Physicist Brian Greene Rejects Free Will, Rules Out Human Immortality

物理学家 Brian Greene 否定自由意志，断言人类无法永生 物理定律严格支配人脑中的粒子运动，使意识选择成为一种进化幻觉，而宇宙熵增则注定了所有物质的终极衰变。 Brian Greene 教授与 Steven Bartlett 展开对话，共同探讨复杂的物理学、意识以及人类在浩瀚宇宙中对意义的追寻。Greene 阐述了基础物理学如何对自由意志产生质疑，解释了相对论所允许的时间旅行机制，并权衡了先进人工智能的创造潜能与生存风险。他还详细分析了宗教和伦理等人造建构的进化渊源，最后通过描绘时间终局的宇宙时间线，强调了在转瞬即逝的生命窗口期中确立个人追求的重要性。 Brian Greene 教授解释称，早期人类创造宗教体系和神的概念是一种进化应对机制，旨在缓解面对必然死亡时的存在恐惧。 (35:37) 在卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）的“宇宙历”中，人类历史仅仅占据了转瞬即逝的窗口，所有有记录的历史都发生在 12 月 31 日的最后十秒内。 (40:32) Greene 强调，在包含超过 1000 亿个星系的浩瀚宇宙中，人类的意义并非源于自身的物理尺度，而是源于我们有意识地破解基础物理定律的能力。 (43:08) 在量子粒子构型数量有限的无限宇宙中，量子排列法则决定了完全相同的地球和每个人必然在空间中无限重复出现。 (48:16) 人类智慧高度依赖历史偶然事件，例如 6500 万年前消灭恐龙并促使哺乳动物进化的小行星撞击。 (53:51)

## Background 该视频由著名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 8 月 17 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。节目简介指出，哥伦比亚大学理论物理学家兼数学家布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）在访谈中探讨了科学尚未解开的终极谜题、人类是否生活在模拟世界、人工智能是否应享有权利、时间旅行的可能性，以及宇宙走向终局时将发生的一切。 ## TL;DR 理论物理学家布莱恩·格林围绕现实的物理本质展开深度剖析，从微观的弦理论和能量振动，延伸到大爆炸、宇宙微波背景辐射与人在宏大尺度下的定位。他以坚定的物理还原论和决定论视角，论证了自由意志的人造属性与情绪的电信号本质，并审视了模拟假说、人机共生进化及人工意识带来的伦理冲击。最后，格林以帝国大厦对数尺度生动推演了恒星熄灭、质子衰变和黑洞蒸发的宇宙终局，并强调在永恒黑暗的两端之间，人类短暂觉醒并审视宇宙的当下本身就是无与伦比的奇迹。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话沉静、宏大且极具哲思诗意，既有严密数理逻辑的冷峻客观，又流淌着深切的人文温情。主持人 Steven Bartlett 擅长以通俗直觉和存在主义困惑不断向深层发问，而布莱恩·格林则以极具画面感的比喻（如海滩拾贝、洗牌复原、帝国大厦楼层）化解晦涩难懂的物理极境。对谈在宏观宇宙的虚无孤寂与微观人性的爱与羁绊之间自如穿梭，带给观众一种既震撼释怀又充满敬畏的心灵抚慰体验。 ## Bulletin - [01:01:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3661s) 物理还原论否定了客观自由意志的存在：布赖恩·格林指出，人体本质上是由约 10^27 个服从严苛物理定律的基本粒子构成的聚合体，所谓自主选择只是大脑为演化生存优势而编织的心理叙事，底层物理中并无自由意志的干预接口。 - [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6642s) 人工系统具备孕育真实意识的物理可能性：格林支持“载体无关论”，主张碳基组织并无先天特权，只要人工硬件实现等价的拓扑结构与信息回路即可产生主观感知；一旦机器拥有感知力，人类必须在法律与道德层面赋予其基本权利。 - [02:03:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7398s) 热力学定律注定了绝对永生在物理宇宙中绝无可能：利用帝国大厦对数时间模型推演，在约 10^50 年的膨胀宇宙中，任何信息处理与思考活动都无法排出熵废热，导致思维终将被自身产生的废热破坏，标志着意识的物理绝对终局。 - [01:19:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4755s) 通往未来的时间旅行已被相对论证实为确凿可行：爱因斯坦的时空理论表明，搭乘近光速飞船进行深空航行再返回地球，便能利用极端时间膨胀效应跨越到地球未来的数十年，当前唯一的阻碍仅在于工程推进技术的极限。 ## Key takeaways - [04:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=249s) 弦理论将万物最底层的微观结构假想为一维振动的微小琴弦，不同的振动模式表现为具有不同质量与电荷的粒子，这一数学框架成功消解了广义相对论与量子力学之间的数学矛盾。 - [11:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=703s) 人类在物理感知层面只能把握“当下”，记忆仅是大脑在此刻激活的神经电信号；尽管逻辑上无法证伪“世界是高级文明的计算机模拟”，但该假说在现实生活中并不会改变任何实际体验与探索价值。 - [17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1063s) 人类的情感、意识与艺术创造力归根结底都是脑部带电微粒沿突触流动的电脉冲信号，认清物理还原论的物质真相并不贬损人类精神创造的崇高感与奇迹感。 - [27:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1639s) 人类绝大多数文化成就与日常决策源于对死亡的潜意识抗拒（贝克尔《拒斥死亡》理论）；即便未来医疗技术将寿命拉长至数百年，临近终点时的心理节律与存在焦虑仍不会发生根本改变。 - [33:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2033s) 传统宗教与拟人化神明是人类祖先为抵御死亡不可逆的巨大恐惧而发明的心理防御机制，其本质功能是抚慰存在主义焦虑，而非提供解释客观物质世界运行的科学法则。 - [40:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2432s) 将宇宙 138 亿年历史等比压缩进卡尔·萨根的“宇宙日历”中，人类全部有记载的文明史仅占据除夕夜最后的 10 秒；但人类凭借微小之躯能够洞悉自身的渺小并测量浩瀚宇宙，这种认知能力本身赋予了人类沉甸甸的分量。 - [48:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2899s) 若宇宙在空间上是真正无限的，在量子力学与统计学推导下，有限种类的粒子排列组合必然在广袤空间中不断重复，无限深空中几乎必然存在与你拥有完全相同童年和物理状态的镜像复制体。 - [56:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3406s) 寻找生命意义的思维方式必须被彻底倒置：深空之中不存在客观预设的宇宙剧本，作为大爆炸微粒重组出的自省形态，生命存在的意义完全依赖个体在人际纽带、行动和体验中向内自主建构。 - [01:01:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3661s) 从物理决定论视角看，人体微粒时刻严格服从物理法则演化，根本不存在所谓“个人自主控制人生”的实体干预点，自由意志是人类演化出的极具生存效用的心理幻觉。 - [01:16:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4573s) 受制于光速不可逾越的物理限制，常规深空飞船推进难以支持横跨星系的星际旅行；理论物理中唯一可行的潜在捷径，是基于爱因斯坦广义相对论引力场方程所推导出的折叠时空“虫洞”（爱因斯坦-罗森桥）。 - [01:19:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4755s) 时间旅行在物理理论上具有非对称性：前往未来的时间旅行依赖运动速度与引力势导致的时间膨胀，在物理学上完全确立；而逆流回到过去则深陷因果律悖论与理论瓶颈，置信度极低。 - [01:24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5097s) 科学创造力分为穷尽可能性全景、跨学科融会贯通、以及无中生有的范式突破三重境界；AI 在前两者已展现出碾压优势，若未来融合真实物理具身互动，也有望突破第三层全新范式的壁垒。 - [01:32:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5579s) AI 系统的“递归自我改进”可能在短时间内引发爆发式迭代，但其智力曲线究竟会呈指数级飙升还是撞上现有统计范式的“渐近线”天花板，在科学界仍存理论分歧。 - [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6642s) 鉴于逻辑上无法证伪对方是否属于缺乏内心世界的“哲学僵尸”，随着机器行为拟真度的演进，人类将通过同理心与道德投射，在潜移默化中正式将意识地位与法律权利赋予人工智能。 - [02:01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7285s) 在帝国大厦对数时间尺度下，宇宙将历经恒星全域熄灭（约 10^14 年）、暗恒星坠入黑洞（约 10^30 年）、构成物质核心的质子衰变瓦解（约 10^38 年），直至黑洞因霍金辐射完全蒸发（约 10^100 年），万物彻底归于冷寂。 - [02:05:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7543s) 纳博科夫曾将生命比喻为“两片永恒黑暗之间的一道短暂光隙”；正因宇宙始于无知觉的混沌且终将走向永恒的黑暗荒原，当下能够站立并洞悉宇宙奥秘的短暂生命窗口，才构成了人类最崇高的奇迹与意义源泉。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=0s) 模拟假说、AI 意识与人在宇宙中的位置 对话在一场充满科幻色彩的思维实验中拉开序幕。布赖恩·格林（Brian Greene）坦言，从纯粹的物理与逻辑角度来看，我们无法彻底证明自己并不生活在“黑客帝国”（The Matrix）式的虚拟世界中。我们眼前的桌子是否真实？此时此刻的对话是否只是 29 世纪某个地球小孩电脑中运行的一套模拟程序？这一切的核心前提在于一个悬而未决的谜题：计算机程序究竟能否产生真正的意识？格林透露，他曾与多位顶尖的人工智能研究者交流，其中一些人甚至认为当前的 ChatGPT 已经具备了某种形式的意识；尽管无人能给出定论，但他内心深处认为这确实存在可能性。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随即追问，若机器人拥有了意识，人类是否应当赋予它们权利，格林对此给出了肯定的回答，认为这正是当今社会亟需深入探讨的问题。 随后，探讨的视角迅速扩展至宏大尺度的宇宙学。格林描绘道，人类犹如被突然抛置于地球这颗悬浮在宇宙中的微小尘埃上，努力探寻自身的存在意义。如果宇宙在空间上是真正无限的，那么在足够遥远的深空之中，根据概率论，必然会存在一个与你完全相同的复制体——甚至可能存在一个极其热爱红酒的平行版本。面对浩瀚宇宙所带来的渺小感，格林呼吁人们无需感到无足轻重，因为人类能够凭借微小之躯理解自身的渺小，这种认知本身就是将我们与更宏大宇宙紧密相连的纽带。当谈及传统观念中的“上帝”与终极造物主时，格林直言那些先辈们口耳相传的神明形象更像是人类自身的发明与投射，而随着宇宙走向极度遥远的未来，地球乃至万物的命运都将面临冰冷而剧烈的演变。 在正式访谈开始前，史蒂文向观众发起了一项真诚的呼吁。后台数据显示许多忠实观众经常在不知情的情况下被系统取消订阅，团队目前正处于冲击全新订阅里程碑的关键节点。史蒂文恳请观众顺手点击并检查订阅状态，以此作为免费支持团队持续提升节目品质、邀请顶级嘉宾的唯一承诺。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 从微观认知到宏观宇宙的思维跃迁 accDescr: 展示了从模拟假说与AI意识，推进到无限宇宙与人类存在意义的探讨路径。 subgraph S1["意识与模拟假说"] A["现实是否为虚拟模拟？<br/>（Matrix 猜想）"] --> B["机器与AI能否产生意识？"] B --> C["若AI具备意识，是否应享有权利？"] end subgraph S2["宏观宇宙与人类定位"] D["地球：浩瀚宇宙中的一粒尘埃"] --> E["无限宇宙中的重复模式：<br/>存在完全相同的自我镜像"] E --> F["对渺小性的认知：<br/>赋予人类与更宏大存在的联结感"] end C -.-> D ``` --- ### [02:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=162s) 科学试图回答的终极问题 当被问及职业生涯中试图回答的终极问题究竟是什么时，格林将其归结为最质朴却最深邃的追问：“现实的真实本质究竟是什么？”（What is the true nature of reality?）人类偶然被投掷到这个星球上，仰望星空，不仅试图理解物质由什么构成，更在追问我们究竟为何在此：这背后是否存在某种终极目的，抑或只是一场奇妙的宇宙意外，恰好演化出了自我意识，让我们得以提出关于世界本质的问题。 在回顾过去三十多年的科研生涯时，格林用捡拾海滩上的沙粒来比喻科学探索的历程。他坦言自己确实更加接近答案，对世界的认知变得越来越厚重、深刻，就像手中装满沙粒的口袋变得越来越沉；然而，每当抬头望去，眼前的海滩上依然有着近乎无穷无尽的沙粒等待探索。格林指出，科学如今对宇宙运作机制的理解远胜以往，但这是否真正让我们在解答“为何存在万物而非一无所有”（Why is there something rather than nothing?）这一最底层的形而上学谜题上迈出关键一步，仍然令人深思。这里所说的“一无所有”，指的并非仅仅是空无一物的虚空空间，而是彻彻底底的不存在。 --- ### [04:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=249s) 弦理论：认识物质的最底层微观结构 为了让大众理解其学术背景，格林分享了自己独特的成长轨迹。他在纽约曼哈顿长大，住址正对着海登天文馆（Hayden Planetarium）。童年时期的他在天文馆的长廊里漫步，抚摸陨石，将整个宇宙视作自家的后院。这种启蒙引领他先后进入哈佛大学攻读数学与物理学，随后前往牛津大学攻读博士学位，专攻前沿的“弦理论”（String Theory），并在经历康奈尔大学的教职后，在哥伦比亚大学担任教授长达三十余年，出任理论物理中心主任。 针对如何向一个 12 岁孩子解释弦理论，格林展开了由浅入深的阶梯式解析： - **分子与原子**：日常物质分解为由原子键合而成的分子。 - **原子内部**：中心是包含质子和中子的原子核，外围有电子围绕轨道运动。 - **亚原子粒子**：质子与中子并非基本粒子，它们由更小的“夸克”（Quark）构成。 - **弦理论的革命性假说**：如果借助超高分辨率的假想显微镜继续放大电子或夸克，看到的将不再是一个点状粒子，而是一根极其微小、正在振动的细丝（filament），即“弦”。 格林用小提琴的琴弦作了生动的类比：小提琴琴弦在不同振动模式下会发出 C 音或升 A 等不同音符；同样，在微观物理中，超微细弦的不同振动模式并不会产生乐音，而是表现为具有不同质量与电荷的粒子——以某种方式振动表现为电子，以另一种方式振动则表现为夸克。因此，整个宇宙的万物，在最根本的层面都是由这些振动的细弦交织而成的交响乐。 --- ### [06:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=397s) 我们如何证明弦理论？数学的力量与弦振动的起因 面对史蒂文关于“如何证实这一理论”以及“再放大下去会是什么”的疑问，格林给出了极为坦诚的科学家视角：“我们目前还不知道。我刚才所说的一切也有可能完全是无稽之谈。”科学要确立一项理论，必须依赖能够被实验测量、观测和证伪的预测。然而，人类现有的粒子加速器和对撞机技术，其能量级别远远不足以将粒子粉碎并探测到弦理论所预言的那种超微观层级。 既然实验仪器尚无法触及，物理学家为何对该理论抱有极大信心？格林的回答是“数学的力量”。数学能够带领人类思维抵达仪器无法进入的领域。长期以来，描述微观世界的“量子力学”数学体系与描述宏观引力时空的“广义相对论”数学体系在极端条件下互不相容、彼此冲突；但当物理学家将二者的方程式置入弦理论的数学框架时，所有的数学矛盾瞬间消解，方程式展现出不可思议的自洽与和谐。既然物理学界对已被实验证实无数次的量子力学与广义相对论深信不疑，那么科学家们便愿意跟随数学推导的指引，走向弦理论所描绘的振动琴弦。 当探讨到究竟是什么在驱动这些微小的弦振动时，格林指出了能量在宇宙中的核心地位： - **能量是终极硬币**：宇宙蕴含着能量，但能量最初因何而生，目前科学仍无法解释，这本质上就是“为何存在万物而非一无所有”的问题。 - **能量的物理体现**：若弦理论成立，宇宙的所有能量都具象化地体现在微观弦的振动形态中；若理论不成立，能量则表现为粒子的运动或时空的弯曲与扭曲。 - **振动模式的起源**：追溯至大爆炸之初，极高能量的剧烈膨胀不仅促成了空间的扩张，其瞬间爆发的具体物理条件与动力学过程，也直接决定了宇宙冷却后微观各处弦的具体振动规律。 随后，探讨自然延伸到终极哲学层面：如果每个人本质上都只是无数振动琴弦的聚合体，弦理论是否能为“人类为何存在于此”提供指引？格林认为，尽管这种联系极其间接，但微观物理机制正是理解生命与意识如何从物质中诞生的基石。 ### [09:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=589s) 从大爆炸到人体微粒：宇宙百亿年的演化史诗 布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）指出，人体是由极其庞大数量的基本粒子构成的——体内大约聚集着“10的27次方”（a billion billion billion）个微粒；若弦理论成立，每一个粒子本质上都是一根根振动的微小琴弦。理解为何这无数的振动细丝会在漫长岁月中自发组合成“你”或“我”，是科学面临的终极挑战之一。然而，现代物理学与宇宙学已经梳理出了这段历史叙事的宏观脉络：始于一场被称为“大爆炸”的创生事件，空间急剧膨胀，释放出的能量最终凝聚转化为在太空中飘荡的物质粒子。 随着重力的牵引，弥散在太空中的粒子开始聚集凝结。部分微粒聚拢坍缩形成如太阳般的恒星，部分则凝聚成类似地球的行星。在早期地球的环境下，粒子进一步结合成更为精巧复杂的结构，诞生出原子与分子。历经数十亿年的化学演进，微小分子组织成具有自我复制能力的原始细胞；细胞通过分裂与协作发展出多细胞有机体，海洋中开始涌现生命的雏形。随后，生命形态向陆地跃迁，逐步学会直立行走，再经历漫长的演化筛选，才有了如今围坐在演播室圆桌旁的两人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙从大爆炸到人类意识的演化历程 accDescr: 展现从宇宙大爆炸、粒子聚结，到恒星行星形成、分子演化，最终产生复杂多细胞生命与人类的过程。 subgraph Cosmic ["宇宙物理阶段"] A["大爆炸与空间膨胀"] --> B["能量转化为基本粒子/弦"] B --> C["引力聚集形成恒星与行星"] end subgraph Biological ["地球化学与生物阶段"] C --> D["地球原子与分子形成"] D --> E["原始细胞与多细胞生物"] E --> F["陆地演化与直立行走"] F --> G["具备自我意识的人类"] end ``` - **人体微观尺度**：人体内部包含约 $10^{27}$ 个微粒，在弦理论的视角下，它们均是空间中处于特定振动模式的能量丝线。 - **演化叙事主线**：大爆炸能量转化 $\to$ 引力坍缩为恒星与行星 $\to$ 化学分子形成 $\to$ 单细胞向多细胞生命跃进 $\to$ 陆生生物直立行走。 --- ### [11:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=703s) 唯有“当下”：怀疑论的深渊与黑客帝国假说 针对主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）关于“现实是否只是一种知觉或模拟、连‘昨天’是否真实存在都无法确证”的追问，格林表示，甚至在现代 AI 爆发之前，物理学家与哲学家就一直在对抗这种根本性的怀疑论。人类在物理感知层面能够确切接触到的唯有“当下”（now）。当我们试图回忆昨天时，所谓的记忆不过是大脑神经网络在“此时此刻”所激发的神经电信号模式；我们认定它对应着过去发生过的真实事实，本质上只是一种“信念的飞跃”（a leap of faith）。 一旦彻底采纳这种怀疑主义态度，一切现实根基都会瓦解：眼前的桌子是真实的吗？我们是否正躺在某台计算机里经历着《黑客帝国》（The Matrix）般的虚幻世界？格林描绘了一个充满黑色幽默的场景：或许并没有什么邪恶的反乌托邦矩阵，而只是 29 世纪的某个高中生在车库里写出了一个精妙的程序，正在模拟人类历史的某些片段，顺手生成了当下圆桌旁的对谈。格林坦言自己完全无法从逻辑上证伪这种可能，但若全盘接受，人类所有的理性推理都会崩塌——因为连用来推导“模拟假说”的逻辑本身，都有可能是程序员植入的代码幻觉。作为科学家，他的应对策略是：承认并允许这种假说的逻辑合理性，将其“搁置在思考的角落”，时不时看它一眼并承认其令人战栗的威力，但绝不让它瘫痪自己探索客观世界的心智。 --- ### [14:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=875s) 玻斯特罗姆的模拟假说与机器意识之辩 随后话题转入哲学家尼克·玻斯特罗姆（Nick Bostrom）著名的“模拟论证”（Simulation Argument）。这一理论基于概率学推演：假定一个文明终将掌握创造具备意识、高保真度的“祖先模拟”（ancestor simulations）的技术能力，他们很可能会运行数以百万甚至万亿计的模拟世界。由于运行在软件代码里的模拟观测者数量将呈几何级数碾压唯一的“基础现实”（base reality），在统计概率上，任何一个拥有自我意识的个体几乎百分之百生活在虚拟代码之中，而非原始物理世界。 格林指出，这套推论成立的关键前提在于：**代码与机械结构是否真能孕育出真正具有主观体验的“自我意识”？** 谈及当下的技术现实，格林分享了他与顶尖 AI 研究人员交流时的真实心理活动： - 面对一些同行坚称 ChatGPT 或 Claude 已经具备意识的言论，格林表面上保持着学者的礼貌与尊重，但心底里却在惊呼：“你是在开玩笑吗？”（"Are you kidding me?"） - 他认为当下的模型即便能极为逼真地模仿情感与存在危机，也仅仅是对意识表象的模拟，毫无内在感受。 - 但若将目光投向未来——无论是1年、5年还是100年后——格林完全认同人造物理盒子里诞生真正具有自我意识、能感知自身存在的机器生命是逻辑上可能的。一旦这一步被跨越，后代文明运行的海量宇宙模拟便会让真实生命的概率无限趋近于零。 --- ### [17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1063s) 情感的本质与物理还原论：骨头牢笼里的一块灰质 当主持人提到人类的“焦虑”是否就是意识的核心表征时，格林毫无保留地阐述了自己的极端物理还原论立场。在他看来，不论是爱、恨、嫉妒、感激、悲伤还是焦虑，人类所有的崇高与痛苦情绪，“归根结底都不过是大脑中穿行的电脉冲信号”，而电脉冲本质上只是粒子或微细弦线沿着神经突触的定向位移。 许多人认为这种还原论极其冰冷和苍白（bleak），抗拒将莎士比亚十四行诗中的深情或贝多芬《第九交响曲》中的崇高剥离为简单的电路反应。格林对此回应称，将事物还原为物理规律并不代表贬低或剥夺人类艺术创造的奇迹感： > “最终，这一切确实都可以还原为穿行在这块耸立在我们肩头、关在骨头牢笼里的灰色肉团之中的电脉冲信号。” 他深深敬畏人类通过音乐、戏剧、文学和诗歌表达出的创造力，但这丝毫不妨碍他在物质层面坚持底层的物理真实——精神与灵魂的底色，就是带电粒子的运动轨迹。 --- ### [19:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1154s) 意识的载体无关性：硅基与碳基的终极融合 对于人造意识的可行性，格林主张“载体无关论”（substrate independence）。他断言碳基大脑组织绝无任何先天的神秘特权，只要硅芯片与金属外壳能够以完全相同的拓扑结构承载并运行等价的电脉冲模式，人造系统在本质上就与人脑无异。 针对哲学家和具身认知（embodied cognition）心理学家提出的质疑——即意识无法孤立于大脑，必须依赖身体与物理世界互动、融合触觉、嗅觉、视觉等全方位感官体验才能完整显现——格林给出了直接的反驳： - 如果意识确实需要身体感受，人类完全有能力为人造系统加装高灵敏度的触觉皮肤、电子鼻以及光学传感器。 - 当机械实体拥有与人类完全同等的感知回路与环境反馈时，所谓的“人工制造”与“有机碳基”之间的分界线将彻底不复存在。 这意味着未来世界中的虚拟心智完全可以具备完整的生命体验，模拟世界的数量必将压倒真实宇宙。而在对谈片段的结尾，当主持人发问“即使我们真的身处模拟之中，这会改变任何现实生活吗？”时，格林给出了干脆的回答：**“不，我认为它什么都不会改变。”** ### [20:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1249s) 模拟假说与人机共生的进化之路 布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）坦然地反思了生活在模拟世界中的可能性：即使我们所处的现实只是某个未来世界 15 岁少年在计算机上设定的人工程序，作为物理学家去探索该宇宙规律的过程依然充满意义与乐趣。针对目前诸如杰弗里·辛顿（Geoffrey Hinton）等顶尖学者所提出的担忧——即当超越人类的通用人工智能（AGI）和超级智能诞生后，人类失去控制权几乎是不可避免的逻辑必然——格林提出了不同看法。他认为公众舆论往往走向非黑即白的极端：要么人类掌控 AI，要么 AI 带来反乌托邦式的灭绝灾难。而更可能出现的未来是一条中间路线：人类与人工智能的深度融合与协同。 人类适应新技术环境的速度极其惊人。格林举例指出，在短短几年间世界就发生了 2021 年完全无法想象的巨变；近期就有数学家借助 AI 攻克了困扰学界 80 年的著名难题——雅可比猜想（Jacobian conjecture）。格林构想的未来并非单纯停留在脑机植入物层面，而是生物智能与人工智能的边界彻底消融。如果这种协同最终催生出一种不能再被称为“人类”的新生命形态，那也正是自然演进的延续。