, I can do this simple calculation if I take a planet and just stick it at some distance from a star of what's the temperature of the planet? What's the temperature of the surface? So now you're all you're going to ask, you give it a standard kind of, you know, earth-like atmosphere and ask, could there be liquid water on the surface, right? We believe that liquid water is really important for life. There could be other things that's happening fine, but, you know, if you were to start off trying to make life, you'd probably choose water as your solvent for it. So basically, the habitable zone is the band of orbits around a star where you can have liquid water on the surface. You could take a glass of water, pour it on the surface and it would just pool up. It wouldn't freeze immediately, which would happen if your planet is too far out and it wouldn't just boil away if your planet is too close in. So that's the formal definition of the habitable zone. So it's a nice strict definition. There's probably way more going on than that, but this is a place to start. Right. Well, we should say it's a place to start. I do think it's too strict of a constraint. I would agree. We're talking about temperature where water can be on the surface. There's so many other ways to get the aforementioned turmoil where the temperature varies, whether it's volcanic, so interaction of volcanoes and ice and all of this on the moons of plants that are much farther away. All that kind of stuff. Yeah. Well, for example, we know in our own solar system, we have say Europa, the moon of Jupiter, which has got a hundred mile deep ocean under 10 miles of ice. That's not in the habitable zone. That is outside the habitable zone. And that may be the best place. It's got more water than Earth does. All of its oceans. It's twice as much water on Europa than there is on Earth. So that may be a really great place for life to form and it's outside the habitable zone. So the habitable zone is a good place to start and it helps us. There's reasons why you do want to focus on the habitable zone because Europa, I wouldn't be able to see from across telescopic distances across light years. I wouldn't be able to see life on Europa because it's under 10 miles of ice. So with the important thing about planets in the habitable zone is that we're thinking they have atmospheres, atmospheres are the things we can characterize for across 10, 50 light years. And we can see biosignatures as we're going to talk about. So there is a reason why the habitable zone becomes important for the detection of extra solar life. But for me, when I look up at the stars, it's very likely that there's a habitable planet or moon and each of the stars, habitable defined broadly. Yeah, I think that's not unreasonable to say. I mean, especially since the formal definition, you get one in five, right? One in five is a lot. There's a lot of stars in this guy. So yeah, saying that in general, when I look at a star, there's a pretty good chance that there's something habitable orbiting it is not a unreasonable scientific claim. To me, it seems like there should be alien civilizations everywhere. Why the Fermi paradox? Why haven't we seen them? Okay. The Fermi paradox. I love talking about the Fermi paradox because there is no Fermi paradox. Duh, duh, duh, duh. Yeah. So the Fermi paradox. Let's talk about the Fermi paradox and the history of it. So Enrico Fermi, it's 1950. He's walking with his friends at Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab to the Cantina. And there had been this cartoon in the New Yorker. They all read the New Yorker. And the cartoon was trying to explain why there had been this rash of garbage cans being disappearing in New York. And this cartoon said, "Oh, it's UFOs," because this is already, you know, it's 1950. The first big UFO craze happened in '47. So they were laughing about this as they're walking and they started being physicists, started talking about interstellar travel, interstellar propulsion, bottle blah, conversation goes on for a while. Conversation turns to something else, you know, gone to other things. About 40 minutes later, over lunch, Fermi blirts out, "Well, where is everybody?" Right? Typical Fermi sort of thing. He'd done the calculation in his head and he suddenly realized that, "Look, if intelligence is common, that even traveling at sub light speeds, a civilization could cross, you know, kind of hop from one star system to the other and spread it out across the entire galaxy in a few hundred thousand years." And he realized this, and so he was like, "Why aren't they here now?" And that was the beginning of the Fermi paradox. It actually got picked up as a formal thing in 1975 in a paper by Hart, where he actually kind of went through this calculation and showed and said, "Well, there's nobody here now, therefore, there's nobody anywhere." Okay, so that is what we will call the direct Fermi paradox. Why aren't they here now? But something happened where people, after SETI began, where people started to, there's this idea of the great silence, people got this idea in their head that like, "Oh, we've been looking for decades now for signals of extraterrestrial intelligence that we haven't found any, therefore there's nothing out there." But that, so we'll call that the indirect Fermi paradox, and there absolutely is no indirect Fermi paradox for the most mundane of reasons, which is money. There's never been any money to look. There really, SETI was always done by researchers who were kind of like scabins some time, you know, some extra time from their other projects, so you know, look a little bit at the sky with the telescope. Telescopes are expensive. So Jason Wright, one of my collaborators, he and his students did a study where they looked at the entire search space for SETI, you know, and imagine that's an ocean, all the different stars you have to look at, the radio frequencies you have to look at, how when you look, how often you look, and they looked, then they summed up all the SETI searches that had ever been done. They went through the literature. And what they found was if the, if that's search space, if the sky is an ocean and you're looking for fish, how much of the ocean have we looked at? And it turns out to be a hot tub. That's how much of the ocean that we've looked at, we've dragged a hot tub's worth of ocean water up and there was no fish in it. And so now are we going to say up, well, there's no fish in the ocean, right? So there is absolutely, positively, no indirect Fermi parts. We just haven't looked. But we're starting to look. So that's what's, you know, finally, we're starting to look, that's what's exciting. The direct Fermi paradox, there are so many ways out of that, right? There's a book called 77 solutions to the Fermi paradox that it just, you know, you can pick your favorite one. It just doesn't carry a lot of weight because there's so many ways around it. We did an actual simulation, my group, Johnston Carroll, one of my collaborators. We actually simulated the galaxy and we simulated probes moving at sublight speed from one star to the other, gathering resources heading to the next one. And so we could actually track the expansion wave across the galaxy, have one IA biogenesis event and then watch the whole galaxy get colonized or settled. But it is absolutely true that that wave crosses, you know, heart was right, Fermi was right, that wave crosses very quickly. But civilizations don't last forever, right? So one question is, when did they visit? When did they come there, right? So if you give civilizations a finite lifetime, you know, let them last 10,000, 100,000 years, what you find is you now have a steady state civilizations are dying. They're, you know, they're, they're coming back. They're traveling between the stars. What you find then is you can have big holes opened up. You can have regions of space where there is nobody for, you know, millions of years. And so if that, if we're living in one of those bubbles right now, then maybe we were visited, but we were visited a hundred million years ago. And there was a paper that Gavin Schmidt and I did that showed that if there was a civilization, whether it was like dinosaurs or aliens that was here a hundred million years ago, there's no way to tell. There's just, there's no record left over. The fossil record is too sparse. The only way maybe you could tell is by looking at the isotopic strata to see if there was anything reminiscent of an industrial civilization. But the idea that, you know, you'd be able to find, you know, iPhones or, or toppled buildings after a hundred million years is, there's no way. So if there was an alien camp here, an alien village, a small civilization, you'd be given large civilizations. Even a large civilization, even if it was a hundred million years ago. But last to 10,000 years, the fossil record is not going to have it. Yeah. Yeah. Right? Most things don't fossilize. Yeah. And 10,000 years is a, you know, blink in the eye of the theological time. So we call our Gavin called this the "cylurian hypothesis." after the Dr. Who episode with the lizard creatures, the psilorians, and so that paper got a lot of press. But it was an important idea. I noticed it was really Gavin's. I was just helping with the astrobiology that to recognize that like, yeah, we could have been visited a long time ago. There just would be no record. Yeah, it's got a mind-blowing. - It's really mind-blowing. And it's also a good reminder that we've been intelligent species have been here for a very short amount of time. - It's a very short amount of time, yeah. And this is not to say that there was. So whenever I gave, I was on Joe Rogan for exactly this paper, and I had to always emphasize, we're not saying there was a psilorian. But we're just saying that if there was, that's why I love Gavin's question. Gavin's question was just like, how could you tell? It was a very beautifully scientific question. That's what we were really showing is that you really, unless you did a very specific kind of search, which nobody's done so far, you know, there's not an obvious way to tell that there could have been civilizations here earlier on. - I've actually been reading a lot about ancient civilizations, and it just makes me sad how much of the wisdom of that time is lost. - Yeah. - And how much guessing is going on, whether it's in South America, like what happened in the jungle? - Yeah, like the Amazon, like the Amazon problem, that was, you know, the conquistars came and wiped everybody out, and especially just even the plague may have decimated. So yeah, how much of that civilization? - And there's a lot of theories, and you know, because of archeology only looks at cities, they don't really know the origins of humans, and there's a lot of really interesting theories in there, of course, controversial, and there's a lot of controversial people in every discipline, but archeology is like a fascinating one, 'cause we know so little, they're basically storytellers. You're assembling the picture from just very few puzzle pieces, and it's fascinating. It makes me, it's humbling, and it's sad that there could be entire civilizations, ancient civilizations that are either almost entirely or entirely lost. - Yeah, well, like the indigenous peoples of North America, there could have been like millions and millions. You know, we get this idea that like, oh, you know, this, the Europeans came and it was empty, you know? But it was, it may have only been empty because the plague had swept up from the, you know, from the, what happened in Mesoamerica. So, and they didn't really build cities, but they had, they, I mean, they, they didn't build, wouldn't, or stone cities, they built wooden cities, you know? - Everybody seems to be building pyramids, and they're really damn good at it. I don't know what that is. - What's happened with a parrot, like what is, why does that apply, like what archetype in our brain is that? - And it is also really interesting speaking of archetypes is that independent civilizations formed, and they had a lot of similar kind of dynamics, like human nature, when it, it builds up hierarchies in a certain way, it builds up myths and religions in a certain way, it builds pyramids in a certain way, it goes to the war, all this kind of stuff. - Yeah. - Independently or just fascinating. - Santa Fe Institute, the stuff that Santa Fe Institute does on this, as complex systems, you know, the origin of hierarchies and such, very cool. - Yeah, Santa Fe, folks, complexity in genos, really cool. - Really cool. - What phenomena emerge when a bunch of small things get together and interact? Going back to this paper, a new empirical constraint on the prevalence of technological species in the universe, this paper that expands on the Drake equation, what are some interesting things in this paper? - Well, so the main thing we were trying to do with this paper is say, look, we have all of this exoplanet data, right? It's gotta be good for something. Especially since two of the terms that have been nailed down empirically are two terms in the Drake equation. So F sub P, that's the second term, fraction of stars that have planets, and then N sub E, the average number of planets in the habitable zone. Those are the second and third term in the Drake equation. So what that means is all the astronomical terms have been nailed. And so we said like, okay, how do we use this to do something with the Drake equation? And so we realized is, well, okay, we gotta get rid of time. The lifetime thing, we can't say anything about that. But if we let that, if we don't ask how long they last, but instead ask, what's the probability that there have been any civilizations at all, no matter how long they lasted? I'm not asking whether they exist now or not. I'm just asking in general about probabilities to make a technological civilization anywhere and at any time in the history of the universe. And that we were able to constrain. And so what we found was basically that there have been 10 billion trillion habitable zone planets in the universe. And what that means is that are, those are 10 billion trillion experiments that have been run. And the only way that we're the only time that this whole process from, you know, a biogenesis to a civilization has occurred is if every one of those experiments failed, right? So therefore you could put a probability, we call it the pessimism line, right? We don't really know what nature sets for the probability of making intelligent civilizations, right? But we could set a limit using this. We could say, look, if the probability per habitable zone planet is less than 10 to the minus 22, one in 10 billion trillion, then yeah, we're alone. If it's anywhere larger than that, then we're not the first. It's happened somewhere else. And to me, that was mind blowing. It doesn't tell me there's anybody nearby. The galaxy could be sterile. It just told me that like, you know, unless nature's really against, it has some bias against civilizations, we're not the first time this has happened. This has happened elsewhere over the course of cosmic history. 10 billion trillion experiments. Yeah, that's a lot of experiments. That's a lot. Right. A thousand is a lot. Yeah. A hundred is a lot. If we normal human saw a hundred experiments and we knew that at least one time there was a successful human civilization built, I mean, we would say for sure in a hundred, you'll get another one. Yeah, yeah. So that's what I mean, that's why so this, you know, these kinds of arguments have to be careful of what they can do. But what it really, I felt like what this paper showed was that, you know, the burden of proof is now on the pessimists, right? So that's what we call the pessimism line. There's been, you know, throughout history, there's been, you know, alien pessimists and alien optimists. And they've been yelling at each other. That's all they had to go with, right? You know, and like with geordano Bruno and 1600, they burned the guy at the stake for being an alien optimist. But nobody really knew what pessimism or optimism meant. This, you know, we sort of thought this was like the plank length. This was sort of the plank length of astrobiology. It gave you an actual number that, you know, if you could somehow calculate what the probability, you know, of forming a technological civilization was, this thing sort of shows you where the limit is. As long as you're above 10 to the minus 22, then you actually, absolutely, it has occurred in the, in the, in the history, other civilizations have occurred in the history of the universe. So to me, at least the big question is FE, which is basically a biogenesis. How hard is it for life to originate in a planet? Because all the other ones seem very likely. Everything seems very likely. The only open question to me is like, how hard is it for life to originate? There's lots of ways to, again, you know, we don't know unless we look and you know, you had Sarah walk around not too long ago, you know, she's very interested in origins of life. So, you know, lots of people are working on this, but I think it's, it's hard looking at the history of the earth. You know, and again, this is, you can do Bayesian arguments on this, but yeah, it's forming life, I don't think it's hard. Getting, getting like basic biology started, I don't think it's hard. It's still wild, it's an amazing process that actually I think requires some deep rethinking about how we conceptualize what life is and what life isn't. That's one of the things I like about Sarah's work. We're pursuing on a different level about the life as the only system that uses information. But still, regardless of all those kinds of details, life is probably easy to make. That's my gut feeling, you know. - Yeah, I mean, day by day this changes for me, but I've just seen that once you create bacteria, it's off to the races. You're gonna get a complex life. As long as you have enough time, I mean, that boring billion, and but I just can't imagine a habitable planet not having a couple billion to spare. - Yeah, a couple of years to spare. You know, there is a mystery there about why did it take so long like with the Cambrian explosion, but that may be again, about these windows that like you couldn't happen until the window, the planet and the life had evolved together enough that they together kind of opened the window for the next step. Intelligent life and how long intelligence, civil and technological civilizations, I think there's a big question about how long those last and how I'm hopeful, you know, but in terms of just like, I think life is absolutely gonna be common in the, you know, pretty common in the universe. - Yeah, I think it's absolutely like, I think again, if I were to better everything, even in advanced civilizations are common. So to me, then the only explanation is the L. Our galaxy is a graveyard of civilizations. - Yeah, Keese, you think about it. We've only been around, I mean, that's a tech lot, truly, you know, when we think about in Drake's definition, you have to have radio telescopes. That's been a hundred years. You know, and if we got another 10,000, 100,000 years of history, that would be, for us, it would be pretty amazing, right? But that still, that wouldn't be long enough to really pop up the number of civilizations in the galaxy. So you really need it to be like, hundreds of millions of years. And that raises a question which I am. Very. interested in, which is how do you even talk about, I call it the billion-year civilization, right? How do we even begin to hypothesize or think about in any kind of systematic way what happens to a technological civilization across hundreds of millions to a billion years? Yeah, like how do you even simulate the trajectories that civilizations can take across that kind of timescale? Yeah. When we, all the data we have is just for the 10,000 years or so, 20,000 years that humans have been building civilizations, and then just, I don't know what you put it at, but maybe a hundred years that we've been technological? Yeah. And we're ready to blow ourselves to bits or drive ourselves off the planet. Yeah, no, it's really interesting. But there's got to be a way that I think that's really a frontier. So you had David Kipping on too long ago. And David and I did a paper and Caleb Sharf, David really drove this, where we, you know, it was a basing calculation to sort of ask the question, if you find, if you were to find a detection, if you were to find a signal or, you know, a techno signature, would that come from a civilization that was younger your age or older? And you could see, I mean, this is not hard to do, but it was great. The formalism, the formalism was hard, you know, it's kind of intuitive, but the formalism was hard to show that, yeah, they're older, you know, probably much older. So I mean, you really do need to think about like, okay, how do billion-year civilizations manifest themselves? What signatures will they leave? And yeah, can you even, I mean, what's so cool about it? It's so much fun because you got to, like, you have to, you have to imagine the unimaginable. Like, you know, would you still, I mean, obviously biological evolution can happen on, you know, on those kinds of timescales. So you wouldn't even really be the same thing you started out as, but social forms, what kind of social forms can you imagine that would be continuous over that? Or maybe they wouldn't be continue, should get they drop out, you know, they destroy themselves and they come back. So maybe it's, you know, it's a trunk or a punctuated evolution, I mean, but we got a sort of, this is the fun part. We have to sort of work this out, you know, what, I mean, one way to approach that question is like, how, what are the different ways to achieve homeostasis as you get greater and greater technological innovation? So like, if you expand out into the universe and you have, uh, up to cardish have scale, what, what are the ways you can avoid destroying yourself? Just achieve stability while still growing. Yeah. And, I mean, that's an interesting question. I think it's probably simulatable. It could be, I mean, you know, agent-based modeling, you could do it with that stuff. So, you know, our group has used agent-based modeling to do something like the Fermi Paradox. That was, that was agent-based modeling. But you can also do this, people at Santa Fe have done this, other groups have done this, to do use agent-based modeling to track the, the formation of hierarchies, the formation of stable hierarchies, the, so I think that, I think it's actually