The Escaped Sapiens Podcast

What are holographic dualities, and is our universe really a hologram? In this episode of the podcast, I speak with Sabrina Pasterski, a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Sabrina has attracted significant media attention over the years and has even been compared to figures like Einstein. I ask her what it was like to grow up under such intense public hype while still finding her footing as a scientist. We also explore whether the media risks being irresponsible when it constructs prodigy narratives — and what that means for young, brilliant minds trying to navigate their own paths. We then turn to the major challenges in quantum gravity — a field that lacks direct experimental data and often relies on internal consistency. Sabrina shares insights from her work in Celestial Holography, which seeks to understand quantum gravity through dual descriptions: simpler, non-gravitational theories that live in lower-dimensional spaces. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Uff-40hOOHw ►For more information about Sabrina and her work: www.youtube.com/@PhysicsGirl-com https://physicsgirl.com/ https://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/sabrina-pasterski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Gonzalez_Pasterski  

In this episode I speak with philosopher and author David Benatar. David is best known for advancing the position of philanthropic antinatalism, which holds that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings. Central to his view is the asymmetry argument, which maintains that the absence of pain is good even if no one benefits from it, while the absence of pleasure is not bad unless someone is deprived of it. David also argues that our lives are significantly worse than we tend to realize, due in part to a pervasive positivity bias. He supports this claim with a range of empirical studies, including work on optimism bias, affective forecasting, and rosy retrospection. Relevant studies include: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3204264/ https://2024.sci-hub.se/1554/00562a7485ff9ae6371024daf5890ed0/mitchell1997.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-01001-001 https://www.happierlivesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Affective-forecasting.pdf At the same time, David’s antinatalist position is challenged by other philosophers, as well as by research showing that global well-being has been improving across many important metrics. Numerous studies also suggest that most people self-report being happy and that subjective well-being often remains surprisingly high even under adverse circumstances. A counter-perspective is that humans are not blind to suffering but are instead highly adaptive, and capable of overcoming life’s challenges and minimizing the impact of hardship. Relevant studies include: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14717825/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007027822521 https://cmc.marmot.org/Record/.b57484296   ►View on YouTube: https://youtu.be/FeLSED_nmJA   ►For those interested in finding out more, David explores his position in depth and engages extensively with opposing arguments in his written work. Learn more about his work here: https://humanities.uct.ac.za/department-philosophy/contacts/david-benatar https://tomwilk.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Still-Better-Never-to-Have-Been-Benatar.pdf Note: At ~21:00 I was mistakenly parsing `not good' to mean `bad' as opposed to literally `not good' - which led me to stumble on David's answer here. At ~23:20 David and I talk past one another. At the end of the interview we add a section clarifying David's position.  

For over forty years, Dutch geologist and paleontologist Jan Smit has been at the center of one of the most profound scientific detective stories of our time: the investigation into the mass extinction that ended the reign of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Known as the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction, this event wiped out nearly 75% of all species on Earth, from towering dinosaurs to microscopic marine life, and cleared the way for the rise of mammals and, eventually, humans. Early in his career, Jan Smit became intrigued by a thin layer of clay found in rock strata across the globe, precisely at the boundary between Cretaceous and Paleogene sediments. This layer, unusually rich in the rare element iridium, held clues that would eventually transform our understanding of planetary history. Working alongside Luis and Walter Alvarez and others, Jan helped develop the hypothesis that a massive asteroid impact, rather than volcanic activity or gradual climate change, was the primary cause of the extinction. In this episode, we explore the extraordinary evidence for that theory: global patterns of shocked quartz, tsunami deposits, a massive crater buried beneath the Yucatán Peninsula, and the sudden disappearance of entire ecosystems in the fossil record. Jan walks us through decades of fieldwork and analysis that revealed the incredible violence and planetary consequences of the impact, a blast more powerful than a billion Hiroshima bombs, throwing Earth into a global winter. But this is more than a forensic tale of catastrophe. It's a window into the fragility and resilience of life, the interconnectedness of geological and biological systems, and the awe-inspiring forces that shape the story of our planet. Watch on Youtube: https://youtu.be/YOlOuBYgAmQ