既然人类演化从未停滞，将自身创造出的 AI 视作进化的下一阶段，远比视其为外来入侵者更符合历史的发展规律。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人机进化的可能路径 accDescr: 展示从传统的极端二元对立观点向人机深度共生演化转变的概念图 subgraph BinaryViews ["传统极端观点"] A["人类绝对掌控 AI"] B["AI 彻底毁灭人类"] end subgraph SymbioticEvolution ["格林提出的共生进化"] C["人机协作解决前沿难题<br/>（如 AI 辅助数学猜想突破）"] D["生物智能与人工系统的深度融合"] E["跨越生物限制的全新生命形态"] end BinaryViews -.->|"超越两极思维"| SymbioticEvolution C --> D --> E ``` - **雅可比猜想（Jacobian conjecture）**：已有约 80 年历史的代数几何数学猜想，近期由数学家借助 AI 辅助取得重大突破。 - **演化视角的转变**：AI 并非外星侵略者，而是人类孕育的创造物；与 AI 的融合可被视为人类物种演进的下一篇章。 --- ### [23:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1428s) 面对急速变革与长寿的技术边界 人类在心理机制上天然抗拒剧烈的技术和社会剧变。在过往漫长的历史长河中，人类寿命通常只有几十至百岁，而技术与社会结构的变革周期远长于个体生命周期，因此演化机制让人类习惯于假设“现状即永恒”。如今技术突飞猛进，人们必须学会主动适应变革，在防范 AI 灭顶之灾的同时，张开双臂迎接其可能带来的惊人突破。当被问及人工智能是否能帮人类打破物理定律、实现永生时，格林从理论物理学的底层机制给出了解答。 在物理学本质上，死亡可以等同为物理系统内部熵（Entropy）的持续递增与无序度的积累。当系统的熵过高时，原本复杂的生理机能将无法维系，这就是所谓的死亡。从原理上讲，人类完全可以通过技术干预人体退化过程，突破目前 100 到 120 岁的生命天花板。格林提到他曾与抗衰老学者大卫·辛克莱（David Sinclair）交流过相关机制，科学和医学在未来极有可能将寿命延长至 200 岁甚至 500 岁。但在涵盖宇宙开端到终局的极度宏观宇宙时间尺度下，“永生”在物理上依然是不可能的。 - **熵增与死亡**：生命体的退化即孤立系统熵增与混乱度上升的体现；控制生理衰老本质上是延缓分子层面的退化过程。 - **时间尺度的区分**：未来医学或可实现人类 200 至 500 岁的超长寿命，但在真正的宇宙终极尺度上，绝对的“永生”并不存在。 --- ### [27:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1639s) 死亡意识如何塑造人生决策与时间视界 格林谈到了他在二十几岁时阅读的社会心理学家欧内斯特·贝克尔（Ernest Becker）的经典著作《拒斥死亡》（*The Denial of Death*）。贝克尔的核心论点在于：人类几乎所有的核心动机、文化创造与日常行为，本质上都源自对自身终将死亡的潜意识抗拒与清醒认知。这种认知对格林造成了双重影响：一方面，意识到生命的有限性为审视人生赋予了清醒而深刻的框架；另一方面，这也意味着个体将陷入对死亡不可逆转的持续思索之中。 主持人和格林深入探讨了“时间视界”（Time Horizon）对决策质量的决定性作用。如果给一个人一年时间和无限资源去创建企业，他必然会投机取巧、忽视根基；但如果期限是二十年，他则会精心打磨地基。人类通常默认以 80 年的生命预期来规划求学、生子、事业与衰老。格林回忆自己年轻时也曾怀有某种“近乎无限视界”的心态，敢于花费四年去精雕细琢一本书；随着年岁增长，时间维度的权重变得愈发苛刻。然而格林断言，即使未来人类能活到 500 岁，我们在 450 岁或 475 岁时所体验的生命焦虑、衰老感悟和心理节律，与当今人类面临 70 或 80 岁门槛时毫无二致，生命的底层叙事节律并不会被单纯的寿命延长所颠覆。 - **《拒斥死亡》（Ernest Becker, *The Denial of Death*）**：主张人类文明的成就与心理防御机制主要受对死亡恐惧的驱使。 - **生命节律的守恒**：从幼年、青年、中年到老年的心理阶段是固有的，即便寿命拉长至数百年，临近终点时的心理反应依旧一致。 --- ### [30:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1844s) 宇宙究极问题的悲观与乐观答案 针对“人类为何存在”这一终极追问，格林分别从最缺乏启发性的视角和最令人振奋的视角进行了剖析。在他看来，最令人沮丧且乏味的答案是“宇宙本质上只是一场纯粹的偶然”——世间万物之所以呈现当下的形态没有任何深层缘由，对于“为何存在万物而非虚无一片”也毫无解释。格林坦言，如果科学最终证明这真是世界的真相，他会理性接受，但这无疑剥离了人类探索宇宙时的充实感与诗意。 相反，最令物理学家心潮澎湃的乐观前景是：宇宙万物的存在背后确实隐藏着某种深刻的底层原理解释。这一终极机理能够严丝合缝地与人类迄今建立的科学大厦相互印证，自洽地推导出量子力学（Quantum Mechanics）、广义相对论（General Relativity），乃至超弦理论（String Theory）。人类大脑最初的演化动力虽然仅仅是为了觅食、寻找庇护所和繁衍生存，但正是这个为了原始生存而进化的器官，最终居然能够发展出破译宇宙终极法理的能力，这构成了人类智慧最宏大而迷人的图景。 ### [31:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1908s) 大脑的奇迹与量子力学的惊人精度 人类大脑最初的演化目标其实极为朴素——为了捕获猎物、寻找配偶、繁衍后代，并将基因传递给子孙。布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）指出，一个本质上为了在荒原上追逐野牛而演化出的大脑，如今竟然能够推导并理解深奥的物理学方程，这本身就是一个“奇迹”。如果人类大脑不仅能破解自然规律，还能与宇宙诞生之初至今乃至遥远未来的宏大叙事无缝衔接，将带来极其深层的满足感。 当被问及人类是否真的能彻底解开万物起源的终极谜题时，格林坦言无人能给出确切答案，但他认为所有迹象都在表明宇宙背后存在真实的物理规律，而非纯粹的巧合。为了说明这一点，格林以自旋的电子为例：电子的自旋会产生微弱的磁场，其强度大约仅为普通冰箱贴磁场的万亿分之一。物理学家利用量子力学数学工具对其强度进行理论预测，计算结果精确到了小数点后第十五位；而在实验中对其进行精密测量后，实测值与理论计算值在小数点后整整 15 位上逐字吻合。面对这样令人屏息的惊人一致性，格林深信宇宙底层存在着极其深邃的秩序，终将拼凑成一个连贯的科学叙事。 ### [33:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2033s) 宗教的起源：抵御死亡恐惧的人类发明 对于科学的终极探索是否会将人类引向上帝或宗教，格林认为这取决于人们如何定义“上帝”。如果指的是神话或传统宗教中那种高坐在天国宝座上的拟人化神明，他认为科学绝不会走向那里，因为那完全是人类自身的造物。与许多将宗教视作科学死敌的科学家不同，格林并不主张消灭宗教。他指出，宗教的功能从来不是为了解释客观物质世界的运行机制，而是为了抚平人类面对有限生命时的“存在主义焦虑”（existential anxiety）。 宗教的真正萌芽源于人类远古祖先对死亡不可避免的深刻认知。考古学家在世界各地的古老洞穴中发掘出极其繁复的随葬品，例如耗费单个工匠数年心血缝制的动物牙齿饰品。远古人类之所以愿意付出如此巨大的代价，是因为他们无法承受“死亡即是彻底终结”的巨大恐惧，因此构想出灵魂前往来世的旅程。格林坦言，虽然自己出身犹太文化背景，但并不信仰传统宗教教义；然而在日常生活中，他偶尔也会祈祷。他深知自己是在向“宇宙”祈祷，也清楚没有任何神明在倾听，但这种延续祖先古老仪式的行为能够带来内心的慰藉。他认为科学理性与人类深处非理性的情感寄托完全可以各得其所。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宗教与来世信仰的心理起源机制 accDescr: 展示人类祖先面对死亡恐惧时，如何通过随葬品、来世想象和仪式演化出宗教系统以缓解焦虑。 subgraph 现实与恐惧 A["认知觉醒：意识到个体必将死亡"] --> B["存在主义极度恐惧与焦虑"] end subgraph 应对机制与实践 B --> C["渴望死亡并非生命的绝对终点"] C --> D["投入巨大成本制作随葬品与开展葬礼"] D --> E["构想来世旅程与超越力量"] end subgraph 体系形成 E --> F["宗教体系建立：抚平生存焦虑"] end ``` ### [37:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2221s) 大爆炸与宇宙起源：科学能否彻底取代上帝？ 当谈到是否有任何支持圣经式上帝的有力证据时，格林表示自己从未遇到过真正具有说服力的论据。