very doable. But, um, understanding the kind of assumptions and principles that are going into it and what you can extract from those, that is what is sort of the frontier. Do you think if humans can't recognize Mars, the dynamic between the civilization on Earth and Mars will be fundamentally different than the dynamic between individual nations on Earth right now? Like, that, that's the thing to load into the simulate, the agent-based simulation we're talking about. If we settle it, Mars will very quickly want to become its own nation. Well, no, there's already going to be nations on Mars. That's guaranteed. Yeah, there'll be their own. The moment you have two million people, the moment you have one million people, there's going to be two tribes. Right. And then they're going to start fighting. Right. And the question is, interplanetary fighting, how quickly does that happen? And does it have a different nature to it? Uh. These are the distances, you know? Are you a fan of the expanse? Do you have you watched the expanse? Great show. Because it's all about the, I highly recommend to everybody. It's based on a series of books that are excellent. It's on prime. Six seasons. And it's basically about the settled solar system. It takes place about 300 years from now, and the entire solar system is settled. And it is the best show about interplanetary politics. The first season, actually, um, the journal, was it foreign, foreign affairs, said the best show on TV about politics. It takes place is interplanetary. Um. So yeah, I think, you know, human beings being human beings, yes, there will be warfare, and there will be conflict. Um, I don't think it'll be necessarily all that different. You know, because really, I think within a few hundred years, we will have lots of people in the solar system. And it doesn't even have to be on Mars. We did a paper where we, uh, look, based on, because I was wanted to know about whether what an idea in the expanse was really possible. In the expanse, the, the asteroid belt, what they've done is they have colonized the asteroid belt by hollowing out the asteroids and spinning them up and living on the inside, right? Because they have the Coriolis force. And I thought, like, wow, what a cool idea. And when I ran the blog for NPR, actually talked to the guys and said, did you guys calculate this? See whether it's possible. Sadly, it's not possible. The rock is just not strong enough that if you tried to spin it up to the speeds you need to get, uh, one third gravity, which is what I think the minimum you need for human beings, uh, the rock, which is fall apart, it would break. But we came up with another idea, which was that if you could take small asteroids, put a giant bag around them, a nano fiber bag and spin those up, it would inflate the bag, and then even a small couple of kilometer wide asteroid would expand out to, um, you could get like a Manhattan's worth of material inside. So forget about even colonizing Mars space stations, right, or space habitats with millions of people in them. So anyway, the point is that I think, you know, within a few hundred years, it is not unimaginable that there will be millions, if not billions of people living in the solar system. And so, you think most of them will be in space habitats versus on Mars on the planetary surface? You know, it's a lot easier on some, on some level, right, depends on how like with nano fabrication and such. But, you know, getting down a gravity well is hard, right? Um, so, you know, there's a certain way in which there's a lot of, you know, it's a lot easier to build real estate out of the asteroids, um, but we'll probably do both. I mean, I think what will happen is, you know, the next, should we make it through climate change in nuclear war and all the other and AI, um, the, the next thousand years of human history is the solar system, right? And so, you know, I think we'll settle every nook and cranny we possibly can. And it's, you know, it's a beautiful, what I love about what's hopeful about it is this idea you're going to have all of these pockets. And you know, I'm sure there's going to be a Mormon space habitat, like, you know, there's going to be whatever you want, libertarian space habitat. Everybody's going to be able to kind of create, there will be lots of experiments in human flourishing. And those kinds of experiments will be really useful for us to sort of figure out better ways for us to interact and have maximum flourishing, maximum wellness, maximum democracy, maximum freedom. Uh, do you think that's a good backup solution to go out into space, sort of to avoid the possibility of humans destroying themselves completely here on earth? Well, I think, you know, I want to be always careful with that because, like I said, it's centuries that we're talking about, right? So, you know, the problem with climate change, you know, and say nuclear war, it's breathing down our necks now. So it's not a, you know, trying to establish a base on Mars is going to be so hard that it is not even going to be close to being self-sufficient for a couple of, you know, a century at least. So it's not like a backup plan now, you know, we have to solve the problem of climate change. We have to deal with that. There's still enough nuclear weapons to really do our, you know, horrific things to the planet for human beings. Um, so I don't think it's like a backup plan in that way, but I do think, like I said, it's the prize. You know, if we get through this, then we get the entire solar system to sort of play around in an experiment with and do really cool things with, well, I think it could be a lot less than a couple of centuries, if there's a urgency, like a real urgency, like a catastrophe, like a, maybe a small nuclear war breaks out where it's like holy shit, this is for sure, for sure a bigger one is looming, maybe if geopolitically the war between China and the United States escalates where there's this tension that builds and builds and builds and it becomes more obvious that we need to really, really read that way. Yeah. I think my only dilemma with that is that I just think that a bit, a self-sufficient base is a, so far away that like say you start doing that and then there is a full scale nuclear exchange. That base is, you know, it's not going to last because it's just, you know, the self-sufficiency requires a kind of economy, like literally a material economy that we are so far from with Mars that we are centuries from, like I said, you know, three centuries, which is not that long, two to three centuries, you know, look at 18, 20, nobody had traveled faster than 60 miles an hour unless they were falling off a cliff, right? And now we routinely travel at 500 miles an hour, but it is sort of centuries long, so that's why I think we'd be better off trying to solve these problems than, you know, I just think the odds that we're going to be able to create a self-sufficient colony on Mars before that threat comes to head is small. So we have to deal with the threat. Yeah, it's an interesting, scientific and engineering question of how to create a self-sufficient colony on Mars or out in space as a space habitat, like where Earth and Tyler could be destroyed you could still survive. Yeah, yeah, because it's really what about, you know, thinking about complex systems, right? A space habitat, you know, would have to be as robust as an ecosystem, as the kind of ecosystem you know, you go out and you see a pond with all the different webs of interactions. You know, that's why I always think that, you know, if this process of going out into space is actually will help us with climate change and with thinking about making a long-term sustainable version of human civilization, because you really have to think about these webs, the complexity of these webs, and recognize the biosphere has been doing this forever. The biosphere knows how to do this, right? So, A, how do we support, how do we build a vibrant, powerful technosphere that also doesn't, you know, mess with the biosphere, the mess with the biosphere's capacity to support our technosphere. So, you know, by doing this, by trying. build space habitats in some sense, you're thinking about building a small scale version of this. So I think the two problems are going to kind of feed back on each other. Well, there's also the other possibility of like the movie "Daren Arnowski's Postcard from Earth," where we can create this kind of life-gun that just shoots, so it's supposed to engineering everything, basically seeding life on a bunch of places and letting life do its thing, which is really good at doing, it seems like. So it's supposed to like, with a space habitat, you basically have to build the entire biosphere and technosphere, the whole thing by yourself. Yeah. You know, if you just, hey, the aforementioned cockroach with some bacteria, place it in Europa, I think you'd be surprised what happens. Yeah, yeah. Like honestly, if you put a huge amount of bacteria, like a giant number of organisms from Earth onto, on Mars, on some of these moons of the other planets in the solar system, do you think like, I feel like some of them would actually find a way to survive. You know, the moon is hard because the moon is just like, there's no, you know, the moon may be really hard, but you know, that'd be, I mean, I wonder if somebody's must have done these experiments, right? Like how, because we know they're extremophiles, right? We know that there, you can go down, you know, 10 miles below the Earth's surface, and there are things where there's no sunlight, there's, you know, the conditions are so extreme, and there's lots of microbes having a great time, living off the radioactivity, you know, in the rocks. But, you know, they had lots of time to evolve to those conditions. So I'm not sure if you dumped a bunch of bacteria, you know, so somebody like, that somebody must have done these experiments, like, you know, how fast could microbial evolution occur in under harsh conditions that you maybe get somebody who figures out, okay, I can deal with this. I think the moon's too much because it's so sterile. But, you know, Mars, I don't know, maybe, I don't know, we'd have to, but it's an interesting idea. I wonder if somebody has done those experiments. Yeah, I mean, you think somebody would like, let's take a bunch of microbes. The harsh, take the harshest possible conditions, all different kinds, temperature, all this kind of stuff. Right, pressure, salinity, and then just like dump a bunch of things that are not used to it. And then just see, does everybody just die? You know, that's it. There's, you know, the thing about life, it flourishes in a non sterile environment, where there's a bunch of options for resources, even if the condition is super harsh. In the lab, I don't know if you can reconstruct harsh conditions, plus options for survival, you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, you have to have the huge variety of resources that are always available on a planet somehow, even when it's a super harsh condition. So that's actually not a trivial experiment. And I wouldn't even, if somebody did that experiment in the lab, I'd be a little bit skeptical. Because I could see, bacteria doesn't survive in this kind of temperature. But then I'm building, I don't know, I don't know. Is there enough, right? Is there, you know, are there other options, like, you know, I think is the condition rich enough? Rich enough, yeah. You know, there's an alternative view, though, which is there's this great book by Kim Stanley Robinson called Aurora. You know, so there's been a million, um, sentry ship stories like where, you know, earth sends out a, you know, generation ship or sentry ship and it goes to another planet and they land and they colonize. And on this one, they get all the way there. And they think it's, the plan's going to be habitable. And it turns out that it's not habitable for earth life like that. You know, there's, there's like, you know, bacteria or prions actually, you know, super, that just like, you know, kill people in the simplest way. Um, and the is the important thing about this book was the idea that like, you know, life is actually very tied to its planet. It may not be so easy. I just thought it was a really interesting idea. I'm not saying that I'm sorry, supporting it, but that actually life reflects the planetary conditions. They're not the planetary, the planet itself, the whole lineage, the whole history of the biosphere. And it may not be so easy this to just sort of be like, oh, just drop it over here and it'll, you know, because the bacteria, even though they're individual examples of life. And I kind of believe this, the true unit of life, it's not DNA, it's not a cell. It's the biosphere. It's the whole community. Yeah. That's actually an interesting field of study is how when you arrive from one planet to another, so we humans arrive to a planet that has a biosphere, maybe a technosphere. What is the way to integrate without killing yourself or the other one? That's, let's stick to biology like that. That's an interesting question. I don't know if we have a rigorous way of investigating that because everybody, everything on life is, you know, has the same lineage. Real come from Luca, you know, the last universal common ancestor. And what you see is often in science fiction people will do things like, oh, well, it's okay because like that bio, that metabolism, that biochemistry is so different from ours that we can coexist because they don't even know each other. You know, right? That the, you know, and then the other version is you get there. You land it instantly, you know, the nose bleeds and you're dead. So it's unfortunate. I think it's the latter. Yeah. It sort of feels like it's the more alien kind of thing. So as we look out there, according to the Drake equations, we just discussed seems impossible to me that there's not civilizations everywhere. So how do we look at them? This process of said he have to put on my scientist hat and just say, my gut feeling is that dumb life, so to speak, is common. I am a little agnostic about, I can see ways in which intelligent civilizations may be sparse. But, but until, you know, we got to go look, it's all, it's all armchair armchair. That's that's from our sort of rigorous scientific perspective. From my broad science perspective, it seems again, spoken this, the aforementioned weed. After the fog. I mean, honestly, it's, it's, it's really just, it's impossible to me that there's not potentially dead, but advanced civilizations everywhere in our galaxy. Yeah. Yeah. The potentially dead part, I think. Right. It could be that like, making civilizations is easy. They just don't last long. So when we, when we're now there, we'd find a lot of extinct civilizations. Extinct civilizations. Yeah, apex predators don't survive. Like they, they get, get better, better, better. And they die kill themselves all somehow. Anyway, so just, how do we find them? Yeah. So, SETI, search for extraterrestrial technology, is a term that I am not fond of using anymore. I mean, some people in my field are, so I'm sorry, folks. But I'm really, what I really like is the idea of techno signatures, because I think, you know, clear, to me, SETI is the, first of all, intelligence. We're not really looking for intelligence. We're looking for technology. I mean, you know, um, and SETI, the classic idea, SETI is the radio telescopes, you know, in contact, Jody Foster with the headphones. That whole thing is still part, it's still active. There's still great things going on with it. But suddenly, this whole new window opened up when we discovered exoplanets, we now found a new way to look for intelligent civilizations or life in general in a way that doesn't have any of the assumptions that had to go into the classic radio study. And specifically, what I mean is, we're not looking for somebody sending us a beacon. You really needed that with the classic model, um, for a bunch of different reasons. You had to assume they wanted to be found and they were sending you a super-powerful beacon. Now, because we know exactly where to look, and we know exactly how to look, we can just go about looking for passive signatures of the civilization going about its civilization in business, you know, without asking whether they want to be contacted or not. So this is what we call a biosignature or a technosignature. It is an imprint in the light from the planet of the activity of a biosphere or a technosphere. And that's really important. Yeah, that, that, that is why kind of the whole guy idea ends up being astrobiological. That biospears and technospears are so potent, they change the entire planet. And you can see that from 20 light years. So let's give an example of a biosignature to start off with, which would be a signature of a biosphere oxygen, right? And on Earth, at least, we know that oxygen is only in the atmosphere because life put it there. If life went away, the oxygen, and particularly oxygen and methane, that pair, they would disappear, you know, very quickly. They'd react away. They'd all be gone. So if you find a planet with oxygen and methane, that's a good bet that there's a biosphere there. Okay, what about technospears? Technosphere is, this is what, you know, so I'm the principal investigator on the first grant. NASA has ever given to do these kind of exoplanet technosignatures. NASA was kind of, for reasons we can talk about NASA had gotten pretty gun shy about funding anything about intelligent life. But okay, what's an example of a technosignature? Well, one could be atmospheric pollution. I'm going to put pollution in quotes here because it doesn't have to be pollution. But gases, like chlorofluorocarbons. So we've dumped, you know, we dumped a huge amount of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere by mistake. It was affecting the ozone. But we put so much in there that actually, this is one of the things we did. We did a paper where we showed you could detect it across interstellar distances. You could look at the atmosphere, look at the light coming from a distant planet, pass the light through a spectrograph and see the the spectral lines, the fingerprint, the spectral fingerprint of chlorofluorocarbons in an atmosphere. And that would for sure tell you that that where there was a technological civilization there. Because there's no other way to make chlorofluorocarbons except through some kind of industrial process. So you're looking for, in the case of the biosphere, you're looking for anomalies in the spectrograph. I wouldn't necessarily call these anomalies. I'm looking for things that, for biosignature, I'm looking for things that a geosphere, right? Yeah, that just rock and air wouldn't produce on its own. Well, kind of chemicals would life produce. Right, and that's part of the, that's the interesting thing, right? So that's what, you know, so we can use Earth as an example, right? We say, look, oxygen, And we know there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere if it wasn't for dimethyl sulfide, which is a compound that the phylo plankton dump into the atmosphere. A lot of it. That's sometimes mentioned. And there was even, there was a paper that somebody wrote where I was like, well, we're not saying we see it, but you know, there's a bunch of noise in the spectra right there. So you know, there's a whole list of things that Earth has done that are in the atmosphere that might be biosignatures. But now we're reaching an interesting point. The field has matured to the point where we can start asking about agnostic biosignatures, things that have nothing to do with Earth's history. But we think that that would still be indications of this weirdness we call life, right? What is it in general that life does that leaves an imprint? So one of these things could be the structure of the network of chemical reactions. That biology always produces very different chemical networks, who's reacting with who, just rock and water, right? So there's been some proposals for networked, you know, biosignatures, information theory. You can use, you can try and look at the information that is in the different compounds that are you find in the atmosphere. And maybe that information shows you're like, oh, there's too much information here. There must have been biology happening. It's not just rock. Same thing for techno. That's what we're working on right now. That for techno signatures as well. So how do you detect techno signatures? Okay. So with techno signatures, I gave the example of chloroforocarbons. So that would be an example of, and again, that one is a non-agnostic one because we sort of like, oh, we produced chloroforocarbons, maybe they will, right? And there's solar panels, right? You can actually the glint off of solar panels will produce a, the way the light is reflected off of solar panels, whether, no matter what it's made out of, actually, there was a paper that, um, a Nazi lingamanovi logo did in, I think it was 2017. We've just followed up on it. That actually could act as a techno signature. You'd be able to see in the reflected light this sort of big jump that would occur because of, uh, city lights, city, artificial illumination. If the, if there's really like, you know, large scale cities like, you know, Coruscant and Star Wars or Trantor in the foundation, those city lights would be detectable, you know, the spectral imprint of those across 20, 30 light years. So, you know, our job in this grant is to develop the first ever library of techno signatures. Nobody's really ever thought about this before. So we're trying to come up with all the possible ideas for what a civilization might produce that could be visible across, uh, you know, uh, interstellar distances. And are these good ones or is these ones going to be hard to detect or such? Three lights, so if a planet is all lit up with artificial light across 20 to 30 light years, we can see it. Yeah. If you looked at Earth at night from a distance where, you know, looked at the spectra and you had sensitive, sensitive enough instruments, you'd be able to see all the sodium lights and the reflected light off of, you know, they, they, um, bounce off the ground, right? The light bounces off the ground. So you'd convolve the, the sodium lamps with the reflected spectra from the ground. And yeah, you'd be able to see that there's city lights. Now, increased that by a factor of 1,000, you know, if you had a trantor and you'd be able to detect that across interstellar gents, Thomas Bedeck did this work who's now working with us. What do you think