For over three decades, Felix Finster has been developing a unique and ambitious reformulation of physics known as Causal Fermion Systems (CFS). Physicists usually describe the world in terms of fields defined on a spacetime manifold. Within this familiar framework, abstract quantities such as correlations between matter fields at different points in spacetime can be computed. In mathematical language, these correlations are captured by operators acting on a Hilbert space. What Felix realized is that this process can be reversed. If you start with a suitable collection of operators on a Hilbert space, satisfying certain mathematical properties, you can in principle reconstruct the underlying spacetime and fields that would give rise to those operators as operators of correlations. In this sense, Causal Fermion Systems  offers a dual description of reality. On the one hand, reality can be described in terms of symmetries, fields, and manifolds - the usual language of physics. On the other hand, CFS proposes that reality can just as well be described using abstract structures: Hilbert spaces, operators, and measures on sets of operators. Spacetime, matter, and everything we observe then emerges from these underlying mathematical quantities. The beauty of reformulating physics this way is that it opens up an entirely new framework in which to explore some of the deepest open questions in physics: What is spacetime like at the smallest scales? Why do we see precisely the particles we do in experiments? The hope is that within the CFS framework, answers to such questions might become more natural or even inevitable. Of course, we can’t cover a 30-year research program in full detail in a single conversation. The goal here is to get a sense of the flavor of Felix’s approach to physics. For the full details, you can explore Felix's books  (e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/causal-fermion-systems/CCA6DE1E1F4DA3AC0EF6729664A5D5B9 ). ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/qQl51qifus0 ►Find out more about Felix's work here: https://www.uni-regensburg.de/mathematik/mathematik-1/startseite/index.html https://causal-fermion-system.com/

Aging has long been treated as inevitable. But what if it’s not? What if aging is, at its core, a problem to be solved? In this episode, I speak with biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey about the most ambitious anti-aging experiment ever conducted on mice. The Robust Mouse Rejuvenation (RMR) study, spearheaded by Aubrey and the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation, aims to extend both the average and maximum lifespan of mice by at least 12 months—a staggering leap in a species that typically lives around 30 months. We unpack the science behind this bold endeavor: What is aging? Why aim for rejuvenation and damage repair as opposed to slowing down aging? What interventions are being trialed in mice? What are the best achievable results? What does the blueprint for longevity escape velocity look like? ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YiX5GKDtYWY ►Find out more about Aubrey's work here: https://www.levf.org/team https://www.levf.org/projects/robust-mouse-rejuvenation-study-1/study-updates 

Richard Feynman once dubbed turbulence “the last unsolved problem of classical physics.” Beyond the Navier–Stokes equations, no comprehensive statistical framework exists to predict how fluids spin, eddy, and cascade energy—whether in galactic jets, ocean currents, or the swirl of your morning coffee. But that might all be changing. In this episode, I sit down with theoretical physicist Sasha Migdal, who emerged from retirement with a bold, loop‑equation approach to turbulence. His formalism recasts the Navier–Stokes equations as an infinite number of linear, readily solvable equations that track circulation around closed loops in the fluid—offering, for the first time, a tractable statistical framework for chaotic flow. We chart Sasha’s remarkable journey: from a promising career at the Landau Institute and Russian Space Institutes, where he resisted KGB pressure to compromise his work, to his defection to the United States in the late 1980s. We discuss his time outside of physics, and then delve into his return, and his novel approach to solving Navier–Stokes.  Since we recorded, his theory has advanced rapidly. A rigorous proof now shows that it is the solution  to the Navier–Stokes (NS) loop equation. The theory has also been extended to magnetohydrodynamics and turbulent mixing. Recent large-scale direct numerical simulations (DNS) match the theoretical predictions with even greater accuracy.  ►Watch On YouTube: https://youtu.be/BNORi7mxxzg ►Find out more about Sasha's work here: https://alexandermigdal.com/ https://sashamigdal.github.io/TurbulenceDuality/index.html ►For a more technical overview of Sasha's work you can check out his recent talk at the IAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgvGA6q7oPY  