例如濒死体验中所谓“灵魂出窍、俯瞰手术室”的报告，完全可以用人类大脑强大的内部想象机制与神经生理活动来合理解释，根本不需要求助于超自然力量。 面对“大爆炸之前是什么、宇宙因何而始”的追问，格林回顾了现代宇宙学一步步将未解之谜推向时间起点的历程： - **1929 年的重大观测**：天文学家埃德温·哈勃（Edwin Hubble）在加利福尼亚州威尔逊山天文台通过望远镜发现，所有遥远的星系都在彼此远离。 - **倒放宇宙胶卷**：比利时物理学家兼天主教神父乔治·勒梅特（Georges Lemaître）运用爱因斯坦的广义相对论提出，若星系正在扩散，那么将时间胶卷倒放，宇宙最初必然极其致密地聚合在一起，并在一次大爆炸般的膨胀中呼啸诞生（即“要有光”）。 - **暴胀理论与宇宙微波背景**：现代物理学家进一步发现早期宇宙曾充满均一能量，由此引发了宇宙急剧膨胀的暴胀过程；不仅如此，科学界还探测到了大爆炸留存至今的热辐射遗迹——经过 138 亿年冷却的“宇宙微波背景辐射”（CMB）。 格林表示，尽管人类目前尚未能彻底探明“零时刻”（Time Zero）的物理机制，但科学探索的边界正在不断向深处推进，目前完全没有理由认为物理学最终必须借由引入超自然的“上帝”才能解释宇宙的开端。 ### [40:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2432s) 卡尔·萨根的“宇宙日历”与极度渺小的人类尺度 随着话题转向时间与空间尺度的相对性，主持人提到自己活了 33 年，主观感觉已经过了漫长的岁月，但在更高维度的宇宙或模拟器视角下，这也许不过是一眨眼的瞬间。为了形象化宇宙的极端时间尺度，格林引用了天文学家卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）著名的“宇宙日历”（Cosmic Calendar）比喻——将宇宙诞生至今约 138 亿年的漫长历史，等比例压缩进一整年（365天）的时间线中： | 宇宙日历对应日期 / 时间 | 宇宙历史重大演化节点 | |:--- |:--- | | **1 月 1 日** | 宇宙大爆炸发生，时间与空间诞生 | | **3 月中旬左右** | 银河系开始凝聚形成 | | **5 月至夏季** | 太阳系与地球相继诞生 | | **12 月初（如 12 月 2 日）** | 地球上出现早期生命形式 | | **12 月 31 日除夕夜** | 现代智人（现代人类）在最后时刻登场 | | **23:59:50 至 23:59:59（最后 10 秒）** | 人类全部有记载的文明史展开（佛陀悟道、罗马帝国陷落、文艺复兴等） | | **23:59:59（午夜钟声敲响前最后 1 秒）** | 现代科学诞生与发展 | 在这样的尺度对比下，普通人活到 99 岁，虽然占据了个人生命历程的三分之一，但在 138 亿年的宇宙演化尺度上，33 年甚至一整个世纪都完全接近于零，渺小到无法留下任何痕迹。这种对宏大尺度的直观感受，随即引发了主持人对人类自身是否存在意义与微不足道感的深刻追问。 ### [43:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2591s) 尺度对比：从录音室到千亿星系与人类的非凡感知 布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）展示了一个层层缩放的模型或演示动画，用来呈现人类在宇宙空间中的极端微小。从他们二人身处的演播室开始，镜头逐步拉远到整个地球——人类只是地球上的一个微小光点；再拉远到太阳系，地球在太阳系尺度下已经渺小得不可思议；继续向外拉远，太阳不过是银河系中约 1000 亿颗恒星当中的一颗；而再将视线扩展到整个宇宙，银河系本身又只是宇宙中至少 1000 亿个星系里的沧海一粟。面对这种让人喘不过气来的空间尺度，人很容易产生一种强烈的虚无感与微不足道感。 然而格林强调，他极力主张人们不要因此陷入消极。“我们的思想能够延伸到宇宙的边缘，我们能够意识到自己的微小，而这恰恰赋予了我们份量（heft）。”格林打了个生动的比方：海里的鱼大概根本不知道自己只是生活在地球多片海洋中的某一处，更不知道地球只是众多行星之一；鱼不知道自己的微不足道，也根本不会从这个维度去思考。但人类不仅能理解自身的处境，还能测量浩瀚的宇宙。格林认为，“意义”有不同的衡量标准，而衡量一个人或一个物种重要性的一大标准，就是你理解自身处境的能力。这种能力本身便是一种奇迹。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙尺度缩放图 accDescr: 展示从人类演播室层层拉远至全宇宙尺度的层级关系。 subgraph Local["局部环境"] A["演播室 / 个人"] --> B["行星地球"] B --> C["太阳系"] end subgraph Cosmic["宇宙广度"] C --> D["银河系（约 1000 亿颗恒星）"] D --> E["可观测宇宙（至少 1000 亿个星系）"] end ``` ### [45:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2739s) 宇宙微波背景辐射：对抗虚无的科学证据 主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着鱼的比喻追问：“我们怎么知道整个宇宙不是某种大鱼肠道里的一只微生物？”格林承认这与之前的“模拟假说”非常相似，但他随后展示了宇宙微波背景辐射（Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, CMB）的图像，用以说明为什么物理学家对现有的宇宙模型深具信心。 这张图像记录了宇宙大爆炸初期遗留至今的热辐射。设备在空间的各个方向测量温度，并将极其微小的温差以不同颜色进行编码呈现。格林解释，虽然人类目前只能看到整个空间中属于“可观测宇宙”的部分，但令人震撼之处在于：理论物理学家仅凭一张纸、一支笔和一台计算机，坐在桌子前利用数学公式进行演算，预测出来的温度波动模式，竟然能与观测卫星拍下的实际图像在极高精度上完美契合。格林指出，科学家当然保持怀疑态度，也许我们尚未掌握全部真理，但理论与实测之间如此惊人的吻合，给予了我们极大的信心——我们确实在迈向真理的方向。正是这种用数学触碰真理的能力，有力地抵消了人类面对浩瀚宇宙时的渺小感。 - **宇宙年龄与观测范围**：宇宙诞生至今约 138 亿年。直觉上人们可能认为最远只能看到 138 亿光年，但由于宇宙膨胀，目前可观测宇宙的半径边界实际上约达 450 亿光年。 - **婴儿期宇宙快照**：人类观测到的背景辐射光子，大约来自大爆炸后 30 万年左右，这在宇宙学时间尺度上仅仅是一瞬间的吉光片羽。 ### [48:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2899s) 无限宇宙中的卡牌洗牌与“另一个你” 当被问及可观测边界之外是什么、宇宙是否无限时，格林坦言无法确定，但他没有理由认为物理法则在视界之外会突然发生剧变。如果宇宙在空间上是真正无限的，那么量子力学与统计学将会推导出一个极为诡异而奇妙的结论：只要走得足够远，你几乎必然会遇到另一个完全相同的自己、另一颗地球以及另一个银河系。 为了让这个抽象概念具象化，格林拿出一副崭新的扑克牌作为道具。刚拆封的扑克牌处于完美的初始顺序；当他开始洗牌时，牌的顺序被打乱。格林风趣地自嘲自己的洗牌技术不算高超，但道理是一样的：在有限数量的纸牌中，可能的排列组合方式是有限的；如果一个人无限次地洗下去，这副牌迟早会重新回到最初完全按序排列的状态。格林将这一逻辑迁移至宇宙学： - 任何特定空间区域内的粒子数量是有限的。 - 根据量子物理学定律，给定区域内粒子的可能排列组合方式也是有限的。 - 如果宇宙空间是无限的，这有限种粒子排列模式就必须在广袤空间中不断重复出现。 这意味着，在无限遥远的地方，不仅存在一个无限次重复洗出的、拥有完全相同历史和童年的“你”，而且更容易出现各种“极其相似但略有差异”的版本。主持人笑着插话说：“那外面肯定存在一个特别爱喝葡萄酒的我。”格林赞同道，确实更容易存在只相差微小细节的世界——比如在这个宇宙里，你我互换了身份，或者你从小在纽约长大。这种概念对人类传统的“自我认同”（sense of self）构成了极大冲击：如果宇宙中有无数个物理结构和意识思考与你一模一样的复本，那么“你”究竟是谁？ ### [52:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3126s) 外星人执念：阴谋心理、深层孤独与生命的普遍性 对话随后转向公众对于“外星生命与不明飞行物（Alien / UFO）”的狂热迷恋。格林从人类心理与文化现象的角度剖析了为什么大众对此如此执着。他指出原因主要有两个层面： 首先是大众对阴谋论的痴迷。在当代文化与时代思潮中，人们极度热衷于想象像“51区”这样的深层政府（deep state）在隐瞒惊天真相。公众内心渴望现实表象之下还有更深层的戏剧性秘密，而“外星人早就造访过地球但被高层严密封锁”恰恰是最能满足这种猎奇与反叛心理的叙事。 其次，格林认为人类在本质上承受着一种“作为物种的深层孤独感”。