is the most detectable thing about earth? Well, we just, this is fun. We just have a Sophia Schief, who's part of our collaboration, just did a paper. We did earth from earth. If you were looking at earth with earth technology for a bunch of different technosignatures, how close would you have to be to be able to detect them? Most of them turn out to be, you'd have to be pretty close, these out to the earth cloud. But actually, it is our radio signatures still that is still most detectable. By the way, when you said you had to be pretty close and then you said the earth cloud, that's not very close. But you mean like, from an interstellar distance? Interstellar distance. Because the real quick, you know, we really want to know is like, I'm sitting here on earth, I'm looking at these exoplanets, the nearest star is four light years away. So that's like the minimum distance. So what can, if I'm looking at exoplanets, what kind of signals could I say? What is detectable about earth with our current technology from the near solar system? Oh my God, there's all kinds of stuff. Well, like the chlorofluor carbons, you can see, you can see earth's pollution. And you know, I think city lights you had to be within, you know, within the solar system. If they do direct imaging of earth, they're going to need much more powerful. But let me tell you what things, let's talk about direct imaging for a moment because I just have to go on. This is such a cool idea. So what we really want and the next generation of space telescopes and such is we're trying to do direct imaging. We're trying to get, you know, an image of a planet separated from its star to be able to see the reflected light or the actual emission from the planet itself. Yeah. By the way, just to clarify, direct imaging means literally like a picture, a picture. But the problem is is that with the, even with the, the, the, the threat, the thing that's going to come after JWST, it's going to be a pixel, right? You're not going to get any kind of resolution. You'll be able to get the light from it, which you'll be able to pass through a spectrograph but you're not going to be able to take a picture. But there is this idea called the solar gravity lens telescope. I think that's what it is. And the idea is insane, right? So their general relativity says, look, massive bodies distort space. They actually curve space time. So the sun is a massive body. And so that means that the light passing through the sun gets focused like a lens, right? So the idea is to send a bunch of telescopes out kind of into the art cloud and then look back towards the sun towards an exoplanet that is behind, not directly behind the sun, but is, you know, in the direction of the sun. And then let the, let the sun act like a lens and collect, focus the light onto the telescope. And you would be able to get, and they've done, it's amazing like they've already, this idea is insane. They'd be able to get if everything works out 24 kilometer resolution, you'd be able to see Manhattan on a exoplanet. And this thing, it sounds insane, but actually, you know, NASA, they've already got the team, has already gotten through like sort of three levels of NASA, you know, there's, there's the NASA program for like, give us your wackiest idea, right? And then the ones that survived that are like, okay, tell us whether that wacky idea, you know, is even feasible. And then, and they're marching along. And the idea is that like, you know, and they even have plans for how you'd be able to get these probes out into the art cloud on relatively fast timescales. You need to be about 500 times as far from the sun as earth is. But right now everything looks, the idea seems to hold together. So probably when I'll be dead, but when you're an old man, it's possible that something like this, could you imagine having like, yeah, res, that kind of resolution, a picture of an exoplanet down to, you know, kilometers. So I'm very excited about that. I can only imagine having a picture like that. And then there's some mysterious artifacts that you're saying. Yeah. I mean, it's both inspiring and, and almost heartbreaking that we can see, I think we'll be able to see a civilization where there's like a lot of scientists agree that this is very likely something. And then we can't. We can't get there. But you know, I mean, again, this is the thing about being a long lived. We've got to get to the point where we're long lived enough that, so let's say we found like, this is what I always like to, let's imagine that we find, say, 10 light years away. We find a planet that looks like it's got techno signatures, right? It doesn't end there. Like that would be the most important discovery in the history of humanity. And it wouldn't be like, well, okay, we're done. The first thing we do is we big, bigger telescopes to try and do those imaging, right? And then the next thing after that, we plan a mission there, right? There's, there, we would figure out like, would breakthrough, breakthrough star shot. It was this idea of trying to use, you know, giant lasers to propel small spacecraft, light sails, almost to the speed of light. So they would get there in 10 years and take pictures. And so we'll, you know, if we actually made this discovery, there would be the impulse. There would be the effort to actually try and send something to get there. Now, you know, we probably couldn't land, we could, but, you know, so maybe we, maybe we take 30 years to build 10 years to get there, 10 years to get the picture back. Okay. You're dead, but your kids are, you know what I mean? So it becomes now this multi generational project. How long did it take to build the pyramids? How long did it take to build the giant cathedrals, right? They were multi generational projects. And I think we're on the cusp of that kind of project. I think that would probably unite humans. I think it would play a big role. I think it would be helpful. I mean, human beings are a mess. Let's face it. But I think having that wrecky, that's why I always say to people, discovery of life of any kind of life, even if it was microbial life, it wouldn't matter that to know that we're not an accident. To know that there is probably, if we found one example of life, we'd know that we're not an accident and there's probably lots of life, and that we're a community. We're part of a cosmic kind of community of life. And who knows what life has done, right? We don't really, all bets are off with life. Since we're talking about the future of telescopes, let's talk about our current super sexy, awesome telescope. The James Webb Space Telescope that I still can't believe actually worked. I can't believe it worked. I was really skeptical. I was like, okay, guys. All right, sure. We only got one shot for this incredibly complicated piece of hardware to unfold. So what kind of stuff can we see with it? I've been just looking through different kinds of announcements that have been detected. There's been some direct imaging. Yes, like a single pixel. The kinds of exoplanets were able to direct image. I guess we'd have to be hot. Hot, usually far away from the, you know, reasonably far away from the star. J.W.S.T. is really kind of at the hairy edge of being able to do much with this. What's more important, I think, for J.W.S.T. is the spectra. And the problem with spectra is that there's not sexy pictures. It's like, hey, look at this wiggly line. But be able to find and characterize atmospheres around terrestrial exoplanets is the critical next step. step. That's where we are right now. In order to look for life, we're going to be, we need to find planets with atmospheres, right? And then we need to be able to do this thing called characterization, where we look at the spectral fingerprints for what's in the atmosphere. Is there carbon? Is there carbon dioxide? Is there oxygen? Is there methane? And that's the most exciting thing. For example, there was this planet K218B, which had, they did a beautiful job getting the spectra. And the spectra indicated it may be an entirely new kind of habitable world called a high-seen world, high-seen meaning hydrogen ocean world. And that is a kind of planet that it would be a, you know, kind of in the super-earth sub-neptune domain we were talking about. You know, maybe eight times that mass of the Earth. But it's got a layer of hydrogen, an atmosphere of hydrogen. Hydrogen is an amazing greenhouse gas. So hydrogen will keep the planet underneath it warm enough that you could get liquid water. You can get a giant ocean of liquid water. And that's an entirely different kind of planet that could be habitable. You know, it could be a 60 degree warm ocean. So the data that came out of JWST for that planet was good enough to be able to indicate like, oh, yeah, you know what? The models from what we understand about the models, this looks like it's a, it could be a high-seen world. And it's 120 light years away from Earth. Yeah. And so it's not amazing. You can, it's 120 light years away, but we can see into the atmosphere. We can see to the atmosphere so well that we'd be like, oh, look, methane, methane was a five-sigma detection. Like you knew that the data were so good that it was like the gold standard of science. What about detecting maybe the direct imaging or in other ways, megastructures that the civilization is built? You know what's great about megastructures is, first of all, it's fun to say. Who doesn't want to say megastructure? Alien megastructure, right? Every morning, I'm looking for an opportunity to say that. So the, the, the, the, the Earth example of this is the Dyson Sphere, right? Which is amazing because you know, it was literally 1960 that this idea came up. Can you explain the Dyson Sphere? Yeah, the Dyson Sphere. So Freeman Dyson, you know, one of the greatest physicists ever who had was very broad-minded and thought about a lot of different things. He recognized that, you know, when a civilization, a civilization's progress, what they're going to need is ever more energy to do ever more, you know, amazing things. And what's the best energy source in a solar system? It's the star, right? So if you surrounded the star with solar collecting machines, sunlight-collecting machines, um, and then the, the limit of this would do you actually build a sphere, an actual sphere around your star that had all solar panels on the inside, you could capture every photon the star produced, which is, you know, this insane amount of light, you would have enough power now to do anything, to re-engineer your solar system. So that was a Dyson Sphere. Turns out that a Dyson Sphere doesn't really work because it's unstable, you know, but a Dyson Swarm is, and that's really what he meant, you know, this large collection of large orbiting structures that were able to collect light. Yeah, so he didn't actually mean a rigid sphere structure. Yeah, he basically meant a swarm. So yeah, that, like you said, an element basically starts to look like a sphere. People started to say, yeah, it was like a sphere, and we actually almost thought we might have found one of these, um, uh, back with, uh, Bajoyan star. We saw, you know, the way we detect planets is through the transit method where the planet passes in front of the star, and there's a dip in the star lights, a little eclipse basically, and we know exactly what they should look like. And then with this one star, there were these really weird transits where like it was like this little dragon's tooth, and then there'd be another one, and another one, and another one, and then nothing, and then three more. And in the paper that was written about this, they suggested they, you know, they went through the list of, they could be comets, could be chunks of a broken up planet, and it could also be an alien mega structure. And of course, the news picked up on this and like everybody's, you know, newsfeed the next day, alien mega structures discovered turns out sadly, they were not alien mega structures. They were probably like gas or dust clouds. Um, but it raised the possibility like, oh, these are observable and people have worked out the details of what they would look like. You don't really need direct imaging. You can do transits, right? They're big enough that when they pass in front of the star, they're going to produce a little blip of light, because that's what they're supposed to, right? They're absorbing star light. So people did have worked out like, well, a square one or a triangular one. But that wouldn't be a decimal sphere. That would be like one object. One object, right? Which is what if it's a swarm, you'd expect like the light to be like blinking in and out as these things pass in front of, you know, if you've got thousands of these, much of the time they'll be blotting out the star, sometimes they won't be, right? And so you're going to get an irregular sort of signal, transit signal. Yeah, one you wouldn't expect from a star that doesn't have anything. Exactly. Or just a planet, right? Or a couple of planets. There'd be so many of these that would be like, and that usually doesn't happen in a star system because there's only just a handful of planets. That's exactly what it is. Everything's coag, you know, and a stable solar system, you got a handful of planets, you know, five, 10, that's it, probably, and nothing else. So if now suddenly you see lots of these little micro-transits, you're telling you there's something else that's big enough to create a transit, but you know, too many of them. And also within a regular shape, the transit itself, that these are, these could be megastructures. How many people are looking for megastructures now? Well, the main groups looking for megastructures are, again, Jason Wright at Penn State and collaborators. The way they're looking for it, though, is for infrared light, because, you know, the second law of thermodynamics says, look, if you capture all of this star light, you're going to warm up the, you know, your thing's going to warm up and emit an infrared, you're going to be waste heat, waste heat, and waste light from this. That feels like a louder, clearer way to deduct it. Right. And that's actually, you know, Dyson, that's actually why Dyson proposed it. He wasn't really proposing it because, like he was saying, this is what civilizations are going to do. He proposed it because he was like, oh, we want to start looking for alien civilizations. Here's something that would have a detectable signature. So Jason and company have done, you know, pretty good searches. And recently, they made news because, you know, they were able to eliminate a lot of places. No, these are not Dyson spheres, but they did have a couple that were like anomalous enough that they're like, well, this is kind of what it would look like. It's not a detection. And they were saying they would never say it's a detection, but they were like, they were not non-detections. They're potential candidates. They still candidates. Yeah. Love it. We have mega-structured candidates. That's inspiring. What other mega-structures do you think that could be? I mean, that's Dyson spheres about capturing the energy of a star. Yeah. There could be other. Well, there's something called the Clark belt, right? So we have a bunch of satellites that are in geosynchronous orbit. Nothing naturally is going to end up in geosynchronous orbit, right? Geosynchronous orbit is one particular orbit that's really useful if you want to beam things straight down, or if you want to put a space elevator up, right? So there's this idea that if, you know, a civilization becomes, you know, advanced enough that it's really using geosynchronous orbit that you actually get a belt, something that would actually be detectable from a distance via a transit. There's been a couple papers written about the possibility of these Clark belts, densely occupied Clark belts being a mega-structure. It's not as mega as a Dyson swarm, but it's, you know, kind of planetary scale. You think it's detectable, Clark belt? It could be, I mean, like, in our list of techno signatures, it would be down there, but it would be, again, if you had an advanced enough civilization that did enough of this, it would certainly, you'd have a Clark belt, and the question is whether or not it's detectable. Yeah, probably Dyson spheres. That's the more exciting thing to do. That's the go-to one. Yeah, yeah. Speaking of the Dyson sphere, let's talk through the Kardashev scales. Right. What is the Kardashev scale, and where are humans on it? Right. So the Kardashev scale was the same time. This is this golden age of setty, like, kind of like 60, 59 to 65 when it just starts. Like this is, you know, Frank Drake has done his first experiment. People are like, "Oh my God, this is even possible." And so people are just thrown out these ideas. And as I said in the book, science is conservative. And what I mean by that is it holds on to its best ideas. So Kardashev comes up with this idea that, look, if we're, again, it's always about detectability. If we're looking for civilizations, we should think about what are the state, what are the natural stages, natural, and quotes, that a civilization goes through. And he was thinking in terms of energy use, which is like a good physicist. So the, he said, look, the first hurdle in terms of energy or threshold that a civilization will go through is using all the starlight that falls onto a planet. He called that a type one civilization. In whatever way you're doing it, some large fraction of the starlight that falls on your planet you're using for your own ends. The next would be to use all the starlight there is from that star, right? So that's the Dyson Swayer. So he actually Dyson had already proposed his idea of the swarm and Kardashev was picking up. So that's a type two civilization. Type three is Galactic Scale, a civilization that could use all the starlight in a galaxy, right? So we are now, where are we now? Remarkably on a log scale. We're at point seven of a type one. So we're not even type one. No, no, no, we're not even type one. But according to, there was a paper written by a group that said, you know, if we continue on our path, we'll be at a type one at around 2300, 2300. So this is on a log scale. So point seven, so type one is about 10 to the 16th Watts, type two is 10 orders and magnitude larger than that, 10 to the 26th Watts, and I think estimate for the galaxy is another 10 orders and magnitude. Yeah, because there's a hundred billion star of order, a hundred billion stars. So that's a lot. Do you think humans ever get to type one? I think, you know, there's a problem with type one, which is that, you know, we already know about climate change, right? The effects of our harvesting energy to do the work of civilization is already changing the climate state, right? And that's something that, you know, Carter-Chef couldn't have recognized. When you, you know, there's the first law of thermodynamics, right, which is just about energy, you know, the different forms of energy, then there's the second law, which is about when you use that energy. And Carter-Chef wasn't thinking about the second law. If you get all that energy and you use it, there is waste heat. You don't get to use it all, right? You can only, second law tells you that if, you know, I have a tank, a gasoline, I can only use a certain fraction of the energy in that tank. And the rest is going to go to heating up the engine block. So that second law tells you that, you know, you can only use so much energy before the climate state is like, uh-oh, you know, sorry, is going to change on you. So there's a way in which we probably can't get to a type one without like devastating the earth's climate. So we're probably going to have to figure out the most important thing actually here is probably this is why space becomes so at the colonization or settlement of space. If we have an idea that we've been working on for a while called service worlds, right, that at some point you probably move a lot of your industry off world, right? We've got mercury, for example, there's nothing on mercury, there's no life on mercury. Why don't you put your energy harvesting there, right? Because you can't mess with the biosphere. The biosphere is more powerful than you are, right? And so yeah, so so there's limits to how much energy we can harvest to do work on the earth without really adversely affecting the biosphere. It does seem that the best response to the climate change is not to use less technology to invent better technology and to invent technology that avoids the destructive effects. This is the frontier we are and that was the topic of my last book, Light of the Stars. It's like you've got you have to do the astrobiology of the Anthropocene. You have to see the transition that we're going through now of the Anthropocene on a kind of planetary astrobiological framework. And you know, that paper we were talking about with a 10 billion trillion worlds, that was actually in service of the work I was doing for this other book where I wanted to know how often are do you go through an Anthropocene? How, you know, does every civilized technological civilization trigger its own planetary crisis, its own climate Anthropocene crisis. And the answer we actually came up from doing models was like, yeah, probably. And then the question is, are you smart enough to figure out how to readjust what you're doing technologically so that you're not, you know, that all boats rise, right? You want to figure out how to do this so that the biosphere becomes even more productive and healthy and resilient. So yeah, right, it's the kind of technology. I think there's probably absolutely limits on how much energy you can use, use, but how do you use that energy? And then also, yeah, getting off planet eventually, if you want to use 10 times more energy than that, you're going to be not going to do it on, on world. So how do we detect alien type one, two and three civilizations? So we've been kind of talking about basically type one civilization detection. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Maybe with the Dyson Sphere, you start to get like a little bit more type two, but it feels like if you have a type two civilization, it won't be just a Dyson Sphere. Right. It feels like that, just for the same reason you mentioned, climate change, but now at the star system level, they're probably expanding. Right. So how would you detect a type two? How about propulsion plumes, right? If you're expanding, no, no, we just literally put in a NASA reposal now. Thomas Beatty, who's joined us from the East at the University of Wisconsin, has an idea to look for plumes, right? If you have a civilization, if you have a solar system-wide civilization, right? And you got space truckers going back and forth, right? You know, for Mars, they're doing the insetalists run. They're accelerating and decelerating the whole way there, right? If you want to get to Mars in a couple of weeks, you have your fusion drive on the entire way out there. You flip and burn and have it on, you know, so you're also always have gravity. You have thrust gravity. So would those plumes be detectable? Because now you've got spaceships going all over the place. And the odds that like, you know, the plume is going to cross your field of view becomes, could become pretty high. So yeah, that's, I think that's a good way of looking for. That's one idea of looking for, you know, large-scale interplanetary, which is kind of like when you're getting to a type type two. Another possibility is looking for the tailings of asteroid mining. This was an idea. It was a group at Harvard's Smithsonian that, you know, to be able to look for if you're really chewing up asteroids to build space habitats, can, you know, there'd be dust particles left around. And would they look different from just say the dust, you know, from just regular collisions? So pollution of all different kinds. Pollution of all different kinds. And trash also. Okay, so trash is an interesting idea when you come to the actual solar system, right? We are actually, there's a whole other field of techno-signatures, which are things in the solar system. What if somebody came by a billion years ago, you know, and left some stuff, right? So the Earth has been showing biosignatures for billions of years. And, you know, a species like us looking at our level, looking at Earth would have been able to know that Earth had life on it had a biosphere for billions of years. So maybe somebody sent something by, you know, a half a billion years ago. So this idea of looking, say, at the moon for artifacts is that have been there for a long time. It's something that a number of people are doing. We're just working on a paper where we just calculated this was super fun. We calculated how long would the lunar lander exist on the moon before micro meteorites just chewed it down, right? How long would do we have a land on the moon go? Oh, look, there is, you know, there's somebody was here and left some debris. So there's this process called gardening, which is just the micro meteorite, constant rain of micro meteorites. And that's where you get the lunar regolith, that fine powder on the moon is because of this gardening. And it turns out it is literally hundreds of millions to billions of years that the, yeah, that the lunar lander will be visible. Oh, so we should be able to find artifacts. Yeah. If there are artifacts on and people have proposed doing this with artificial intelligence, we have, you know, the moon has been mapped down to like a couple of meters with various probes. And all that data sit in there. So have why not use machine learning to like look through all those things and look for anything that looks not like the lunar surface. And they did a test program where they gave it, they gave the computer, you know, sort of like, I don't know, 50 miles around the Apollo 11 or Apollo, maybe was Apollo 17 site. And it instantly was able to pull out the lander. I mean, the whole task of looking for anomalies, something that looks not like the lunar surface, you make it sound obvious, but it's not exactly obvious. Like anomalies is really not, I mean, detect something that doesn't look right about the serum. Yeah, it's, it's actually really difficult. It's really difficult and it's, you know, it's cool. It's a really information theoretic kind of proposal. You really have to use information theory to say like, what's the background? What's, you know, how do I define something that I can say that looks weird? So yeah, maybe when you look in a spectrograph or something like, it's still, it's still like, it's going to look really weird potentially. Like we're kind of, we're kind of hypothesizing all the things that humans would build. And how do we detect that? That could be really weird stuff. That's why there's this emphasis now on these agnostic signatures, right? So actually, disequilibrium is a nice one. One way to define life is it is a system that is far from equilibrium, right? It's alive, right? Because as soon as it dies, it turns into, it goes back to equilibrium. And so you can look at all chemicals in an atmosphere, even if you don't know whether these could be chemicals that you have no idea whether or not they have anything to do with life. But the degree of disequilibrium, the degree to which they show that that atmosphere has not, you know, the chemicals have not all kind of like just gone down to, you know, they've all reacted away to an equilibrium state. You can actually tell that in very general ways using what's called a Gibbs free energy. And that, that's kind of a signature. Like if you see an atmosphere that is wildly out of equilibrium, you know, that indicates that there's some, there's something happening on that planet, biosphere or technosphere that is pumping gases, you know, into the, into the atmosphere that is keeping the whole system from relaxing. So is it possible we can detect anomalies in space time? Well, you could detect, and there's been some work on this, like with the accubray drive, you know, these proposals for warp drives. And we can talk about that later, a bump skeptical of those, but because it may really be possible, you just can't go fast on the speed of light. But people have done work on like, you know, what would be the signature of an accubray drive? What would be the signature? You're like, you know, could you detect if you're using a drive like that, then you certainly are distorting space time, which means any light that's passing by has gotten, you know, it's, it's, it's trajectory has gotten altered because it had to pass through the distorted space time. So yeah, there are possibilities along with that. You know, one of the funny things, I don't know if they've gotten past this, but somebody calculated the problem with the accubray drive, where this warp drive was that if, if you dropped out of warp, there would be this spray of gamma rays that would like sterilize any planet in front of you. So it's like, well, yeah, you probably don't want to do that, but that would be a great bias or techno signature. Another planet obliterated. So you think it's not possible to travel fast in a specific way? I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that. But what I think, you know, if you look at the physics we understand, right? Every possibility for faster than light travel really relies on something that doesn't exist, right? So, so, you know, the cool thing is Einstein's field equations. You can actually play with them, the equations right there. You can add things to the, you know, right or left-hand side that allow you to get something like the accubray drive. That was a metric that I'll, you know, showed you like, "Oh, it's a warped bubble. It's a warping of space time that moves through space time faster than the speed of light," right? Because nothing can move across space time faster than the speed of light. But space time itself can move faster than the speed of light. But here's the problem with all of those proposals is they all need something. The thing you added, the little fictional term you added on the, into the equations is something called exotic matter, and it doesn't exist. It's really just something we dreamed up to make the equations do what we wanted them to do. So, you know, it's a nice fiction, but really right now, you know, we live in this weird moment in history of the great acceleration where like the technology we use now is, you know, is completely different from the technology we used 10 years ago is remarkably different from the technology from 100 years ago. But, you know, I remember playing Assassin's Creed where everybody's like, you know, what is it? It's 1200 and everybody's like, "Stab, stab, stab." And I was like, "Yes, it's a great game." And then I got Assassin's Creed 2 and it was 300 years later and everybody's like, "Stab, stab, stab." And it was like 300 years and the technology hadn't changed and that was actually true for most of human history, right? You used your great grandfather's tools because there was no need to have any other new tools and you probably did his job. So, you know, we could be fooled into thinking like, "Oh, you know, technology is just going to go on forever. We're always going to find new advances." As opposed to sometimes things just flatten out for a long time. So, you have to be careful about that bias that we have living in this time of great acceleration. Yeah, but also, it is a great acceleration and we also are not good at predicting what that entails if it does keep accelerating. So, for example, somebody like Eric Weinstein often talks about we under-invest in theoretical physics research. Basically, we're trying too hard for traditional chemical propulsion on rockets versus trying to hack physics, sort of warp drives and so on because it's really hard to do space travel and it seems like in the long arc of human history, if we survive, the way to really travel across long distances is going to be some new, totally new thing. Right. Right. So, it's not going to be an engineering problem. It's going to be a physics problem. A fundamental physics problem. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that principle, but I think there's been, you know, I mean, there's a lot of ideas out there. People have been playing with string theory now for 40 years. It's not like people haven't been, not like there hasn't been a lot of effort. And, you know, and again, I'm not going to predict. I think it's entirely possible that we have, you know, there's incredible boundaries of physics that have yet to be poked through. In which case, then all bets are off. Right. Once you get sort of, you know, interstellar fast interstellar travel, whoa, you know, who knows what can happen. But yeah, I tend to be drawn to like science fiction stories that take the speed of light seriously. Like, what kind of civilization can you build? Where like, it takes, you know, 50 years to get to where you're going and a 50 years back. Like, so I don't know. I mean, yeah, there's no way I'm going to say that we won't get warp drives. But as of right now, there's it's all fictional. It's, you know, it's barely even a coherent concept. Well, it's also a really exciting possibility of hacking this whole thing by extending human lifespan or extending our notion of time and maybe as dark as to say, but the value of an individual human life versus the value of life from the perspective of generations. Yeah. So you can have something like a generational ship that travels for hundreds of thousands of years. Yeah. And you're not sad that you'll never see the destination because you kind of have the value for the prolonged survival of humanity versus your own individual life. Yeah. It's a wild ethical question. Isn't it? One of that book I've told you about Aurora. I love the book because it was such a sort of inversion of the usual, because you know, I've read, I love science fiction. I've read so many generation ship stories and they get to that planet. The planet turns out to be uninhabitable. It's inhabited, but it's uninhabitable for Earth because again, he has this idea of like, you know, life is particular to their planets. So they turn around and they come back. And then when they land, the main character goes, but there's still people who are, you know, arguing for more generationships and she goes and she punches the guy out because she spent her whole life in a tube, you know, with this, I thought that was a really interesting inversion. You know, the interesting thing about we were talking about the space habitats. But if you really had a space habit, not some super cramped, you know, crappy usual version of a sentry ship, but if you had these like space habitats that were really, you know, like the O'Neill cylinders, they're actually pretty nice places to live, put a thruster on those, you know, like why? Why keep them in the solar system? Maybe that's maybe space is full of like these sort of traveling space habitats that are in some sense a, you know, their worlds in them in and of themselves. There's the show silo, which raises the question of basically, if you're putting on a generational ship, what do you tell the inhabitants of that ship? You might want to lie to them. Yeah. You might want to tell them a story that they believe. Right. Because there is a society, there's human nature, there's like, how do you maintain homeostasis of that little society? I mean, that's a fascinating technical question, the social question, the psychology question. You know, the generation ship too, and you know, I wish I talked about in the book, the idea of also the, you know, you talked about extending human lifetimes or, you know, the stasis, the cryostasis, which is a mainstay of science fiction, you know, that, you know, right, you can be put to, you can basically put in suspended animation and such. None of these things we know are possible. But you know, it's so interesting. And this is why I love science fiction the way it seeds ideas, right? All these ideas we're going to talk about because they've been staples of science fiction for 50 years. I mean, the whole field of cryogenics. Yeah, where are we at with that? Yeah, I wonder what the state of the art is for complex organism. How long can you freeze and then unfreeze? Right. Maybe like with bacteria, you could do freeze. Oh, bacteria can last. This is the thing about pan spermia, right, pect? How long can, you know, how long can a bacteria survive in a rock that's been blasted? You know, if there's a common impact across interstellar distances, that does seem to actually be possible. People have done those kind of calculations. It's not out of the realm of possibly, but a complex organism, multicellular, multi systemic or multi systems, right, with organs and such. Also, what makes an organism? I mean, it could, you know, which part do you want to preserve? Because maybe the for humans, it seems like, like what makes a personality? It feels like you want to preserve a set of memories. Like if I woke up in a different body with the same memories, I'd pretty much, I would feel like I would be the same person. Altered carbon? That's a great series. I think it's on Netflix, you know, that's a really great series, but that's exactly the idea of sleeves. Everybody's able to like, you know, you can re-sleeve in another body, and it raises exactly sort of this question. It's not the greatest cyberpunk, but it's pretty good. It's got some great, great action sequences too. As we get better and better advancements in large language models that are able to be fine-tuned on you, it raises a question, because to me, that already passed the touring test, as we traditionally have defined it. So if there's going to be an LLM that's able to copy you in terms of language, extremely well, it's going to raise ethical and, I don't know, philosophical questions about what makes you you. Like what, if there's a thing that can talk exactly like you, like what is the thing that makes you you? Is it, is it, it's going to speak about your memories, very effectively. This leads us to if we're going to get to the blind spot. I, you know, I'm of the opinion, heretical in some camps, that, you know, the brain is not the minimal, the minimal structure for consciousness, you know, it's the whole body. It's embodied in many actions, in some sense, it's communities actually. So yeah, so I don't, I mean, I'm, you know, I could be wrong, but this is, you know, this is what this whole work that I did with Marcelo Glazer and Evan Thompson, the philosophy of science, which is interesting, because it leads to this question about, you know, maybe we should just download ourselves into computers, right? That's another story that that one tells. I'm super skeptical about those, but is that one of the narratives about interstellar travel is just like, and that anybody we meet is it going to be a machine anyway, whether it's like, whether it's downloaded bodies or it's just going to be artificial intelligence, like there's the whole idea of how long does biological evolution last? Maybe it's a very short period before everybody, you know, goes to, or the machines take over and, you know, kill you or, you know, it's some hybrid. What do you think aliens look like? So we talked about all the different kinds of bio signatures that might leave or techno signatures, but what would they look like when we show up? Are they going to have arms and legs? Are they going to be recognizable at all? Are they going to be carbon based? Yeah, so great question. And this question gets to the heart of thinking about life, right, about what life is. And this is the physical part of that. There's also sort of the informational part of it. But let's just talk about the physical part of it, which is, you know, life, anything that we're going to call life is probably going to work on Darwinian evolution. That's the nice thing about Darwinian evolution, just like we know the laws of physics are general. The laws of Darwinian evolution are kind of this logic, this basic logic, that, you know, anything we'd reasonably call life probably has to operate under these kinds of principles. And so, you know, evolution is about solving problems that they're going to be. you know, to survive, that the environment presents. And the environment is always gonna present these problems in physical and chemical terms. So that you'd expect, you expect a kind of balance between what we call convergence, evolutionary convergence and evolutionary contingency. So, you know, if you got to move along a surface, you know, a surface between, you know, hard surface and air, then the idea of some kind of jointed stick, right, legs, makes sense that you're probably gonna trigger that, you know, if you look at Earth's history, multiple times, multiple lineages that had nothing to do with each other are going to solve the problem of getting towards energy sources using some kind of, you know, a stick-like apparatus. - So that's about movement? - Yeah, so that's one problem that has to be solved. But one problem that has to be solved is I gotta get to food, right? Another problem is I gotta get away from predators, right? You've seen wings. We've seen wings, the line that went through dinosaurs to birds, involved wings, insects, evolved wings, mammals evolved wings, if the gas is dense enough that a curved surface, if you move through the curved surface, it's gonna produce lift. Yeah, there you go, evolutionary trip on that. So I think you can expect certain classes of solutions to the basic problems that life is gonna be presented with stay alive, reproduce. But one of the weird things about like with the UFO things is that you always see like, oh, they all look like humans, they're just like basically humans with, you know, triangular heads. And that's where we get to contingency, right? So what we've been talking about is convergence. So you expect that evolution will converge on wings multiple times when presented with the problems that wings can solve. But contingency is accidents, right? That, you know, you've got something that's evolving a certain kind of wing, a leathery wing, right? And then, you know, the climate changes and they all die out end of story. Or, you know, an asteroid, total accident, asteroid hits. And so contingency, accidents play also a huge role in evolution. And one of the things that, you know, lots of evolutionary biologists have talked about is the idea that if you ran the tape of Earth's history over again, would you get the same creatures? Now, Steven J. Gould was of the opinion that no way that you wouldn't find anything on Earth that right resembled any species today. They've done experiments actually on this with E. coli. You know, you take a bunch of E. coli. You let them evolve for a while. You take a bunch of them out, freeze them. Let one, you know, let that population continue to evolve. The other ones frozen. Now, started over again with the frozen. Mm-hmm. And it seems to be that contingency tends to win, right? The contingency, at least from what we can tell. I mean, that's not a, that's not a hard result. But in those experiments, what you find is that accidents really do matter. So the idea, and this is important. So yes, you should expect legs or jointed sticks. How many joints they're gonna be? Anybody's guess. Um, you know, do you expect humanoids, you know, things with a, you know, a sensing apparatus on top of a shoulder with two arms and two legs? That's probably a pretty random set of occurrences that led to that. I guess what is a brain versus the nervous system? Like where is most of the cognition competition going on? Yeah. Yeah. You could see that in organisms. Like I actually had, I don't know how the brain evolved. Like why does it have to be in one place? Doesn't have to be. So my favorite word, word of the day, is liquid brains, right? This idea of distributed cognition, which, um, fascinating idea, and we've come to understand how much, uh, distributed cognition there is. Obviously you social animals, like termites, et cetera. And, and that's an example of distributed cognition. The organism is the whole colony. This is one thing that's been really interesting in the state of the study when we come to, for aliens, is that when we've come to recognize that human intelligence, it's not actually, it's been, the kinds of things that go into intelligence are distributed all across the biosphere. Lots of different examples of things show various pieces of what we have. Jason Wright will describe it as like a deck of cards. The cards are all there. We got the hand that actually led to the kind of technological progress that we, we see. But the kinds of, you know, the basic idea of using tools, the basic idea of recognizing each other, eye to eye, all the things that we define as intelligence. You can find many places in many other, um, places across many other line lineages across the earth. So it could be, they could be very, very different with something like, yeah, maybe it's, you know, the hive mind idea or, you know, bacterial colonies that actually manage to, you know, come to their own version of high cognition. - Well, I wonder