In this conversation I ask Professors Sam Richards & Laurey Mulvey about some of the most controversial topics concerning race and ethnicity in the US today. Is White Privilege a useful term that helps build understanding and facilitates conversation, or does it generate social tension and make poor white people feel gaslit? What is DEI, why is it so contentious, and can it be implemented effectively? What makes the N-word and blackface so triggering? Why are US racial social norms so culturally dominant and readily exported?  Sam Richards is a sociologist and Teaching Professor at Penn State and a Distinguished Professor at Konkuk University in Seoul, Korea. He runs SOC119, which is the largest race, ethnicity and cultural relations course in the world. Every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon his class is live streamed to 370,000 subscribers from around the world, and his classes have had over 400 million views. His willingness to challenge orthodox thinking led him to be named one of the “101 Most Dangerous  Professors in America” and together with Laurie Mulvey is one of the “parents of radical empathy.”  Laurie Mulvey is the director and co-founder of the World in Conversation Center for Public Diplomacy at Penn State, which is the largest dialogue center in the United States, hosting more than 17,000 participants each academic year. The Center has worked with the UNDP, UNESCO, and NATO, along with organizations and universities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Palestinian Territories, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, China, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, and twelve nations in the NATO Alliance to host dialogues between people separated by vast distances and borders. Laurie is a master facilitator, focused on moderating beneficial conversations between different groups on some of the most difficult, hot button topics. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/wd2DytWSAYE ►Find out more about Sam's work here: https://sociology.la.psu.edu/people/sam-richards/ ►Find out more about Laurie's work here: https://sociology.la.psu.edu/people/laurie-mulvey/ These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.  

What is Holography and how does it help us Quantize gravity? In this conversation I speak with Pedro Vieira, one of the worlds leading experts on holographic dualities and their application in quantum gravity. We start our discussion with a few standard but big questions, like why is quantum gravity difficult, what is quantum field theory, and what is gauge symmetry. We then dive into the topic of holography, which in broad and provocative terms is the idea that our universe and everything in it might be a hologram projected from some lower dimensional quantum theory. That is, there might be a duality between the mathematics that describes our world including gravity and the mathematics that describes a world with quantum mechanics and without gravity in one dimension lower. If such a duality were true, then it might provide a radial way of side stepping all of the usual difficulties of quantizing gravity.  ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/FdpVxLq_PAk ►Find out more about Pedro here: https://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/pedro-vieira  https://inspirehep.net/authors/1027784  These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.  

In this conversation I speak with Sam Bendett, one of the worlds leading experts on Russian weapons development and capabilities, drones, AI, and the war in Ukraine. Sam is an advisor for the Center for Naval Analyses and an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, an honorary “mad scientist” with the Mad Scientist Initiative of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and a Russian military autonomy and artificial intelligence subject matter expert for the DOD’s Defense Systems Information Analysis Center. We discuss drone warfare in Ukraine as it stands today. We cover the range of systems being fielded, counter measures, AI capabilities, what life is like for drone operators and soldiers on the line of contact, drone production pipelines and supply, and more. ►Watch On YouTube: https://youtu.be/cvBQ715PShw ►Find out more about Sam's work here: https://www.cna.org/our-experts/bendett-samuel https://www.csis.org/people/samuel-bendett ►Follow Sam on Twitter & Bluesky: @sambendett, @sambendett.bsky.social   These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.  

Will we ever have an AI for president? In this episode of the podcast I speak with Pedro Domingos about the impact of AI on society, industry, and politics. Pedro is professor emeritus of computer science and engineering at the University of Washington and co-founded the International Machine Learning Society. He is also the Author of `The Master Algorithm' and `2040: A Silicon Valley Satire'. This episode is not a paid advertisement for Pedro's books, but we use his book `2040' to set the context for the discussion.  We discuss the hype and fear surrounding AI and the future of tech, and Pedro gives an insiders view into the realities of AI development and impact. In his view AI is a human made tool. It isn't going to take over the planet like the terminator, but it will be something that is used by humans to shift the balance of power in society, industry, and politics. A particularly interesting aspect of the discussion surrounds digital twins. Imagine a world in which dating apps are replaced with a digital platform in which your digital twin simulates dates, and even entire lives with the digital twins of potential partners. Users would then go on physical dates with the top performing selection. This same idea could be extended to predicting crime, presidential election outcomes, and more. All of a sudden the simulation hypothesis doesn't seem to crazy, when simulations are used to predict future outcomes in the real world. Another key topic in this conversation is that of `wokism'. Pedro discusses `wokism' as a new iteration of cultural marxism, an ideology that reinterprets the dynamics of class struggle through cultural and identity-based lenses. While the creation of wealth in a society is not inherently a zero-sum game—where one person’s gain is necessarily another’s loss— the division and redistribution of that wealth that has been created is a zero-sum conflict. Pedro suggests that `wokism' is an attempt to shift power and resources within society, but where the division between the oppressed and the privileged is identity based. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/LjBZc-Zh4bc ►Find out more about Pedro's work here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Domingos https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KOrhfVMAAAAJ&hl=en https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/ ►Follow Pedro on Twitter: @pmddomingos These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.  