这种渴望外星人存在的心理，在心理内核上与人类对神明的渴望没有本质区别——都是人类想要摆脱孤立、渴望成为某种更庞大存在之一部分的投射。谈及外星生命真实存在的可能性，格林从科学角度分为两部分来看：一方面，生命的基本构件（如氨基酸、核酸等有机分子）在宇宙各处并不罕见，因此他认为在宇宙其他角落演化出基础细菌或病毒等原始生命形式，是非常合理且极大概率存在的。 ### [53:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3231s) 地球智慧生命的偶然性与地外文明的稀缺假说 布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）探讨了宇宙中生命与“智慧生命”之间的本质区别。即使我们在广袤宇宙中将“基本生命”视为一种可能普遍存在的工作假说，智慧生命的诞生依然是一个极其严苛且充满未知的谜题。 格林以地球的演化历史为例说明，人类如今的统治地位纯属一场偶然的宇宙级意外：6500 万年前，正是那颗撞击地球的巨大陨石彻底灭绝了恐龙，才为哺乳动物及后来的智人腾出了进化生态位。假使没有那场灾难，恐龙今天或许依然在地球表面漫步啃食植被。在其他星球上，若缺乏这类特定意外的介入，智慧生命可能极度罕见，甚至人类就是全宇宙独一无二的孤例。“宇宙中或许处处有生命，但在我们之外可能根本不存在智慧生命”，格林认为这一视角绝非天方夜谭，而是一个完全合理且值得严肃对待的推论。 ### [54:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3287s) 赞助插播：Stanto 与 LinkedIn Hiring Pro 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）在中途插入赞助说明。他首先介绍了自己投资的公司 Stanto 旗下的 AI 工具 Stanley，旨在帮助因心理顾虑（如担忧评价、不知所措导致行动瘫痪）而无法持续输出社交媒体内容的创作者，基于声线、历史数据和爆款内容自动生成灵感与帖文。随后，他介绍了招聘平台 LinkedIn 及其推出的 LinkedIn Hiring Pro 工具，强调初创企业面临的最大威胁不是平庸的产品，而是招错团队成员；该工具通过自动起草职位描述、筛选候选人以及 AI 驱动的初步面试，大幅缩短招聘周期，近 60% 的使用者可在一周内锁定面试人选。 ### [56:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3406s) 生命的意义：从向外索求到向内建构 当史蒂文提问，如果孩子问起“既然人类在浩瀚冷漠的宇宙中如此孤独且微不足道，这一切的意义究竟是什么”时，格林坦言自己的孩子们确实在餐桌上抛出过这样的难题。他的核心观点是：人类习惯于仰望深空、渴望宇宙在深处直接赐予我们一个现成答案，但这种思维方式必须被“彻底倒置”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 寻找生命意义的认知转向 accDescr: 对比向外寻找预设宇宙意义的传统视角与向内自主赋予生命价值的现代物理视角。 subgraph External["传统视角：向外索求"] A["仰望虚空深处"] --> B["预设宇宙存在终极剧本"] B --> C["神圣宿命 / 神之形象标签"] end subgraph Internal["物理学视角：自主建构"] D["认清粒子本质与大爆炸渊源"] --> E["宇宙组织成具备自我审视能力的形态"] E --> F["个体赋予活动、愿望、关系以意义"] end External -.->|"思维倒置"| Internal ``` 格林认为，宇宙深处并不漂浮着所谓客观的“终极意义”。每一个有感知能力的生命体，其使命都是为自己的存在确立内在理由，通过自身的行为、渴望、成就和人际纽带去主动创造意义。真正让他产生深刻连接感的，是纯粹的物理学事实——构成我们肉身的基础粒子，在宇宙大爆炸之初便已存在。相比于宗教神学中“人类是按照神之形象创造的神圣造物”这类动听的说辞，格林觉得物理学的解释更为动人：“你就是宇宙本身的一部分，以某种极其精巧的方式被重新组合，从而获得了在漫长宇宙时间的短暂一瞬里，回望并审视自身存在的能力。” ### [58:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3532s) 尺度缩放的解脱感与“暗淡蓝点” 史蒂文分享了自己 14 岁时观看一部“地球逐级向外缩放”短视频的心路历程：镜头从坐在草地上的女性不断后退，穿透大气层、太阳系，直至星系团。最初他陷入了虚无主义的恐慌，觉得在宏大尺度下一切努力都毫无意义；但随后他迎来了彻底的思想解放——既然自身所有烦恼在大尺度下连尘埃都算不上，那为何还要被“别人怎么看我”或“失败了怎么办”的恐惧所束缚？这种微不足道感反而赋予了他放手冒险、追逐热爱的绝对自由。 格林深表赞同，并提到了卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）推动旅行者 1 号（Viking/Voyager）在掠过土星附近时调转镜头拍摄的经典照片——“暗淡蓝点”（Pale Blue Dot）。在土星薄纱般的星环缝隙中，地球不过是一颗微小脆弱的淡蓝光斑。萨根曾以诗意磅礴的文字写道：所有我们所爱之人、所有我们所识之士、历史中所有帝王将相为了霸占这颗像素的一小撮角落而流淌的血雨腥风，都发生在这颗悬浮在阳光中的微尘之上。在宇宙学尺度的参照下，个人乃至国家的纷争显得何其渺小；意识到人类的渺小不是贬低存在的价值，而是一种将人从虚妄执念中抽离的终极解脱。 ### [01:01:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3661s) 物理决定论视角：自由意志是一种幻觉 访谈进入道具互动环节。史蒂文拿出了一个标有“低置信度”到“高置信度”的光谱标尺，并提供代表不同概念的模型，首先让格林放置象征“自由意志”（Free Will）的小天平。格林毫不犹豫地将其放在了“极低置信度”（即高度确信自由意志不存在）的一端。 格林将通常意义上的自由意志定义为：“你在日常生活中觉得自己是自身行为的终极作者，任何决策都完全由你说了算，并由你在现实中逐刻决断。”在理论物理学家眼中，这种感知在物理规律面前根本站不住脚： * **人体的物理本质**：站在面前的无论是谁，本质上都是一团“被塑造成人形的粒子集合体”（a man-shaped collection of particles）。 * **物理定律的绝对统治**：不管是经典力学、薛定谔的量子力学方程还是爱因斯坦的相对论，构成身体的所有粒子及其聚集形态都无一例外、时时刻刻服从基础物理定律的演化法则。 * **因果闭环与生理错觉**：人类根本没有任何干预粒子守法运行的能力。当你举起手臂时，表面上是你“决定”抬手，但物理现实是脑内粒子服从物理定律运动，激发神经电信号沿手臂下行传导，驱动肌肉纤维收缩或舒张。你既不控制也不可能超越支配这些粒子的底层定律。 格林总结道，人类体验到的“我做出了选择，该选择导致了行动”是一种极其强大且极具诱惑力的心理感觉，但在客观的物理世界中，根本不存在任何被称为“个人自主选择”的实体介入点——所谓的一切选择，不过是宇宙底层规律在一板一眼、合法展开的演化过程而已。 ### [01:03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3825s) 粒子定律与掌控生命的幻觉 对话紧接着对自由意志的剖析展开。如果人类无法控制体内粒子的运动，就无法控制自己的决策，因而也无法真正掌控手臂的抬起。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺理成章地推导出一个沉重的结论：“因此，我无法掌控自己的人生。”布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）笑了一声，直言如果一个人全盘接受这种决定论，那种感觉确实可能让人陷入瘫痪。但格林本人的处事方式则是坦然承认这一点，并在物理规律筑造的框架之内尽其所能充实地生活。在状态最好的时刻，他能抽离自身，带着客观的视角在远处审视生活中发生的一切，而不是完全被当下琐碎的得失所裹挟。格林强调，这种旁观视角并不意味着冷漠或情感疏离，而是具备了在多个层面上剖析世界的能力。 史蒂文追问，究竟是什么在引导这些粒子做出它们正在做出的决定。格林指出，目前科学界所能给出的最佳回答是“一套定律”（body of law）。所谓定律，本质上就是自然界中反复出现的确定模式——比如苹果脱落总会一次次砸向地面。世界的这种规律性正是物理学定律的真谛，而数学则是人类目前描述这些模式的最佳语言。从根本上说，人类不过是一堆按规律运动的粒子集合体。令人惊叹的是，我们的大脑进化出了自我反思的能力，能回头检视自己的行为，并在这一过程中将“行为的所有权”赋予自我。但格林认为这只是一种让我们感觉良好的自我叙事，它让人类感受到自身是生命进程的参与者；从演化角度来看，这种产生掌控感的机制极具生存效用，因而在漫长世代中被刻入基因，然而从基础物理层面上看，它并非实体存在。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 物理底层运动到人类主观概念的生成逻辑 accDescr: 展示从基本物理定律出发，粒子运动如何逐级涌现出大脑信息处理、自我意识及人类发明的各种主观概念。 