if there's, if we stretch out time across tens, 20, 20 billion years, whether there's a Darwinian evolution stops working at some point in terms of the biology or the chemistry of the organisms and switches to ideas. - Yeah. - For example, it's much more rapidly, you're operating maybe I guess it's the kind of Darwinian evolution on the space of memes, so whatever it is. - Technology seems to operate on, and, and, yeah, but certainly markets can operate in ways that look very Darwinian. - So basically a planet is working hard to get to the first kind of organisms that's able to be a nice platform for ideas to compete. - Yeah. - And then it kind of stops evolving there, and then it's ideas that take off. - Right, 'cause yeah, culture like to true, it's amazing that cultural evolution totally disconnects from the Darwinian process. But I'd be careful to say that like a planet is working hard to do this, 'cause you know, it's really important to be looking at us. Like what we think of is ideas and culture, and you know, it's quite possible we're gonna make it another 200 years and this is gone. - Right, 'cause it actually wasn't a very good idea long-term. I mean, we just don't know. - Oh, so maybe the idea generation organism is actually the thing that destroys. - Not the biosphere 'cause we got to them, but it destroys itself. It may not be very long-term. It may be very potent for a short period of time, but that it's not sustainable. It doesn't become, like we were talking about before, mature, it's very hard to make it into integrated into a mature bioslash technosphere. And of course, you know, evolution is not working for anything. Well, here's actually an interesting thing, right? So people are very much, you know, evolutionary biologists will get very, their hair will stand on it. And if you start talking about evolution having a purpose or anything. But the very interesting thing about purpose is that once you do get to a idea generating species or collective organism, yeah, then, you know, kind of all bets are off and there is goals. There is teleology. There is a, you know, now suddenly, you know, absolutely there's a direction implied. So that's kind of the cool, interesting thing that once you get to that, evolution stops being goalless and directionless and suddenly, yeah, where the ones who supply or any kind of creature like us has an absolute direction that way they decide on. Although you could argue that from a perspective of the entire human civilization, we're also directionless. We have a sense that there's a direction in this cluster of humans. And then there's another cluster as a different sense of direction. There's all kinds of religions that are competing. There's different ideologies that are competing. And when you just zoom out across, if we survive, across thousands of years, it will seem directionless. It will seem like a pin boss, it's an unholy mess. But, you know, but at some point, like the expansion into the solar system say, like that would be both direction, I mean, depending on how you look at it, it was directional. There was a, there was a decision that the collective of human beings made to like anti-acreate to start spreading out into the solar system. So that was definitely a goal there that may have been reached in some crazy sort of, you know, non-linear way, but it was still, right? There was still a goal was set and it was achieved. - If there's advanced civilizations out there, what do you think is the proper protocol for interacting with them? Do you think they would be peaceful? Do you think they would be warlike? Like what do we do next? We detect, we detect the civilizations through all the technosigntions we've been talking about, maybe direct imaging, maybe there's really strong signal. We come up with a strategy of how to actually get there. But what's the, then the generals, as they always do, the military, industrial complex. - We block that movie. - Where, what kind of rocket, what kind of, and do we bring rockets? - Right. Well, I think you know, so this is also, this is a general question also leads to many messaging extraterrestrial intelligence, and I am definitely of the opinion of like, you should be very careful, you know? Like, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have your head below the grass. You know, the people who advocate like, "Oh yeah, we should be sending, you know, powerful messages that are easily detectable into interstellar space." I'm like, why would you, 'cause we just don't know. Like, I'm not gonna say they are warlike. I'm not gonna say they're not warlike. I have no idea, you know, but we sure as hell, well, first of all, who gets to decide that? The idea that a bunch of astronomers who happen to have a radio telescope, I don't, you know, who speaks for Earth? I think, which I think was a great book, somebody wrote. So, you know, I definitely, we should be cautious, I would say, 'cause we just have zero information. And the idea, you know, you just have this idea of all of their advance, they've managed to survive. So of course, they're gonna be wearing Togas, you know, and be singing Kumbaya. But I just wouldn't, I just wouldn't assume that. It's also possible though that like, their cognitive structure is so different that we're not even in living in the same universe in a certain way. I think we have to be prepared for that. We may not even be able to recognize each other in some way as cognizing beings. One of my favorite movies is Arrival. I don't know if you've ever seen that one, I really love that one because, you know, they're literally, they have a different language, they have a different cognitive structure in terms of language, and they're literally kind of living in a different physics. Different physics, different language, different, different everything. Yeah. But in the case of Arrival, it can at least like, Recognize that they're there and they managed to cross the language barrier. Yeah. So but that's both sides have an interest in communicating, which you you kind of suppose that an advanced civilization would have a curiosity. Because like how do you become advanced without a kind of yeah curiosity about the mysterious about the other. But also you know if they're long lived they may just be like we're not even interested like we've done this we're like we you know you know 10 10 billion year sorry say 10 million years ago we were really interested in that in this in communicating with you you know younger and young and but now we're not at all. And that's just you know one of the beauties of this again is how to think about this systematically because you're so far past the hairy edge right of our experience of what we know that you want to think about it right you don't want to be like don't know can't say anything because that's not fun. But you also have to sort of systematically go after your own biases right. So the one of the things I loved about arrival too was you know Carl Sagan always had this idea like we'll teach him math. We'll teach him our math then they'll teach us their math and then you know we'll be telling each other knock-knock jokes you know and swapping cures for cancer. And you know in the movie like they send a Carl Sagan guy in and a linguist and the Carl Sagan guy fails immediately right. And it's the linguist who understands that language is actually embodied language is not just something that happens in your head it's actually the whole experience and she's the one who breaks through and it just points to the idea that how utterly different the cognitive structures that you know of of a different species should be. So somehow we have to figure out how to think about it but be so careful of our biases or figure out like a systematic way to break through our biases and not just tell something science fiction movies you know what I mean? Yeah yeah speaking of biases do you think aliens have visited earth you've mentioned that they could have visited and started civilizations I wouldn't we wouldn't even know about it if it was a hundred million years ago how could we even begin to answer this question with it. Got a look got a look got to figure out ways to look so I you know I mean I I don't put it it's not high on my list of you know things that I'm I think are probable but it's certainly it needs to be explored you know and unless you look you never know so looking on the moon look at where would we find if if aliens had passed through the solar system any time in the last three billion years where might we find artifacts where might artifacts still be around earth probably not because of weathering and resurfacing um the moon's a good place certain kinds of orbits you know maybe they parked a probe in an orbit that was stable so you got to figure out which orbits actually you could put something there and it'll last for a billion years so those are the kind of questions I don't like I said I don't it's not high on my list of thinking this could happen but it could happen I certainly can't and unless you look you don't know what about speaking of biases what about if aliens visiting earth as the elephant in the room meaning like the potential of aliens say seeding life on earth uh you mean like in that directed pan spermia well actually pan spermia yeah or seeding some aspect of the evolution like 2001 yeah yeah uh you know it's a great story but you know always with the Occam's razor whatever with science if I can if I can answer that question without that extra very detailed uh hypothesis then I should and you know the idea that evolution is a natural process that's why I would go for first right there's there's that just seems it's so much easier to do it that way than adding you know sort of because it's kind of do it do a sex machina thing of like oh then the aliens came down and they solved that problem that you're trying to solve by just coming down and putting your finger on the scales so to you the origin of life is a is a pretty simple thing that doesn't require an alien I wouldn't say that it's not a simple thing but it doesn't you know it putting I think because you know all you're doing is kicking the can down the road right the alien some the aliens formed right so you're just saying like all right I'm just kicking the can down the road to the aliens how did they how did what was there a biogenesis event well so from a different perspective I'm just saying it seems to me that there's obviously advanced civilizations everywhere throughout the galaxy and through the universe from the Drake equation perspective and then if I was an alien what would I do you know I've gotten just to learn about the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon at least they went to the Amazon you get to understand how they function and how the humans in the Amazon they're in contact with the civilized world how they interact with the uncontacted tribes first of all the uncontacted tribes are very violent towards the outside world but everybody else tried to stay away from them they tried to kind of protect them don't talk about them don't don't talk about their location all this kind of stuff and I've begun to internalize and understand that perspective of why you're doing that and if I was an alien civilization if I'd probably be doing a similar kind of thing and of course there's always the teenager of the troll who's gonna start messing with this though or the scientist yeah yeah right and so it's not from our perspective yes and if you're in the Truman show like Occam's razor but like also the Occam's razor from the perspective of the alien civilization we have to have the humility to understand that that interaction will be extremely difficult to detect that will not be obvious right I understand the logic of what you're saying but the problem for me with that is that right there the first you have to assume that alien civilizations are common which I'm not sure about it that my most of them may be dead or they're not yeah still you know like I while I think that life is common and again this is just my biases right so now the problem is how do we sort out sort of you know the the the biases we're bringing or the assumptions we're bringing in from you know from the the sort of causal chain that comes out of that I would first want to try and do this without like you know if we're looking at the origin of life or the evolution of life on Earth I'd want to do it just on its own without asking for this other layer because I it requires a bunch of these other assumptions which also have their own sort of breaking of causal chains because I don't really like the idea that when you ask what would you do if you were an alien but again like alien minds could be so unbelievably different right that they wouldn't even recognize the question you just posed right right because it's just like you know we're very much we have a very particular kind of cognitive structure a kind of you know and and we're very governed by even if you went and talked to this is an interesting thing to think about you know if I could suddenly magically appear a hundred thousand years ago and talk to a hunter gatherer about their worldview and their motivations you know I might find something that's like but we're no resemblance to things that I think are sort of oh that's what naturally humans do well let me let me ask you this question let's just together to do the thoughts yeah yeah if we either create a time machine that allows travel back and to talk to them yeah or we discover maybe a primitive alien civilization on a nearby star system what what would we do yeah I think that's a great question I mean so you know it's interesting how that even brings up the ethical questions right let's say that you know would we we'd have to first sort of sort out what are the consequences for them and what do we feel our ethical responsibilities are to them and also sorry from a capitalist perspective what are we to gain yeah right interaction right right right right you look at the way the missionaries you know missionaries had these interactions because they thought converting them to whatever religion they were you know was the most important that's what the gain was so from our perspective I mean we'd have to sort that out I think given you know for doing this thought experiment we are curious and I think eventually we'd want to reach out to them now well I think when you say we let's start with people in this room yeah yeah there's I wonder who the dominant forces are in the world because I think there's a lot of people the military yeah they they will probably move first so they can steal whatever advantage they can from this new discovery so they can hurt China or China hurt America that's one perspective then there's the capital school will see like how the benefit of the costs here and how can I make money off of this there's opportunity here this gold right in them hills and I wonder and I think the scientist is just not going unlike the movies we're not going to get much say they're going to put them hey guys we wait a minute they would engage probably I mean it's just as as a human society as we are now we would engage and we would be detectable I think and we're engagement in our engagement yeah yeah probably so using that trivial bias logic I just it just feels like aliens would need to be engaging in a very obvious way yeah yeah yeah that brings up that old direct Fermi paradox for me what do you make of all the UFO sightings I am all in favor of an open agnostic you know transparent scientific investigation of UFOs and UAPs but the idea that that there's any data that we have that links UFOs and UAPs to non-human technology I just think they're the standards they just none of what is claimed to be the data lives up to the standards of evidence so let's just take a moment on that idea of standards of evidence because I've made a big deal about this both you know in the book and elsewhere whenever I talk about this so what people have to understand about science is we are really scientists we are really mean to each other we are brutal to each other because we have this thing that we call standards of evidence and it's the idea of like you have a piece of evidence that you want to link to a claim and you know under what conditions can you say oh look I've got evidence of you know this claim x y and c and in science we are so mean to each other about whether or not that piece of evidence lives up to the standards that we have and we spent 400 years determining what those standards are And that is why cell phones work, right? If you didn't have super rigorous standards about what you think that's, oh, this little antenna, I've invented a new kind of antenna that I can slip into the cell phone and I can show you that it works. If you didn't have these standards, every cell phone would be a brick, right? And when it comes to UFOs and USPs, the evidence you have and the claim that though this shows that we are being visited by non-human advanced civilization just doesn't even come close. To the same standards, I'm gonna have to obey or whatever, live under. If my team, the group I work with is one of them says, look, we've discovered, he wants to announce that, oh, we've discovered techno signature on an alien planet. We're gonna get shredded as we expect to be. We expect to be beaten up. And the UAP UFO community should expect the same thing. You don't get a pass because it's a really cool topic. So that's where I am right now. I just don't think any of the evidence is even close to anything that could support that claim. - Well, I generally assign a lot of value to anecdotal evidence from pilots. Not scientific value, but just like, it's always nice to get anecdotal evidence as a first step. I was like, hmm, I wonder if there's something there. But unfortunately with this topic, there's so much excitement around it. There's a lot of people that are basically trying to make money off of it. There's hoaxes, all this kind of stuff. So even if there's some signal, there's just so much noise, it's very difficult to operate with. So how do we get better signal? So you've talked about sort of, if we wanted to really search for UFOs on Earth. - Right. - And maybe detect things like weird physics. What kind of instruments would we be using? - Yeah, so in the book, I talked about the idea that this is really stupid. But you want to look up, you want to look down and you want to look all around. - I think that's brilliant. I mean, that's, it's simple, not stupid. It's like literally. - Right. - So you want to do ground-based detectors that upward looking ground-based detectors of the kind we're already building for meteors, right? For tracking meteors. You want to have space-based detectors, put them on satellites. This is what the NASA UAP panel was thinking about. And then probably on pile, all we have lots of people in the sky, there should be detectors on the planes, or at least some kind of alert system that if a pilot says, oh, look, I'm seeing something, I don't understand, boom, presses the red button, and that triggers the ground-based and space-based data collectors. And then the data collectors themselves, this is something that people really don't understand, and it's so important, in order to actually do science with anything, the data you have, you have to understand where it came from, like down to the, you know, the nth degree. You have to know how that camera behaves in a bunch of different wavelengths. You have to characterize that. You have to know what the software does, what the limits of the software possibly have to know, what happened to the camera, was it refurbished recently? In every spectral wavelength, in all of its data collection and processing, you have to know all of those steps and having them all characterize. 'Cause especially if you want to claim, like, oh my God, I saw something take a right hand turn at Mach 500, right? You better have all of that nailed down before you make that kind of claim. So we have to have characterized detectors looking up down and maybe on playing some selves. We need a rational search strategy. So let's say you want to lay out these ground-based detectors. Where do you put 'em, right? There's only so much money in the world. So, you know, do you want to put 'em near places where you've seen a lot of things beforehand or do you want to have 'em try and do a sparse coverage of the entire country? And then you need the data analysis, right? You're going to have so much data, so many false positives, or false triggering, that you need a way of sorting through enormous amounts of data and figuring out what you're going to throw out and what you're going to keep. And all of these things were used to doing in other scientific enterprises. And without that, if we don't do that, we're going to be having the same damn argument about these things for, you know, the next 100 years. - But if I ask you, I give you a trillion dollars and ask you to allocate to one place, looking out, setty, or looking at earth, which should you allocate to? - Oh God, looking out, looking out. Because that's the, you know, as I always like to say, here's my codification of this. If you said, "Hey Adam, I'd like to find some Nebraska's." And I said, "Oh, good, let's go to the Himalayas." (laughs) You'd be like, "Why am I going there?" I'm like, well, you know, maybe there's some Himalayas, you know, some Nebraska's in Himalayas. Say, "No, no, let's go to Nebraska." If we're looking for aliens, why don't we look on alien planets where they live? 