In this conversation I speak with renegade economist and creator of doughnut economics Kate Raworth. Kate is a Senior Associate at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, where she teaches on the Masters in Environmental Change and Management. She is also Professor of Practice at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. We speak about economic transformation, and re-imagining economic possibilities for the 21st century. What should we design our economic system to do? Growth in GDP is a nice target to aim for because it is simple, but it doesn't do a very good job of capturing all of the economic externalities associated with market contracts, and in particular the impact of doing business on the environment and human well being. Our economies are beginning to run up against our planets boundaries, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that our planet is finite. So what should our target be if not for endless growth in GDP at the expense of our only known habitable planet? ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/edP8rgk6l3g ►Find out more about Kate's work here: https://www.kateraworth.com/about/  ►Follow Kate on Twitter:  @KateRaworth    These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.  

This conversation is the second part of a two part mini-series on Regenerative cattle farming. The question is: Does raising cattle really have to be so damaging to the environment? Can cattle be integrated into a natural system that sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, and if so what would that system look like? Joel Salatin segregates his land into small fenced off areas, which he rotates his cattle through. By moving his herd routinely he gives grass and other wild vegetation optimal time to grow and absorb carbon, and for the cattle to disperse their excreta such that it is optimally absorbed into the fields. By dispersing the impact of his cattle, and introducing a number of complimentary species he is able to reduce the impact of disease and pests without the use of insecticides, pesticides, and other chemical based management approaches. This keeps the soil alive such that smaller organisms can work the carbon deposited by the cattle into the soil. The claim is that this approach is able to sequester carbon. Its also far better for the animals, and leads to a better end product. At 21:00 Joel mentions a connection between autism, and nutrition. The exact causes of autism are not fully understood, but research points to a combination of genetic, environmental, and possibly prenatal influences. Maternal nutrition during pregnancy (including adequate levels of folic acid and vitamin D), gut health, and nutritional deficiencies may influence autism-related symptoms, though no definitive dietary cause has been identified and specialized diets show mixed evidence and require further research. At 1:16:00  Joel mentions health comparisons between Fake meat Substitutes and real beef. I don't know much about that topic yet, but here is somewhere to start looking if you are interested: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/impossible-and-beyond-how-healthy-are-these-meatless-burgers-2019081517448 At 1:19:51, 1:41:36, and 1:45:48, Joel mentions concerns about an agenda surrounding Claus Schwab, Bill Gates, and population reduction/control. This is a topic that I completely failed to properly question or investigate during the interview itself. This is not a topic that I was aware of or primed for, but there appear to be multiple articles online highlighting conspiracy theories surrounding these topics, and for that reason I would suggest caution regarding them. These are not my views, but the views of my guest. This does not detract from my guest's extensive expertise with cattle and regenerative farming. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Mvp36SgMRMY ►Find out more about Polyface Farm Here: https://polyfacefarms.com/ ►Follow PolyFace Farm on Twitter: @Polyface_Farm These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.

In this conversation I speak with Will Harris, who is a fourth generation cattle farmer. Will originally ran a standard industrial farm, but increasingly became dissatisfied by the welfare of his animals. That started a journey to change the way his farm ran, and over the years he has converted his operation piece by piece into a regenerative farm. That means no more grain feed, no more confined feed lots, no more hormones, no more pesticides. The basic idea is to focus on improving the land in order to leave it better each year. Will has come up with a system that is not only better for the cattle and the consumer, but which also appears to be significantly better for the environment. Its quite common to hear about the environmental problems caused by Beef production, including chemical runoff, loss of top soils, and methane from belches. But these problems are usually associated with intensive farming, where cattle are densely packed, and fed on grain. What does the story look like for regenerative practices? The claim is that when cattle are optimally rotated through paddocks,  their impact on the land is dispersed, and it reduces the need for pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and other pharmaceuticals (both in feed production, and within the herd itself). Solar energy goes into growing the grass, which captures carbon as it grows. Carbon is then processed by the herd on the field, and without wormer, and insecticides and other chemicals being used, a living soil is able to develop, which increases in carbon content over the years, drawing down carbon and fixing it in the soil. But what about methane production? Methanotrophs that metabolize methane are also found within healthy soils - and it might be the case that these species account for the methane produced by cattle. Third party assessments appear to show that White Oak Pastures does significantly better than conventional intensive farming,  and within the margin of error of the study, there is a potential that the beef production is climate positive, storing more carbon in the soil than the pasture-raised cows emit during their lifetime: https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef   ►Watch On Youtube or subscribe on YouTube to see more: https://youtu.be/IYYq2LRe0ow https://www.youtube.com/c/EscapedSapiens?sub_confirmation=1 ►Find out more about White Oak Pastures Here: https://whiteoakpastures.com/ ►Follow White Oak Pastures on Twitter: @whiteoakpasture These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and/or those of my guests.