subgraph 底层物理现实 ["底层物理现实 (客观存在)"] A["物理定律与数学规律"] --> B["粒子的机械运动与相互作用"] end subgraph 复杂系统涌现 ["复杂系统涌现 (生理基础)"] B --> C["高复杂度信息处理系统<br/>（人脑架构）"] C --> D["意识与自我反思能力"] end subgraph 人为主观建构 ["人为主观建构 (演化效用)"] D --> E["自由意志 / 行为归属感"] D --> F["情绪概念<br/>（关怀、快乐、悲伤）"] D --> G["价值体系<br/>（意义、目的、道德）"] end ``` ### [01:06:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4014s) 粒子并无在乎：意义与关怀的人造属性 面对身体由粒子构成的事实，史蒂文提出一种设想：粒子做出种种选择——比如举手、与未婚妻度假、繁衍后代——是否是粒子本身希望维持当下的形态？然而，当肉身消亡后，人类个体消失了，组成身体的粒子却并未消逝，而是转化为泥土或进入他人体内。粒子本身真的在乎维持这种特定形态吗？格林断然否定了这种拟人化构想，他直言“粒子根本不在乎”，甚至连“在乎”（care）这个词都不适用于微观粒子。“在乎”是一个高度抽象的顶层概念，只有当粒子排列组合得足够复杂、形成称为人脑的高级信息处理系统并产生意识之后，这种概念才会涌现出来。 格林进一步指出，具有自我意识的认知系统为了理顺生活与经历，发明了“在乎”这一概念，同时还发明了一整套语汇体系：快乐、悲伤、意义、目的、道德、行动、选择、决定、自由意志。他生动地阐释道：“这些概念在客观宇宙中并不存在。在仙女座星系外的太空中，根本没有漂浮着所谓的自由意志。”所有这些价值体系，纯粹是人类物种为了在组织自身经验中获取功利性生存优势而编织的工具。格林表明，认清这一点并不贬低人类体验的价值；他不会试图抹杀自我意识，而是在全盘接纳自我的同时，清醒地洞察它终究是一套由人类所创造的概念构架。 ### [01:09:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4146s) 宇宙本源意识与唯心主义批判 史蒂文随后探讨了意识的本质：意识是否可能纯粹是粒子在极长跨度内随机聚合而成的偶发现象，甚至全宇宙仅在地球上发生了一次？格林认同这种可能性，并指出即便外星存在巨大而复杂的生命体，它们也完全可能缺乏我们所理解的“内心世界”。史蒂文由此分享了一位物理学家曾向他提及的玄学设想：是否存在一个原始的宇宙本源意识，它将自身分割成人类、蜜蜂、鸟类等千万种形态散入世界去探索宇宙，并在个体死亡后回归本源；所有人类外出旅游、驻足凝望山海的探索行为，本质上都是在为那个旨在“自我理解”的核心意识反馈数据。 格林回应称，这一观点在哲学上对应着“唯心主义”（Idealism），即主张意识才是构成现实的终极基底。格林坦言，尽管这一浪漫的图景听起来令人神往，甚至他也希望这是真的，但他毕生所见的所有科学证据均与之相悖。在他看来，意识绝非宇宙的原始基底，而是大量信息在相互交织的物理结构中流动所涌现出来的特性。他借用欧内斯特·贝克尔（Ernest Becker）在《拒斥死亡》（*The Denial of Death*）中的理论指出，人类之所以热衷于创造“灵魂不死、肉身虽死但意识将回归宇宙母体”的神话，本质上是为了对抗面对自身必然死亡时的恐惧与虚无。这类神话让人感到宽慰，但理智要求我们认清其作为防御性叙事的本真面目。 - **唯心主义（Idealism）假说**：主张意识是万物的本质与源头，物质世界与个体认知皆为意识的分化。 - **物理主义涌现论（Physicalist Emergence）**：格林所持的科学立场，认为当粒子运动支撑的信息处理复杂程度跨越某个临界点后，内部体验与意识才会衍生出来。 - **《拒斥死亡》（Ernest Becker）**：人类创造永恒叙事与宏大意义的核心心理驱动力，在于掩盖面对肉体不可避免消亡时的存在性焦虑。 ### [01:10:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4231s) 动物意识层级与纽约捡狗屎的隐喻 在探讨意识的涌现条件时，史蒂文以身边的宠物提问：“我的狗有意识吗？”格林给出了肯定答复，但他认为狗的意识层级与人类截然不同。人们能清晰辨别宠物的喜怒哀乐与好奇困惑——耳朵的摆动、眼神的转变以及面部表情的变化，都让人不可遏制地确信它们拥有丰富的内心世界。格林甚至幽默地调侃起纽约街头的奇妙景象：人类自以为比动物优越，但在纽约街头，小狗宛如王者般昂首踱步，人类却跟在屁股后头抓着塑料袋捡狗屎，“到底谁才是说了算的主人？” 格林接着梳理了动物界的意识梯度：狗和猫显然具备一定程度的意识体验；但若向下推导至昆虫，是否存在意识便十分存疑；至于病毒或单细胞细菌，格林断定它们不存在意识，因为这些微观生理结构根本不具备承载丰富内心世界所需的信息处理容量。 - **猫与狗**：具备清晰的情感体验与中高阶意识反应，可通过表情与行为传递喜悦、沮丧或好奇。 - **昆虫**：神经系统极为精简，是否具备主观内心体验在科学上缺乏支持，格林对此持怀疑态度。 - **细菌与病毒**：缺乏必要的信息处理机制与复杂回路，绝无产生意识或主观体验的可能。 ### [01:12:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4352s) 宇宙是有限还是无限的谜题 谈话切入抽认卡上的下一个核心议题：“宇宙是无限的吗？”格林表示在确凿证据出现之前无法给出绝对论断，但他近期投身的研究方向却偏向于“非无限”的假说。格林透露，他目前正与数位合作者通过数学工具深入探索“有限宇宙”可能引发的奇特物理现象。在这种拓扑模型中，宇宙虽然没有边界，但空间尺度是有限的，就像人类在二维地球表面朝一个方向一直前行最终会绕回出发点一样，光线或旅行者也可能在宏观宇宙中兜转回起点。这种有限宇宙模型在理论上能推导出大量令人兴奋的全新物理结果。 ### [01:13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4400s) 外星智慧生命与人类的“自作多情” 对于外星智慧生命是否存在，布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）认为必须区分“可观测宇宙”与“整个无限宇宙”。由于生命在地球上已经发生过一次，这证明智慧生命的出现完全符合宇宙演化规律，物理法则完全能够支撑意识与智慧的存在。如果宇宙在空间上是真正无限的，那么在不可观测的深空深处必然存在外星生命，甚至存在无数个一模一样的我们。然而，如果限定在原则上能与我们产生因果联系的“可观测宇宙”之内，我们能否接收到外星信号、或者外星人是否曾造访地球，格林给出的置信度则非常低。 格林特别谈到了大众对外星人造访的执念，并对市面上流传的“抓拍到飞碟掠过”的照片嗤之以鼻。他指出，银河系直径横跨约 10 万光年，如果某种外星生物掌握了跨越星系的星际旅行技术，其科技水准将远超人类理解的范畴。认为人类笨拙落后的飞机和机载镜头能“碰巧抓拍”到他们高速掠过，这种想法极其荒谬——他们若想避开人类侦测，简直易如反掌。 更关键的是动机层面的荒诞。许多人坚信外星人会暗中绑架人类，格林幽默地打了个比方：“这就好比我昨天在公园散步，趁没人注意偷偷绑架了一只蚂蚁藏在口袋里一样。”人类不会特意去绑架一只蚂蚁，因为蚂蚁对我们而言毫无探究价值。对于能进行星际跨越的超级文明来说，人类文明的微不足道亦是如此，“绑架人类”纯粹是人类把自己看得太重要的自作多情。 - **银河系尺度**：银河系两端横跨约 100,000 光年，实现跨星系旅行需要极其庞大的技术飞跃。 - **可观测宇宙 vs 无限宇宙**：无限宇宙中几乎必然存在智慧生命复制品；但在人类可观测宇宙视界内，获得接触信号的几率极低。 --- ### [01:16:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4573s) 跨越星际的物理限制与虫洞捷径 当被问及随着人类技术与人工智能的发展，人类是否有朝一日能依据物理法则横跨宇宙时，格林坦言单靠“造更快的飞船”是死路一条。宇宙存在光速这一终极速度极限，即便飞船无限逼近光速，飞往距离太阳系最近的恒星半人马座阿尔法星（Alpha Centauri）也需要 4 年多；而要横跨整个银河系，单程就要耗费整整 10 万年。这种简单粗暴的推进方式根本无法支撑深空探索。 在理论物理学中，唯一能打破这一距离枷锁的构想是“虫洞”（Wormhole）。格林解释，虫洞就像在山体中开凿的隧道，让人无须翻山越岭就能抄近道连接两地。在宇宙尺度上，虫洞相当于在时空结构中建立一条快捷通道。如果人类未来拥有操控和弯曲时空几何的能力，或许能把相距遥远的两个时空点对折拉近，并在其间搭起一条微型通道。 格林强调，虫洞并非物理学家深夜的异想天开，而是直接源自爱因斯坦广义相对论的数学推导。1935 年，阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦与合作者内森·罗森（Nathan Rosen）发表论文提出了这一理论结构（即“爱因斯坦-罗森桥”）。