'Cause that's, we have that technology now, as opposed to the, you know, the bucket of assumptions that you have to come up with in order to say, oh, they're here right now. You know, they just happen to be here right now. And also, the very important thing, I call this the high beam argument. You know, to deal with the UFO stuff, you have to deal with all of, you have to answer these weird irrational things that are happening like, okay, there's an advanced civilization that is visiting earth regularly. They don't want to be detected. They've got super powerful technology, but they really suck it using it. Because they keep seeing them. We keep seeing them, but then they disappear, right? I mean, explain to me what rational world that works under. It's like, you know, so there's that whole sort of argument you've got to explain like, why if they want to stay hidden, are they so bad at it? So, you know, that's why I take that level of difficulty. And then I put it on top of, where should I look? I should look at the, you know, I should look at where they're from. That makes me want to look at, do the telescopic stuff. Yeah, I think the more likely explanation is either the sensors are not working correctly or it's a secret military technology being tested. Absolutely. I mean, if you had to, listen, I, that's what again, I think UAP, you know, the, absolutely UAP should be studied scientifically, but if I had to make a bet, and it's just a bet, I would say this is, you know, this is pure state adversary stuff. When I did, I did a New York Times op-ed for this in 2021, which, you know, blew up and, and so, you know, I had a lot of, you know, people talking to me. While I was doing that, I sort of looked at the signals intelligence people, the SIGINT and EINT, electronic intelligence communities. And what they were saying about, you know, the New York Times, articles and the various videos. And really none of them were talking about UFOs. They were all talking about, you know, pure state. That's why I learned the word pure state adversaries. How like even simple drone technologies, you can, you know, and you want it, you purposely want to do this. You want to fake, you know, signals into the electronics of their adversary. So they crank it up. So then you can just soak up all the electromagnetic radiation and know exactly what those advanced radars can do. That said, I'm not saying that that's what this is. If I wasn't the head of an alien civilization, and I chose to not, to minimize the model contact I'm doing, I would try to figure out what would these humans, what would these aliens like to see? That's why like the big heads in the humanoid form. Yeah, yeah. Like, I mean, that's kind of like how would I would approach communication? If I, if I was much more intelligent, I would observe them enough. It's like, all right, if I wanted to communicate with a nail colony, I would observe it long enough to see what are the basic elements of communication. Yeah, yeah. And maybe I would do a trivial thing, like do like a fake ant. Right, a robot ant, robot ant. But then it's not enough to just do a robot ant. You have to do a robot ant that moves in the way they do. And maybe aliens are just shitty at doing the robot ants. But no, I do sort of, I just wanted to make the case for that. This is the plot actually of a great science fiction book called "Eon" by Greg Bair. And the idea was like these sort of, you know, this is actually where my first, I got, I became sort of a more than agnostic anti-medie because the idea is that yes, our aliens come. They, you know, they sort of make their arrival. And really their point is to get rid of us. It's the dark forest hypothesis. And what they do is they sort of, literally, the way they present themselves is in this sort of classic UFO thing. And they do it, and they, you know, they arrive at the, this was during the Soviet Union, they arrive at the US, are they arrive in China. And they're kind of faking us out so that we never can organize ourselves against. So it was really, they did exactly kind of what you're talking about, but for nefarious purposes. Okay, let me ask the podhead question. Another yet another podhead, the whole conversation. I'm sorry. Bugs before breakfast. It's science and bothead questions back and forth. Okay, what if aliens take a form that's unlike what we kind of traditionally envision in analyzing physical objects? What if they take the form of say ideas? What if real podhead is consciousness itself, like the subjective experience is an alien being. Maybe ideas is an easier one to visualize 'cause we can think of ideas as entities traveling from human to human. When I made the claim that the most important, that finding life, any kind of life would be the most important discovery in human history. And one of the reasons is, again, as I said that, you know, life, if we're not an accident and there's other life, then there's probably lots of other life. And because the most significant thing about life is it can innovate, right? If I give you a star and give you tell you the mass and the composition, you can basically pretty much use the laws of physics to tell exactly what's gonna happen to that star over its entire lifetime. Maybe not the tiny details, but overall, it's gonna be a white dwarf, it's gonna be a black hole and a story. If I gave you a single cell and said what's gonna happen in a few billion years, you'd never be able to predict a giant rabbit that can punch you in the face, right? Like a kangaroo. So life has this possibility of innovating, of being creative. So what it means is, and that's a part of kind of a fundamental definition of what it means to be alive. It goes past itself. So give life enough time and what are the end result? That's why I love science fiction so much. At some point, reach a point where it climbs into the laws of physics itself. It becomes the laws of physics. These sort of lie at the extreme limits of thinking about what we mean by reality, what we mean by experience. But I'm not sure what we can do with them scientifically, but they're open-ended question about the open-ended nature of what it means to be alive and what life can do. Since you said it's the biggest question, which is an interesting thought experiment, what is the biggest scientific question we can possibly answer? Some people might say about what happened before the Big Bang, some big physics questions about the universe. I can see the argument for how many alien civilizations or if there's other life out there. You want to speak to that a little bit? Why is it the biggest question? Why is it number one in your top five? I'm involved in this, right? I started off as a theoretical physicist. I went into computational astrophysics and magneto hydrodynamics of star formation, but I always see I was a philosophy minor. I always had these bigger questions floating around the back of my mind. What I've come to now is the most important question for physics is what is life? What the hell is the difference between a rock and a cell fundamentally? What I really mean by this, and this is where I'm going to go nontraditional, is that really the fundamental question that is, is agency? What does it mean to be an autonomous agent? How the hell does that happen? It's so I'm not a reductionist. I'm not somebody who's like, well, you just put together enough chemicals and being bang boom and suddenly it appears. There's something that really is going to demand a reconception of what nature itself is. And so, yeah, black holes are super cool. Cosmology is super cool. But really, this question of of what is life, especially from by viewing it from the inside, because it's really about the verb to be, right? Really, what is the most pressing philosophical question beyond science? Is the verb to be? What is being, right? This is what Stephen Hawking said when he talked about what puts the fire in the equations, the fire, right? The fire is this presence. And this is where it touches things like, you know, whatever you want to say at the sacred spirituality, every one I want to talk about. My first book was about science and human spirituality. So it's like, you know, so this question of life, what makes life as a physical system, you know, so different is to me much more. Because it's, you know, that's where being appears, being doesn't appear out there, right? The only place that ever appears to any of us is us. So, you know, I can do this kind of projection into this third person thing, but nobody ever has that. That God's eye view. That's a story, we tell. This is where, you know, this between us is where the verb to be appears. So this is something that you write about in the blind spot, why science cannot ignore human experience, sort of trying to pull the fire into the process of science. And it's a kind of critique of materialism. Can you explain the main thesis of this book? Yeah. So the idea of the blind spot is that there is this thing that is central to science. So the blind, we're using the blind spot as a metaphor, right? So the eye has an optic nerve and the optic nerve is what allows vision to happen. So you can't have vision without the optic nerve, but actually you're blind to the optic nerve. There's a little hole in your vision where the optic nerve is. And what we're saying is that science has something like this. There is something that without which science would not be possible, but that science the way it's been configured. And actually when we mean the blind spot, well, get into exactly what I mean, what it is, but it's not really science. It is a set of ideas that got glued onto science. It's a metaphysics that got glued on science. And so what is that thing that is what is the blind spot? It's experience. It is presence. And by experience, people have to be very careful because I'm not talking about being an observer. There's lots of words for it. There's direct experience. There is presence being the life world within the philosophy called phenomenology. There's the life world. It's this sort of raw presence that you can't get away from until you die and then who the hell knows? As long as you're around, it's there. And what we're saying is that that is the way to say this, that is the precondition for the possibility of science. And the whole nature of science, the way it has evolved is that it purposely pushed that out. It pushed that out so it could make progress. And that's fine for certain class of problems. But when we try to answer, when we try and go deeper, there's a whole other class of problems, the nature of consciousness, the nature of time, quantum mechanics, that comes back to bite us. And that if we don't learn how to take, understand that that is always the background, that experience is always the background, then we just end up with these paradoxes and prop these yoga that require this intellectual yoga to get out of. I think you give a bunch of examples of that, like looking at temperatures and number, there's a very sort of objective scientific way of looking at that. And then there's the experience of the temperature. And how you build the parable of temperature that we call it. So what is the blind spot? We use the term, it's a constellation. It's not just materialism. It's a constellation of ideas that are all really sort of philosophical views. They're not what science says. But because of the evolution of the history of science and culture, they got like pin the tail and the donkey. They were sort of pinned on and to tell us that this is what science says. So what is it? One is reductionism, that you are nothing but your nerve cells, which are nothing but the chemistry, which is nothing but you know, all the way down to quarks. That's it. So that's reductionism. The objective frame that science gives us this God's eye view, this third person view of the world, to view the world from the outside, that that's what science you don't bequeathes to us that view. Physicalism, that everything in the world is basically made of stuff. There's nothing else to talk about, right? That's all there is and everything can be reduced to that. And then also the reification of mathematics, that mathematics is somehow more real than this. And there's a bunch of other things. But all these together, what they all do is they end up pushing experience out and saying experience is an epiphenomena. Consciousness. I tend not to use the word consciousness because it's, I think it leads us in the wrong direction. We should focus on experience because it's a verb kind of an way or it's verb, it's verb-like. So yeah, and that this by being blind to that, we end up with these paradoxes and problems that really not only block science, but also have been detrimental to society as a whole, especially where we're at right now. So you actually say that that from a perspective of detrimental society that there's a crisis of meaning, and then we respond to that in a way this counterproductive to these bigger questions, scientific questions. So the three ways, the three responses you mentioned is a scientific triumphalism. And then the other side is rejecting science completely, both on the left and the right. I think the postmodernist on the left and the anti-establishment people on the right. And then just pseudo-science that kind of does this in between thing. Can you just speak to those responses into the crisis of meaning? Right, right. So the crisis of meaning is that, you know, on the one hand, science wants to tell us that we're insignificant. We're not important. We're just, you know, biological machines. And, you know, so we're basically an insignificant part of the universe. And the other hand, we also find ourselves being completely significant in cosmology. We have to figure out how to look from the inside at cosmology. We're always the observers. We're at the center of this, you know, collapsing wavefront of light. You know, quantum mechanics, it really comes in. It comes in, you know, the measurement problem just puts us front and center. We've spent a hundred. Some people have spent a hundred years trying to ignore the measurement part of the measurement problem. So on the one hand, we're insignificant. And on the other hand, we're central. So which one is it? Right. And so this all comes from not understanding actually the foundational role of experience. This inability, we can't do science without already being present in the world. We can't reduce what happens in science as some sort of formal, it's really a lot of it is about, we love our formal systems, you know, our mathematics and we're substituting. That's one of the things that we, there's two philosophers we really like, who are heroes. One is a herceral, who is a mathematician, who invented phenomenology. And the other is Whitehead, who is one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. And herceral came up with this idea of the surreptitious substitution. Part of the blind spot is substituting a formal system, a calculus of, you know, data for actual experience. That that's more important than, and so let me just do before I go to those three responses. Let's just do the parable of temperatrix. I think people can, it'll help them understand what we mean. So think about degree Celsius, right? We kind of have in the modern scientific culture we live in, we think like, oh yeah, degree Celsius, they're out there. The universe, it's, you know, the molecular cloud in space is 10 degrees, you know, Kelvin. The way we got there is, we've forgotten how that idea is rooted in experience, right? We started off with science by, we had the experience, the subjective experience of hot and cold. I hate to feel hot. I feel cold. You feel hot. You feel cold. Science was this process of trying to extract from those experiences what Michelle Bittbole philosopher calls the structural invariants, the things that like we could both kind of do agree on. So, you know, we figured out like, oh, we could make a gradiated little cylinder that's got mercury in it. And that, you know, hot things will be higher in that. you know, on that great aid cylinder coal things will be lower and we can both kind of figure out what we're going to agree on our standards for that. And then we have thermometry, yay, we have a way of sort of like having a structural invariant of this sort of very personal experience of hot or cold. And then from that we can come up with thermodynamics, et cetera. And then we end up as at the bottom, you know, at the end of that with this idea of like every day wake up and I check my phone and I'm like, oh, it's going to be, you know, 60 degrees out great. And we start thinking that 60 degrees is more real than hot and cold that thermodynamics, the whole formal structure of thermodynamics is more real than the basic experience of hot and cold that it came from. You know, it required that bodily experience that also it not just me you I have to tell you know it's part of my communication with you cold today, isn't it, right? That from that basic irreducible experience of being in the world, you know, with everything that involves I developed degrees Celsius, but then I forgot about I forgot the experience that's called the amnesia of experience. So that's what we mean by the, you know, how the blind spot emerges, how we end up how science purposely pushes experience out of the way so it can make progress, but then it forgets that experience was important. So where does this show wise this, you know, what are the responses to trying to get this back in and where where this crisis of meaning emerge. So scientific triumphalism is the idea that only the only thing that's true for us are scientific truths, right? Unless it can be codified in a formal system and represented as data, you know, captured in some kind of scientific causal network, it doesn't even exist. Right, and anything else that's not part of it, part that can be formalized in that way is an epiphenominant, it's not real. So, you know, scientific triumphalism is this response to the mist, you know, the weirdness of, you know, I could call it the mystery, the weirdness of experience by kind of just ignoring it and completely. So there's no other truth, you know, art, music, you know, human spirituality, it's all actually reducible just a neuro, you know, neural correlates. So that's one way that it's been dealt with. The other way is this sort of right, you've got on the postmodern, you know, the left academic left, you get this thing like science is just a game, you know, it's just a game from the powerful come up with, which is also not true. Science is totally potent and requires an account for what is happening. So that's another way to push sort of science away or respond to it, the denial, science denial that happens, that's also another way of sort of, you know, not understanding the balance that science is trying that we need to establish with experience. And then there's just pseudoscience, which wants to sort of say like, oh, you know, the new age movement or whatever, which wants to have, you know, wants to deal with experience by kind of elevating it in this weird pseudo spiritual way or, you know, it said that doesn't have the rigor of science. So, you know, all of these ways, all of these responses, we have this difficulty about experience, we need to understand how experience fits into the web of meaning. And we don't really have an accurate, we don't have a good way of doing it yet. And the point of the book was to identify very clearly how the problem manifests, what the problem is, and what its effects are in the various sciences. And by the way, we should mention that at least the first two responses, they kind of feed each other. There's just to observe the scientific community, those who sort of gravitate a little bit towards the scientific triumphalism, they, there's an arrogance that builds in the human soul. I mean, it has to do with the PhD, it has to do with sitting on the academic throne, all those things and the natural human nature with the egos and so on, it builds. And of course, that nobody likes arrogance. And so those that reject science, the arrogance is fuel for the reject science, it just goes back and it's just divide that builds. Yeah, no, that was a problem like when you saw, so like I said, you know, my first book was about science and human spirituality. And I was trying to say that like, you know, science is actually, if we look at what happens in human spirituality, not religion, religions about politics, right? But about, you know, for the entire history of the species, we've, we've had this experience of for a better lack of a better word, the sacredness. I'm not connecting this God or anything, I'm just saying this experience of like the more. And then, you know, with the new atheist movement, you got people saying that like anybody who feels that is an idiot, you know, they just can't handle the hardcore science. In fact, their views of the world are so denuded of it, they can't even see the role that experience plays in how they came up with their formal systems. And experience fundamentally is weird, you know, mysterious. It's like it's, you know, kind of goes down forever in some sense. There is always more. So yeah, that arrogance then, just if you're telling everybody who's not hardcore enough to do the standard model of cosmology, that they're idiots, that's not going to bode well for your, you know, the advance of your project. Proposing, at least to consider the idea that experience is a, as fundamental experience is not just an illusion that emerges from the set of quirks, that there could be something about the conscious experience of the world that is like at the core of reality. Yeah, but I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't because you know, there's panpsychism, right? So that's all the way there. Yeah, panpsychism is like, that's literally one of the laws of physics. But see what all those do is like, just the idea of say like physicalism versus idealism, which are kind of the two philosophical schools you can go with physicalism says, all that exists is physical. Idealism says all that exists is mind. We're actually saying, look, both of these to take either of those positions is already to project out into that third person view, right? And that third person view, we want to really emphasize, is a fiction. It's a useful fiction when you're doing science, right? If I want to do like, you know, the Newtonian physics of billured balls on a pool table, great. I don't want to have to think about experience at all, right? But you know, if I'm asking deeper questions, I can't ignore the fact that there really is no third person view. And that any story I tell about the world is coming from, it's not just first person, but it's literally because I'm going to argue that experience always involves all of us, all experience always originates out of a community that, you know, you're always telling those stories from the perspective of already existing of already being in experience. So whatever account we want to give is of the world is going to have to take that as experience as being irreducible and the irreducible starting point. So ultimately, like we don't have an answer, like that's when people are like, well, what are you suggesting is your alternative. It's like, look, that's the good work of the next science to come. Well, our job was to point out the problem with this. But what we would argue with this and we're thinking about the next book is this is really going to require a new conception of nature, right? It doesn't sort of jump right to that third person, that fictional third person view and somehow figures out how