In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by a wavefunction, which provides information about the probabilities of various outcomes, such as finding a particle at a particular location in space. This differs dramatically from classical physics, where a particle is described by a definite position and momentum. As a result, quantum mechanics inherently involves a certain level of uncertainty. A key question is whether this uncertainty reflects a fundamental indeterminacy in reality itself or merely our limited knowledge of the physical system. One possibility is that reality could be deterministic, and the wavefunction might simply describe statistical properties, much like temperature and pressure describe the collective behavior of gas molecules. In this view, the true state of the system would be governed by hidden variables—deterministic factors that remain unseen yet produce the probabilistic outcomes we observe in quantum experiments. The standard view, however, is that the universe itself is inherently probabilistic.  Furthermore, Bell’s theorem famously rules out “local hidden variable” models, suggesting to many that any such model must allow instantaneous causal influences between spatially separated objects. But is this standard picture as definitive as it seems? In this episode of the podcast, I speak with Rob Spekkens, one of the world’s leading experts on the foundations of quantum mechanics. His research explores the idea that a quantum state may represent a state of incomplete knowledge rather than an objective state of reality. Many of the phenomena commonly associated with quantum mechanics—noncommutativity, interference, entanglement, wave-particle duality, and discrete energy levels—can, as Rob demonstrates, be modeled with classical toy models wherein each system has a determinate physical state but where we have incomplete knowledge of this state.. Rob suggests that quantum mechanics may not be as fundamentally different from classical physics as it initially appears. If we truly want to understand quantum reality, we should focus on isolating and investigating the "thin film" of phenomena that distinguish a quantum from a classical world. That's what we discuss in this episode.  ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/J2ZIRkfrFlI ►Find out more about Rob's work: https://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/robert-spekkens ►Follow Rob on Twitter: @RobertSpekkens ►Subscribe And Turn On All Notifications To See More: https://www.youtube.com/c/EscapedSapiens?sub_confirmation=1 These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

Wheat, soy, corn, potatoes—did we really domesticate the best crops nature had to offer? In this episode of the podcast, I speak with geneticist Padraic J. Flood, who specializes in population and quantitative genetics. Padraic left academia and a position in vertical farming to pursue a dream: the domestication of the Aardaker. The Aardaker is a small, unassuming plant native to moist temperate regions of Europe and Western Asia. It produces edible tubers similar to potatoes, but unlike potatoes, these tubers are rich in protein. This unique combination could yield several times more protein per hectare than soy. Not only that, but the Aardaker is delicious, versatile (much like a potato), and improves soil quality by fixing nitrogen. If Padraic succeeds in domesticating the Aardaker—improving its size, uniformity, and other key traits—he could create a super crop that requires less land, enriches the soil, and potentially returns vast areas of farming land to nature. ►Find out more about Padraic's work: www.aardaia.com These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.  

In this episode I speak with Professor Thomas Metzinger about how our strong, consciously experienced subjectivity emerges out of objective events in the natural world. According to Thomas, no such things as selves really exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are what he calls `phenomenal' selves which our brains fabricate. In this episode I try to unpack what this means exactly, and what the implications are.  Note: The first question of this interview has been re-filmed after the interview. Thomas has a new book, which he made open access for everybody to read for free. You can find it here:  https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5725/The-Elephant-and-the-BlindThe-Experience-of-Pure  ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/KdHxUo8wRpY These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.  

Why is alcohol use so widespread? The usual thinking is that despite its negative effects, alcohol is pleasurable and that is why we drink it. But this can't be the whole story because if alcohol is really so bad then cultures that prohibit drinking should dominate over those that like to drink, or you might think that a genetic mutation that makes drinking less pleasurable would spread rapidly through the population. In this conversation I discuss this mystery with sinologist and philosopher Edward Slingerland, who is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, where he also holds appointments in the Departments of Psychology and Asian Studies. Our conversation ranges from the history of alcohol, to its biochemistry and impact on creativity and social life, to a discussion of whether alcohol was necessary for the development of civilization. ► Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/j36sKDsvZUg ► For more information about Edward's work see: https://www.edwardslingerland.com/ https://philosophy.ubc.ca/profile/edward-slingerland-iii/ ►Follow Stephen on X: @slingerland20 These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.  

This is a conversation with Stephen Wolfram about his proposed theory of everything. Stephen is a British-American computer scientist, mathematician, physicist, and CEO of Wolfram Research. He also created Mathematica, and Wolfram|Alpha & Wolfram Language, and is the Author of 'A New Kind of Science' as well as a number of other books. Stephen's attempt to derive all of the laws of nature (including gravitation, statistical mechanics, and general relativity) rests on two key ideas:  1. The idea of computational irreducibility. In physics we usually deal with systems for which we are able to predict the state of the system at a later time as long as the initial conditions are known. For example, the trajectory of a bullet can be calculated at any point along its path. There are, however, complicated systems like cellular automata where there isn't a closed formula that lets you calculate the state of the system at some arbitrary later point. Instead you are forced to compute the development of the system one step at a time if you want to know how it evolves. Such systems are 'computationally irreducible'. 2. The idea of computational boundedness. This is the idea that we have finite computing power in our brains. There are many complex systems that scale so fast that our bounded computing power isn't enough follow every element of the system (e.g. we can't visualize the motion of the billions of cells in our own bodies, and so instead we develop an aggregated model of ourselves). Starting with these two ideas, Stephen asks what a world with computational irreducibility would look like to a computationally bounded creature living in that world. He then builds a computational model based on hypergraphs (which you can think of as a kind of cellular automata), and from there attempts to re-derive all the laws of nature. This is an extraordinarily ambitious project, that lies somewhat outside of mainstream approaches to physics. The claim is, however, that significant progress has been made, and that this approach really is able to derive interesting aspects of the physical world. This conversation explores the key ideas behind the program. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/T0s_H9c2O28 ► For more information about Stephen's work see: www.stephenwolfram.com www.wolframphysics.org ►Thumbnail source images can be found here: https://company.wolfram.com/press-center/stephen-wolfram/ https://www.wolframphysics.org/visual-gallery/  ►Follow Stephen on X: @stephen_wolfram These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. This interview is one of a series of interviews that explores the impact of economics on sustainability and the environment. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.   A big thank you to anonymous for letting me use their space as a temporary studio.

Housing regulation is often put in place for good reasons, namely comfort, safety, environmental protection, availability of utilities and services, and more. With each additional regulation, however, restrictions are being placed on what you can build, where you can build, and how quickly you can build it. Professor Bryan Caplan argues that our current mess of regulations dramatically increases the price of housing, by limiting supply. This, he argues, has disastrous effects on fertility, and many social issues that we care about today, including social mobility and financial inequalities. Bryan argues further that inappropriate zoning and regulation creates widespread environmental damage through urban sprawl, congestion, and by limiting the number of people who are able to live in environmentally less damaging areas of the country (e.g. where heating and air condition is not required throughout the year, or where water is not scarce). Bryan's preference would be to lift many, if not all building regulations. My approach would be somewhat more conservative. We discuss the nuances of the debate in this conversation. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Rh1eFIveLfE ►For more information about Bryan's work: http://www.bcaplan.com/ ►For Bryans new book: https://www.cato.org/books/build-baby-build ►Follow Bryan on X: @bryan_caplan These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. This interview is one of a series of interviews that explores the impact of economics on sustainability and the environment. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. The views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.  

Julia Berezutskaya is one of the worlds leading researchers working in the area of brain computer interfaces. She is part of the brain-computer interface group (dept. Neurology & Neurosurgery) at UMC Utrecht, where she works at the intersection of fundamental and clinical neuroscience research. A key goal of her work on the computational modeling of cognitive and neurobiological processes is to one day allow for the decoding of naturalistic human speech from the brain signals of patients who have lost all motor function. In this conversation we discuss the basics of her work: what do the implants look like? Where do they go in the brain? What does the signal look like? What is being decoded? How are brain signals decoded? Who is getting these implants, and what is the state of the art? ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/JrE-Ux7BnHA ►You can find out more about the EU project that Julia is a part of where she will implant individuals with an intracortical BCI here: https://intrecom.eu/ ►You can see one of the mockup implants she uses here:  https://wysscenter.ch/advances/ability/ ►Visit Julias website to find out more about her work: https://www.juliaberezutskaya.com/ These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.