to do science, recognizing that it always starts from experience, it always starts from this field of experience or in phenomenology the word is the life world that you're embedded in, you can't unembed yourself from it. So how do you do, so they're one of the things that Whitehead said was, you know, we have to avoid the bifurcation of nature. And what he meant by that is the bifurcation into, like, sort of scientific concepts wavelength, you know, think about like the seeing a sunset. You can say, like, oh, look, it's just wavelengths, you know, and scattering particles and your experience of the redness, the actual experience of the redness. And all the other things, it's not just red, there's no qualia, there's no pure redness, everything that's happening in the experiential part is just an epiphenomena, it's just, you know, brain states, whatever. You said, you can't do that, they're just, they're both real, they're both accounts, they both need to be integrated. And so that required, I think, a really a different conception of what we mean by nature. Is it something like incorporating in the physics in the study of nature, the observer, the experiencing observer, or is that still also looking from a third person? I think that that's what we have to figure out, right? And so actually, you know, a great place to think about this is quantum mechanics, right? One of the things we're arguing is, like, look, in the chapter that I wrote on, because I wrote this with Evan Thompson, who's a wonderful philosopher and Marcelo Glazer, who's a theoretical physicist. When I was writing the chapter on the origin of the blind spot, like, you know, sort of what, how this emerged out of history, my, the subheader was like, well, it made sense at the time. Because it did, you know, it really, there was a reason why people adopted this third person, God's eye, deterministic view. This view of sort of like, yeah, the perfect clockwork of the universe, yeah, totally made sense. But by the time you got to the beginning of the 20th century, science itself was telling you like, and no place does this appear more than in quantum mechanics, right? Quantum mechanics slams you with the idea that the measurement problem, you know, the most important thing about quantum mechanics is you have a dynamical equation, the Schrodinger equation, which, you know, you put in, like we talked about before, you have initial conditions, and now you got a differential equation, and you crank out the differential equation, and it makes predictions for the future, right? Exactly like Newtonian physics or its higher versions of the Lagrange or Hamiltonians, but then this other thing happens where it's like, oh, by the way, as soon as you look at it, as soon as the measurement is made, I have a whole other set of rules for you, you know, that's the born, what we call the born rule. And that was telling you right from the beginning that measurement matters, right? So when you're asking like, how will we do this, quantum mechanics is actually pointing to how to do it. So, you know, there's been all these different interpretations of the quantum mechanics. Many of them try to pretend the measurement problem is in there, go to enormous lengths like the many worlds interpretation, literally inventing an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes to avoid the thing that quantum mechanics is telling them, which is that measurements matter. It's better. And then you get something like Cubism, which is I'm gonna advocate for, is a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, which puts the born rule at the center, right? Instead of like focusing on the Schrodinger equation and the weird things that come out of it, like Schrodinger's cat and all that other stuff, it says, no, no, actually the real mystery is the born rule. Let's think about the born rule. And like you said, that puts the agent, the agent and information at the center of the whole thing. - So that's not a thing you're trying to get rid of. That's the thing you're trying to integrate at the center of the thing in quantum mechanics, it becomes super obvious, but maybe the same kind of thing should be incorporated in every layer of study of nature. - Absolutely, that's exactly it. So one of the things that's really interesting to me, so I mean, I have a project, I'm part of a big project that Chris Fuchs and Jacques Spaniard are on Cubism. So I've been part of that. And what I've been amazed by is the language they use. So what's cool about Cubism is it comes from quantum information theory. It's a pretty modern version of thinking about quantum mechanics. And it's always about do you have an agent who makes an action on the world, and then the information they get from that action through the experiment, that's the action of the world, updates their priors, updates their Bayesian, that's why it's called Cubism, quantum Bayesianism, updates how the information they've gotten from the world. Now this turns out to be kind of the same language that we're using in a project that's about the physics of life, where we have a grant from the Templeton Foundation to look at semantic information and the role of semantic information in living systems like cells. So we have Shannon information, which is a probably distribution that tells you, basically how much surprise there is in a message. Semantic information focuses on meaning, right? Focus is on, and in a very simple way, just like what is, how much of the information that the agent, the critter, is getting from the world actually has helps it survive, right? That's the most basic idea of meaning, right? We can get all philosophical about meaning, but this is it, does it help me stay alive or not? And the whole question of agency and autonomy that occurs in this setting of just asking about how do cells move up a chemical gradient to get more food, kind of has the same feel, the same sort of architecture as what's going on in quantum mechanics. So I think what you said is exactly it. How do we bring this sort of recognition that there's always us, the agent, or life, the agent, interacting with the world and drawing in both giving information and passing information back as a way of doing science, doing hardcore science with experiments, but never forgetting that agency, which also means experience in some sense, is at the center of the whole thing. - So you think that could be something like cubism, quantum visionism that creates a theory, like a Nobel Prize winning theory, sort of like hardcore, real theories that put the agent at the center. - Yes, that's what we're looking for. I think that is really, that's the exciting part. And it's a move, you know, the scientific triumphalist thing says, you know, and we understand why people love this. Like I have these equations and these equations represent, you know, there's this platonic idea that they are, you know, they exist eternally on their own. It's kind of quasi-religious, right? It's sort of like somehow look, these equations are the, you're reading the mind of God. But this other approach to me is just as exciting, because what you're saying is there's us and the world, they're inseparable, right? That's always us and the world. And what we're now finding about is this kind of co-creation, this interaction, you know, between the agent and the world, such that these powerful laws of physics that need an account, like in no way am I saying these laws aren't important, these laws are amazing. But they need an account, but not an account that strips, you know, that turns the experience, turns the agent into just a, you know, an epiphenomena that it pushes the agent out and makes it seem as if the agent's not the most important part of the story. - So if you pull on this thread and say, there's a whole discipline born of this, putting the agent as the primary thing in a theory and a physics theory. Like, how is it possible it just like breaks the whole thing open? So there's this whole effort of, you know, unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics of like coming up with the theory of everything. What if these are like the tip of the iceberg? What if the agent thing is like really important? - So, you know, listen, that would be like kind of my dream. I'm not going to be the one to do it, because I'm not smart enough to do it. But, you know, Marcelo and I have for a while have been sort of critical of where foundational physics has been for a while with string theory. I've spent my whole life listening to talks about string theory real soon, you know? And it's gotten ever more disconnected from, you know, data observations. There were people talking for a while that it's post empirical. And, you know, I always wanted to write a paper or an article that was like physicists have been smoking their own stash, right? There's this way we've gotten used to like, you know, you have to outweird the other person like my theory is 38 dimensions. My theory is 22 dimensions, but it's got, you know, you know, psychedelic squirrels in it. And so there's been a problem. I mean, I don't need to tell you there's a crisis in physics or there's a crisis in cosmology. Other people have used that. That's been the headline on scientific American stories. So there clearly another direction has to be found. And maybe it has nothing to do with this. But I suspect that because so many times the agent or the having to deal with the view from the inside or the role of agency, like when it comes to time, thinking that you can replace the block universe with the actual experience of time. You know, clocks don't tell time. We use clocks to tell time. So maybe that even like the fundamental nature of time can't be viewed from the outside. That there's a new physics theory that is going to come from, that comes from this a gentle informational computational view. I don't know, but that's kind of what I think it would be fertile ground to explore. - Yeah, time is a really interesting one. It's time is really important to us humans. What is time? - Yeah, that's a right, what is time? So the way we have tended to view it is we've taken, this is what when herceral talks about the surreptitious substitution, we've taken Einstein's beautiful, powerful, formal system for viewing time. And we substituted that for the actual experience of time, right? So the block universe, where like next Tuesday is already written down. You know, it's in the block universe, the four dimensional universe, all events are already there. Which is very potent for making certain kinds of predictions within this sort of, you know, the scientific framework. But, you know, it is not lived time. And, you know, this was pointed out to Einstein and he eventually recognized it. Very famous meeting between Henri Berkson, who was the most famous philosopher of like the, you know, 20, early 20th century and Einstein, where Einstein was giving a talk on relativity and Berkson, whose whole thing was about time and was about duration. He wanted to separate the scientific image of time, the map of time, from the actual terrain, which he used the word duration. Like we humans, where duration for us is full. It's sort of, it's stretched out. It's got a little bit of the past, a little bit of the future, a little bit of the present. Music is the best example, right? You're hearing music, you're both already anticipating what's gonna happen and you're, you know, remembering what's going on. There's a kind of phenomenal structure there, which is different from the representation of time that you have with the formal mathematics. And what, you know, the way we would look at this is that the problem with the surreptitious substitution, the problem with the blind spot is it says, oh no, no, the formal system is time. But really, the only place time appears is with us, right? Where were time, you know? So having a theory that actually could start with us, you know, and then stretch out into the universe rather than imposing this imaginary third person view back on us, you know, could that's a route towards a different way of approaching the whole problem? - I just wonder, who's the observer? I mean, define what the agent is. - Right. - In any kind of frame is difficult. - It's difficult, right? And so that, but that's the good work of the science ahead of us, right? So what happened with this idea of the structural and variance I was talking about? So, you know, we start with experience, which is irreducible. There's no atoms of experience, right? It's a whole, and we go through the whole process, which is a communal process, by the way. There's a philosopher Robert Kreese who talks about the workshop. That's starting in like the 1700s, 1600s. We developed this communal space to work in. Sometimes it was literally a physical space, a laboratory, where these ideas would be pulled apart, refined, argued over, and then validated, and we went to the next step. So this idea of pulling out from experience these thinner, abstract structural and variance, the things that we could actually do science with. And it's kind of like we call it an ascending spiral of abstraction, right? So the problem with the way we do things now is we take that those abstractions, which came from experience, and then with something like, you know, a computational model of consciousness or experience, we think we can put it back in. Like you literally pulled out these super thin things, these abstractions, you know, neglecting experience, because that's the only way to do science. And then you think somehow, oh, I'm gonna put, I'm going to jam experience back in and have an explanation for it. So do you think it's possible to show that something like free will is quote-unquote real if you integrate experience back into the physics into the physics model of the world? What I would say is that free will is is a given and that's the thing about experience, right? So one of the things that Whitehead said or really love this quote is says it's not the job of either science or philosophy to account for the concrete. It's the job to account for the abstract. The the concrete what's happening between us right now is just given, you know, it's just it's presented to us every day. It's presented to if you want an explanation fine, but the explanation actually doesn't add anything to it, right? So that free will in some sense is the nature of being an agent right to be an agent agency and autonomy are sort of the two things that are Yeah, they're they're equivalent and so in some sense to be an agent is to be autonomous and so then the question really to ask is can you have an account for agency and autonomy that captures aspects of it's it's arising in the world or the way it and the world sort of co-erise? But the idea you know the reason why we argue about free will often is because we already have this blind spot view that the world is deterministic because of our equations which themselves we treat the equations as if they're more real than experience, you know, and the equations are a Taylor, you know, they don't corral experience. They are a thinner, you know, representation as we like to say don't confuse the map for the terrain. What's happening between us right now in this you know all the weirdness of it? That's the terrain. The map is what I can write down on equations and then in the workshop do experiments on super powerful needs an account, but experience overflows that What if the experience is an illusion? I got how do we know? What if the agency that we experience is an illusion? An illusion looking from where? Like right because that already requires to just take that stance is you've already pushed yourself into that third person view, right? And so what we're saying is that's a that third person view which now you're going to say like oh, I've got a whole other set of entities of ontological entities meaning you know things that I think exist in God's living room in spite, you know that are independent of me and the community of living things on part of So you're pushing it elsewhere. It this just like there's a stack of turtles is probably If this experience the human experience is an illusion. Maybe there's an observer For whom it's not an illusion, so you always have to find an observer somewhere. Yeah, right And that's why you know fundamentally the blinds about the specially the scientific triumphalist part is Is following a religious impulse? You know, it's wanting the God's eye view and it was really interesting and when we think about this and the way this gets talked about Especially publicly, you know, there's a line of philosophical inquiry That this language gets couched in and it is actually a pretty it's only one version of Philosophy, right? So it is pretty much what we call the analytic tradition, right? But there's even in Europe in the or in the Western tradition and you know what for Western what we'll call Western philosophy There's phenomenology. There's a herceral and itiger and Merluponti, which took an entirely different track They were really interested in the structure of experience they spent all their time trying to understand trying to develop a language That could kind of climb into the circle that is experience, right? You experience you're not going to be able to start with axioms and work your way to it It's over it's given so you have to kind of jump in and then try and find a language to account for its structure But then so that net that has not been part of this discussion about you'll never good luck finding a YouTube video where someone you know a famous scientist is talking about science from a phenomenological point of view even though it's a huge branch of philosophy and then you get the philosophies that occurred from other cores of civilization, right? So there's the there's the Western core out of which comes the Greeks and the you know the Judeo Christian Islamic tradition But then you get India and you get Asia and they developed their own they were highly complex societies that developed their own Responses to these questions and they for reasons because they had contemplative practice They were very focused on like direct trying to like directly probe attention and experience They asked questions in ways that the West never really did phenomenology kind of started it But you know there's there's philosophers like Nagarjuna and Vasubandu and they're like the Plato and the you know Aristotle of you know sort of those philosophies And they were really focused on experience in the West. I think maybe because we had the Judeo Christian tradition where we already had this kind of God who was going to be the frame on which you could always point to that frame the in the traditions that came from the classical philosophies of Indian Asia They started always with it. They wanted to know about experience their whole philosophies and their logic and their their argumentation was based on I've got this experience. I can't get out of this experience. How do I reason from it? So I think there's like a lot of other philosophical traditions that we could draw from You know not like slavishly we don't all have to become Buddhists to do it But there are traditions that really tried to work this out in a way that the Western traditions just didn't But there's also the practical fact that Is difficult to build a logical system on top of experience is difficult to have the rigor of science on top of experience and so it's As science advances we might get better and better like the same is it's very difficult to have any kind of mathematical or kind of scientific rigor to why Complexity emerges from simple rules and simple objects sort of the center-fade questions Yeah, I think but I think we can do it. I think there's aspects of it I mean as long as you're never trying to like this is what experience is like I think that's kind of the where we're you know there you're never going to have a causal account of experience because it's just given but you can do lots about and that's what the good work is Is to how do I approach this how do I approach this in a way that's rigorous that I can do experiments with also But so for example, I was just reading this beautiful paper that was talking about in the you know This is what we're counting with our semantic information to causal closure Love this idea, right? The idea that so we talked about auto-poesis a while back, right? The idea that living systems are They are self-creating and self-maintaining so the membrane cell membrane is a great example of this right the cell membrane You can't have a cell without a cell membrane the cell membrane let's stuff through Put keeps other stuff out, right? But the cell membrane is part of the processes and it's a product of the processes that the cell membrane Needs right in some sense the cell membrane Creates itself. So there's this strange it's always with life. There's always this strange loop And so somehow figuring out how to jump into that strange loop is you know the science that's ahead of us And so this idea of causal closure accounting for how the you know, we talk about like Downward causation right so reductionism says everything only depends on the microstate everything just depends on the atoms Right, that's it you don't get what you know if you know the Lagrangian for the standard model you're done You know, of course in principle you need gods computer, but fine, you know in principle you know in principle it can be done causal closure and there's I was just reading this gray paper that sort of argues for this There's ways in which using epsilon machines and all this machinery from information theory that you can see ways in which the system Can organize itself so that it decouples from the microstates now the microstate fundamentally no longer needs the microstate for its own description Its own account of the laws whether that paper is true or not. It's an example of heading down that road There's also Robert Rosen's work. He was a theoretical biologist who he was you know, he talked about closure to efficient cause that that Living systems you know are organizationally closed are are causally closed so that they don't depend anymore on the microstate And he made the he had a proof which is very contentious nobody knows if it's you know some argue it's true some argue it's not but he said that Because of this living systems are not church-turing complete they cannot be represented as formal systems So you know in that way they're not axioms. They're not living systems will not be axioms they can only be partially captured by algorithms now getting people fight back and forth about whether or not his proof was you know Is valid or not but I'm saying them giving you examples of like you know When you when you see the blind spot when you acknowledge the blind spot It opens up a whole other class of kinds of scientific investigations You know the book we thought was going to be really heretical, right? You know you obviously you know most that most public facing scientists are very sort of in that Especially scientific triumphal and so we were just like waiting you know waiting for the fight And then the review from science came out and it was like Totally pro yeah, they was very positive. We're like oh my god, you know And then a review came out in nature physics and it was totally positive And then a review came out in the Wall Street Journal because we kind of criticized Not capitalism but we criticized store all industrial economies for that they were sort of had been touched by the blind spot Socialism communism doesn't matter these extractive you know It sort of had that sort of view that the world is just reducible to you know Resources The Wall Street Journal gave us a great review. So I feel like there's actually out there There is some among working scientists in particular. There is some dissatisfaction With this triumphalist view and a recognition that we need to shift something In order to like jump past these hurdles that we've been arguing about forever and we're not you know We're sort of stuck in a vortex. Well, it is I mean, I think there's a hunger to acknowledge that there's an elephant in the room like that We're just removing the age like it's Everyone is doing and it's like yeah, yeah, there's the the experience and then there's the third person Perspective on the world and so to and science from applying scientific wiggle from a first person perspective is very difficult. I mean, it's fascinating. - I think we can do it 'cause it's also the thing, you know what's really interesting is I think, it's not just first person, it's first and second, right? Because science, 'cause what's so, like one idea is that we, you know, the idea that oh, science gives us this objective third person view. That's one way of talking about objectivity. There's a whole other way is that I do the experiment, you do the experiment, we talk to each other, we agree on methods, and we both get the same result. That is a very different way of thinking about objectivity. And it acknowledges that, you know, when we talk about agents, agency and individuality are flexible, right? So there's a great paper, speak of Santa Fe by David Krakauer, where they looked at sort of information, theoretic measures of individuality. Now what you find is it's actually pretty fluid. Like my liver cell is an individual, but really it's part of the liver. And my liver is, you know, a separate system, but really it's part of me. But I'm, so I'm an individual, yay, but actually I'm part of a society. Like, and I couldn't be me without the entire community of say language users, right? I wouldn't even be able to frame any questions. And the, my community of language users is part of ecosystems, right? That are alive. That I am a part of a lineage of. This is like Sarah Walker's stuff. And then that, those ecosystems are part of the biosphere, right? We're never separable as opposed to this very atomizing, the triumphal of this science view is once like Boltzmann brains, you're just a brain floating in the space, you know? Yeah, there's a fascinating degree to which agency's fluid, like you are an individual, but you and I talking is a kind of individual. Yeah. And then the person listening to this right now is also an individual. Right. I mean, that's a weird thing. That's a weird thing, right? Because there's like, there's a broadcast nature too. This is my information theoretic. So the idea that we're pursuing now, which I get really excited about, is this idea of information architecture, right? Or organization, informational organization, because you know, right, physicalism is like, everything's atoms. But, you know, Kant reckoned, Kant is apparently the one who came up with the word organism because he recognized that life has a weird organization that would see specifically different from machines. And so this idea that how do we engage with the idea that organization, which is often, I can be cast in information theoretic terms or computational terms even, is sort of, it's not really quite physical, right? It's embodied in physical, you know, in the physical, it has to instantiate in the physical, but it also has this other realm of design, you know, in some not design like intelligent design, but there's a, you know, organization itself is a relationship of constraints and information flow. And I think again, that's an entirely new interesting way that we might get a very different kind of science that would flow out of that. So going back to Kant and organism versus machine. So I showed you a couple of LEGO robots. Very cool. Is it possible for machines to have agency? I would not discount that possibility. I think it, you know, there's no reason I would say that it's impossible that machines could, whatever manifests that strange loop that we're talking about, that auto-poesis, I don't think there's a reason to say, it can't happen in silicon. I think whatever it would be very different from us, like the idea that it would be like, oh, it would be just like us, but now it's instantiated. I think it might have very different kind of experiential nature. I don't think, I don't think what we have now, like the LLMs are really there, but yeah, I'm not going to say that it's not possible. I wonder how far he can get with imitation, which is essentially what LLMs are doing. So imitating humans. And I wouldn't discount either the possibility that through imitation you can achieve what you call conscious in this or agency or the ability to have experience. I think for most of us humans, they think, oh, that's just fake, that's copying. But there's some degree to which us, we humans are just copying each other. We just are really good imitation machines. Coming from babies we were born in this world and we're just learning to imitate each other. And through the imitation and the tension in the disagreements in the imitations, we gain personality, perspective, all that kind of stuff. - Yeah, I think so, you know, it's possible, right? It's possible, but I think probably that view I'm advocating would say that one of the most important parts of agency is, there's something called E4, the E4 theory of cognition. Embodiment, inaction, embedding, and there's another one. Extension. But so the idea is that you actually have to be in a body which is itself part of an environment that is the physical nature of it and of the extension with other living systems as well is essential. So that's why I think the LLMs are not gonna, it's not just imitation, it's gonna require, this goes to the brain and the fat thing. I did an article about the brain and the fat, which was really Evans, I was reporting on Evans, where they did the brain and the fat argument, but they said, look, in the end, actually, the only way to actually get a real brain in the fat is actually to have a brain in a body. It could be a robot body, you know, but you still need a brain in the body. So I don't think LLMs will get there because they can't, you know, you really need to be embedded in a world. At least that's the E4 idea. - The E4, the 4E approach to cognition, argues that cognition does not occur solely in the head, but is also embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended. And by way of extra cranial processes and structures, though very much invoked, (laughing) 4E cognition has received relatively few critical evaluations, this is a paper. By reflecting on two recent collections, this article reviews the 4E paradigm, with a view to assessing the strengths and weaknesses that's fascinating. I mean, yeah, the branches of what is cognition extends far, and it could go real far. - Right, there's a great story about an interaction between Jonas Salk, who is very much a reductionist, you know, the great biologist. And Gregory Bateson, who was a cyberneticist, and Bateson always loved to poke people. And he said to Salk, he said, you know, "Where's your mind?" And you know, Salk went up here and Bateson said, "No, no, no, out here." And what he really meant was this extended idea. It's not just within your cranium to be, to have experience, you know, experience in some sense, is not a thing you have, it is a thing you do, right? It's a, it almost perform it in a way, which is why both actually having a body, but having the body itself be in a world with other bodies is, from this perspective, is really important. And it's very attractive to me, and you don't see, again, if we're really gonna do science with them, we're gonna have to have these ideas crash up against data, you know, crash up against, we can't just armchair it, you know, or, you know, or a couch quarterbacking it. But I think there's a lot of possibility here. It's a very radically different way of looking at what we mean by nature. - What do you make of the fact that this individual observer, you as an individual observer, only get a finite amount of time to exist in this world? So make you sad? - No, actually, it doesn't make me sad. So okay, so, so, you know, full reveal. I have been doing contemplative practice in the Zen tradition for 30 years. I've been staring at a wall for 30 years. - And it's taught me a lot, right? You know, I'm really, I really value what that practice has given me about the nature of experience. And one of the things that taught me is like, you know, I don't really matter that very much. You know, this thing I call Adam Frank is really, you know, it's kind of a construct, you know, there's this process going on of which I am, actually fundamentally, and that's super cool. But you know, it's gonna go, I don't know, you know, I don't know where it came from. It's gonna go, I don't really need it to, you know, and then who the hell knows? You know, I'm not an advocate for an afterlife, but just that like, you know, what I love, Zen has this idea of beyond birth and death. And they don't mean reincarnation. What they mean is, dude, you don't even really understand what life is, you know what I mean? I'm like this, you know, this core level of your own experience. So, you know, your ideas about what death is are equally ill formed, you know? And it's, so, you know, the contemplative practice really tries to focus on experience itself. Like spend five days at a Zen session doing contemplative practice from, you know, seven a.m. until nine p.m. obviously with breaks. And you'll really get a much deeper understanding of like what my own experience is. What is it really like? You have, it forces you to learn how to stabilize your attention 'cause you know, attention is kind of like this thing. Like it's usually just like, oh, over there, oh, my foot hurts, oh, I gotta do my taxes. Oh, that, you know, what's that guy over there? Why is he wearing those stupid shoes? And with the contemplative practice, you learn how to stabilize it. And once you stabilize it, you can now begin to sort of explore the phenomenal nature of it. So, what I think I've learned from that is like, kind of whatever, you know, I'm not, I'm not really kind of real to begin with. The Adam Frank port, the identity, the thing. And the part of me that is real is, you know, everything's coming and going, it's all coming and going. Well, how can I ever not come and go when the entire world is just, you know, Buddhism has this idea of codependent arising. Nothing exists, nothing has self nature. Nothing exists by itself. It's an endless, infinitely connected web. - But still, there's a deliciousness to the individual experience. You get attached to it and it ends and it's good while last and it sucks that it ends. Like, you can be like, ah, well, everything comes and goes, but like, I was eating ice cream yesterday. Found this awesome low carb ice cream called Delights here in Austin. [BLANK_AUDIO] And, you know, it ends. - Yeah. - And I was like, and I was staring at the empty container. And it was-- - That's a beautiful man, I love that. - You could say like, yeah, well, that's how it all is, but hey. - Can I say that, that's what I've learned from, 'cause I love your idea of the deliciousness of it. - Yeah. - You know, but what I think happens with contemporary practice when it deepens is that it's not just, you're not just saying, right? This is why, you know, I do co-on practice. So this is a tradition in Zen that it was established, it was a teaching method that was established like, a thousand years ago, these book of co-ons. And every co-on, you know, if you've ever had Goudelle Escherbach, he's got a whole chapter on co-ons. They're kind of non-logical problems that you have to work on. One of my favorite one was, stop the sound of the distant temple bell. You know, you're like, what? Every time my teacher gives a term, like, what are you talking about, you know? This is the whole Zen thing of like, up is down, but down is up, you must understand this. So, you know, your job with these co-ons is to sit with them, is to sit with them until you sort of, kind of, you know, you realize what the thing is trying to teach you, what aspect of experience it's trying to teach you. So there's no answer, there's no, and in fact, actually, you don't give an answer, you actually usually have to demonstrate. The first time when I sat and when I did a con and the guy was like, don't tell me the answer, show me the answer. I was like, what are you talking about? But after doing these for years now, you know, I've kind of learned the language of them. So I could never tell you, if I told you the answer, I could give you a con and tell you the answer, you'd be like, what, you know, it's never, it's not the words, it's the, you know, so like your experience of like, yeah, the cup is empty. With a contemplative practice as it deepens over years, there really does take years, just like anything in math, it took me years to understand the Lagrangians. You kind of come to a deeper understanding with like, yeah, the words of like, it's not just like, oh, everything changes, you actually feel that movement. Like you feel it with like, breath to breath, you know, and it really becomes, sometimes I have this feeling, this is messed up, but I'm just joy. And it's not connected to anything. Right, that's what I've kind of gotten from practice. It's just like, yeah, you know, that passage, that infinite passage of moment to moment, that is truly the way things are, and it's okay. Like not, it's not okay because I have a feeling about it, okay, I want it to be okay. It just is okay. It's a really, it's a pretty awesome. - Yeah, that's beautiful. I, maybe it's the genetics, maybe it's the biochemistry on my brain, but I generally have that joy about experience, just amorphous joy. But it seems like, again, maybe it's my Eastern European roots, but there's always like a melancholy, there's also sitting next to the joy. And I think it always feels like they're intricately linked. So the melancholy is about, maybe about the finiteness of experience, and the joy is just about the beauty of experience, and then just kind of sitting there. - Yeah, which is cool actually, because that, you know, I'm also, you know, I come from Eastern, my roots are Eastern European as well, going back. And I get it, right? I mean, you know, the, but that's also the cool thing. I think one of the things is like, you know, well, that, that is what it is. That is what it is, right? You don't have to do anything. You don't have to like manipulate it or move it around or like, yeah, this is the experience, you know? - Can you speak to those just the practical nature of sitting there from 70M to 9PM? - I'm like, what the hell are you doing, bro? - What's powerful? What's fascinating to you? Whatever you learn from just the experience of staring at a wall. - Yeah, yeah. So, you know, it's not really, I mean, you're staring, you're facing a wall, and what you're doing is you're, you know, you're just sitting with, you know, there's different meditative practices, right? There's counting breaths. So that's usually what I do. I sit down, I start counting breaths. And for the first half hours, it's like blah, blah, blah. I'm thinking, like I said, I'm thinking about my taxes. I'm thinking about what I got to do later on. Yada, yada, yada, yada. First time I ever did a full session, a two-day session. I swear to God, I had Bruce Springsteen's born to run album, Track Through from the beginning to the end, with the pauses, back in when they were LPs. - Yeah. - With the frickin' nice, you know? 'Cause my mind was just like I need to do something. I literally played the whole album in order. - That's pretty cool, actually. - Yeah, it was pretty amazing to see, you know? 'Cause you really do, you see the dynamics of your mind, but what happens is, and this took me a while, I used to hate sitting, you know? I do it, but after a while, the mind gets exhausted. Like that part of the mind, the upper level, the roof brain chatter is just like there's nothing else to do. And then you get bored, and I now I realize that's when something interesting is gonna happen. 'Cause you kind of like drop down. And now it's a very physical practice. People think you're just sitting there not thinking, or thinking about not thinking. Actually becomes a very physical process, where you really just following the breath, you're kind of riding the breath, and it gets very quiet, you know? And within that quietness, there's a path, you know, because obviously there's been, Buddhism's always like, you know, not about thinking, but there's a huge literature. So these guys are always about don't think, I've written all this stuff. But they're guideposts, they're like the finger pointing at the moon. And you know, there's the idea of first, you know, your mind is usually scattered, right? Like right now when I walk out, I'm gonna go get the uber and every mind's gonna be all over the place. But with sitting, first you concentrate the mind, so that there's no more scatter anymore. The thoughts are still happening, but you're just not there happening up there. You're not even paying attention to them. And then as time goes on, you unify the mind. Which is this very powerful thing. We're kind of the self drops away, you know? And there's just this presence. It's kind of like a raw presence. And that's often where the joy upwell's from. But you sit with whatever, maybe you're gonna sit and you're gonna have like, you know, maybe, you're gonna go through like an hour of being bummed out about your mom who died or something. You know, you're just gonna sit with whatever comes up. You're gonna make that, that's why the sitting part, you're making the commitment. I'm gonna sit here with whatever comes up. I will not be moved. And then what you come away with, it actually over time, it actually changes kind of who you are. Like I'm still the asshole I was from New Jersey growing up, but I just have more space now for things, you know? (laughs) Yeah, once Jersey, it was Jersey. Hello, it's Jersey. Well, I love the boost brings things just blasting in your head. Yeah, that was still amazing. Why are we here? What do you think is the purpose, the meaning of human existence? It's good that we just had the last conversation because I'm gonna give this answer, which is so corny, it's love. And I'm not messing around, 'cause really actually what happens here? So within Buddhism, there's the idea of the Bodhisattva principle. You're here to help. You're just here to help, right? Compassion, like that's a really essential part of this path, of the Dharma path. And when I first started, I was like, I don't care about compassion. I'm here for knowledge, right? I'm here, I started contemplative practice because of the usual thing I was suffering. I had the reason everybody comes to things like this. You know, life was hard, I'd gone through stuff. But I also wanted knowledge. I wanted to understand the foundational nature of reality. So it was like compassion, whatever. But then I found out that you can't get that. You can't get though, you can't go without compassion. Somehow in this process, you realize that it really is about helping all sentient beings. That's the way they pray, you know, just being here to help. So I know that sounds cornball, but especially for a guy from Jersey, which is like, you know, the main thing is to get over. You're like, your job is to get over. But that's really what I found. It is actually kind of, and that's what that joy, that joy, some of that joy is just, it's like this. One of the things I have, when I have like really, you know, there's a kind of experience I'll have in contemplative practice, we'll carry out into the world, which is just this gratitude. For the fact that the world is just, the world gives you everything. And there's a certain way, right? Just the blue sky and the breath. The world is just giving you itself completely unhindered. It holds nothing back. And yeah, that's kind of the experience. And then you kind of like, oh, I need to be helpful. 'Cause who's not having this experience, you know? So just love for the world as it is. Love for the way and all the beings who are suffering, everybody's suffering, everybody's suffering. You know, your worst political opponent, they're suffering, you know? And our job is just to try and drop our biases and our stories and see this fundamental level at which life is occurring. And hopefully there's many alien civilizations out there going to the same journey out of suffering, towards love. Yeah, that would, you know, that may be a universal thing about what it means to be alive. I hope so. I hope so too. You're that, or they're coming to eat us. Especially if they're type three civilization. That's right. And they got really big guns. Well, this was a truly mind-blowing fascinating just awesome conversation, Adam. Thank you for everything you do and thank you for talking to me. Oh, thank you. This was a lot of fun. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Adam Frank. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Carl Sagan. The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. Our feebleous contemplations of the cosmos stir us. There's a tingling in the spine, a catching the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory or falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. (gentle music) [BLANK_AUDIO]