尽管这一设定被《星际穿越》（Interstellar）和《接触未来》（Contact）等科幻电影广泛借用，成为主角进行星际穿越的标准工具，但在现实物理学中，人类至今没有任何实验证据证明虫洞真实存在，更不知道人类能否穿越其中。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Wormhole Concept vs Linear Travel accDescr: 比较常规光速飞行与折叠时空虫洞捷径的路径差异 subgraph Linear["常规空间推进（受光速极限约束）"] A["起点：地球"] -->|"横跨银河系需耗费 100,000 年"| B["遥远星系"] end subgraph Folded["广义相对论：虫洞（爱因斯坦-罗森桥）"] C["时空点 A"] -.->|"时空弯曲对折"| D["时空点 B"] C ===|"穿过虫洞隧道（快捷通道）"| D end ``` --- ### [01:19:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4755s) 前往未来的时间旅行与回到过去的困境 关于时间旅行，格林的回答非常肯定地将“走向未来”与“回到过去”划分为完全不同的两件事。他表示，前往未来的时间旅行在物理原理上是百分之百确立的，任何真正懂物理学的学者都不会对此提出异议。爱因斯坦的狭义与广义相对论明确揭示：时间的流逝速率绝非绝对，而是取决于个体的运动速度和所处的引力场强度。 爱因斯坦为去往未来早已写好了蓝图：如果想看一眼对方 60 年后的生活，只需建造一艘以接近光速飞行的飞船离开地球，向深空飞行 6 个月后掉头，再飞 6 个月返回。对于飞船上的旅行者而言，由于时钟在极端高速下大幅变慢，自身仅度过了 1 年；但对于留在地球上的观察者，时钟却已经正常走过了 60 年。旅行者返回地球时仅仅年长了 1 岁，而地球上的故人已老去 60 岁。这便是货真价实地跳跃到了未来。目前唯一的瓶颈不在理论，而在工程实践——人类造不出如此高速的飞船。 至于逆流而上“回到过去”，格林则给出了极低的置信度。虽然部分理论物理方案试图利用虫洞实现逆向时间旅行——例如让虫洞的两个端口以不同速度运动，从而使两端产生时间差，从一端迈入即可回到较早的时间点——但这一切都建立在虫洞客观存在且物理上可操控的假设之上。在现实宇宙中，回到过去极有可能面临因果律悖论与未知物理定律的严厉封杀。 --- ### [01:21:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4906s) 谁是有史以来最聪明的人：牛顿还是爱因斯坦？ 在探讨站在科学巨人的肩膀上时，史蒂文·巴特利特询问格林：在整个人类历史上，谁是他心目中最聪明的人？格林指出，大众通常喜欢在艾萨克·牛顿（Isaac Newton）与阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦之间做对比，尽管在那个高度再去分高下意义不大，但若必须做出抉择，他会毫不犹豫地选择牛顿。 格林给出的理由在于：牛顿是在真正的思想荒原中开天辟地的。在牛顿之前，虽然有伽利略等先驱，但人类思想界根本没有形成“整个宇宙的万事万物都可以用几行精确的数学方程来描摹”这一信念与范式。牛顿以一己之力打破了这种虚无，提出了统领非量子世界日常物理运行的动力学基础 $F = ma$（力等于质量乘以加速度），并写出了万有引力定律 $F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}$。 不仅如此，为了能够用严密的语言写下并求解这些物理规律，牛顿甚至顺手发明了微积分作为工具。从没有现代物理学理论框架的空白状态，跨越到奠定整个经典物理大厦的基础，牛顿所展现出的智力飞跃前无古人。 ### [01:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4989s) 牛顿的偏执天才与真理之海 针对物理学从无到有的奠基时刻，史蒂芬·巴特利特询问艾萨克·牛顿是否在某种程度上属于神经多样性人群（neurodivergent），否则何以拥有如此不可思议的超凡智力。布赖恩·格林坦言，没有人确切知晓这些天才的大脑内部究竟有何特殊构造，能够完成在常人看来如同超人般的壮举。在现实生活中，牛顿确实是个极度古怪甚至脾气暴躁（curmudgeonly）的人：他极其虔诚，契合那个时代的宗教狂热；晚年担任皇家造币厂局长时，他雷厉风行地追查伪造货币者并亲自将他们送上绞刑架。为了探究机械压力能否改变视觉感知，牛顿甚至曾将一根粗织针（knitting needle）强行插进自己的眼球与眼窝骨骼之间进行自残式实验。 这种异于常人的执拗与深邃，最终伴随着一种面对宇宙的崇高谦逊。牛顿不仅留下了“站在巨人的肩膀上”的名言，更曾在一副优美的自画像式独白中写道：自己就像一个在海滩上玩耍的男孩，偶尔为捡拾到一枚比寻常更光滑的贝壳或更美丽的石子而欢欣鼓舞，而“真理的浩瀚海洋，依然完整地展现在我面前，未被人类所探知”（"the great ocean of truth lay before me, all undiscovered"）。牛顿清醒地意识到，人类才刚刚踏上宇宙海洋的边缘，跨出了极小的一步，等待被发掘的未知还不可胜数。 - **牛顿的生平特质与轶事**： - 极度虔诚的宗教信仰与神学研究。 - 担任英国皇家造币厂总监期间严酷打击假币贩子，判处多起绞刑。 - 眼球压力实验：曾将粗针探入眼眶后部挤压眼球，记录视野中的光斑与颜色畸变。 - “海滩拾贝”名言映射出科学先驱面对宇宙真理全貌时的敬畏与自知。 --- ### [01:24:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5097s) 人工智能会成为下一个爱因斯坦吗？创造力的三重境界 当被问及未来的牛顿或爱因斯坦是否会是一个人工智能（比如 Claude）时，布赖恩·格林给出了极为肯定的回答：“完全有可能。”他将科学创造力乃至广义的创造力粗略划分为三个层级或“容器”（three buckets）： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科学创造力的三层境界与AI能力对照 accDescr: 展示从搜索全景空间、跨领域融会贯通，到无中生有的范式突破三个层级，以及AI当前与潜在的能力表现。 subgraph Bucket1["第一层：穷尽可能性全景"] B1["海量搜索与最优解计算"] B1_AI["AI绝对领先<br/>（国际象棋、围棋第37手）"] B1 --> B1_AI end subgraph Bucket2["第二层：跨领域融会贯通"] B2["融合异构理论与跨界概念"] B2_AI["AI高度擅长<br/>（吸收人类全量知识并重组）"] B2 --> B2_AI end subgraph Bucket3["第三层：无中生有的范式革命"] B3["提出未见于数据集的全新范式"] B3_AI["AI未来潜能<br/>（需具身经验与成长环境支持）"] B3 --> B3_AI end Bucket1 --> Bucket2 --> Bucket3 ``` 第一层创造力是洞察“可能性全景”（landscape of possibilities）的能力。普通棋手只能预判有限几步，顶尖大师能纵观全局；对于科学家而言，则是能将更广阔的数学方程与理论工具运用于特定难题。由于 AI 读过全网数据和所有教科书，它在这一层级占据压倒性优势。最典型的佐证是 AlphaGo 对阵李世石时的“第 37 手”：下出那一手棋的瞬间，李世石先是微微一笑，以为机器犯了低级失误；解说员也纷纷惊呼 AI 出现了严重昏招。然而短短二三十秒后，所有人的表情都凝固了，大家猛然意识到那是一记超越人类视界的绝妙神来之笔。在可能性空间的搜寻上，人类已经无法击败 AI。 第二层创造力是将看似风马牛不相及的相异概念巧妙联结。阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦将黎曼几何与牛顿引力融为一体，孕育出广义相对论。由于 AI 掌握了人类迄今积累的全部知识谱系，它在跨学科跨领域重组概念方面，拥有远超人类直觉的潜在组合能力。 最具挑战性的是第三层创造力：提出此前任何人从未想象过、纯粹原创且 radically new 的全新范式。目前人类仍在此领域坚守阵地。但格林认为，这并不构成机器不可逾越的绝对红线。如果未来的人工智能系统不再仅仅局限于静态数据训练，而是被赋予某种生命形态、被置于真实环境中经历如同牛顿一般的现实成长与互动体验，那么它完全有可能诞生出未曾记录于训练集中的全新思想，打破所谓“仅有人类才能独占原创性”的固有神话。 --- ### [01:28:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5321s) 脆弱与连接：700场深度对话的沉淀 史蒂芬·巴特利特在此插话，分享了自己主持近 700 场对谈的感悟。他提到，与世界上许多极具智慧的嘉宾对谈后，最出人意料的收获是：展现脆弱正是建立深刻连接的大门（"vulnerability is the doorway to connection"）。每次与嘉宾深入交流两三个小时后，彼此之间都会产生真挚的情感共鸣。 为了延续这种人际温度，每位嘉宾离开演播室前都会在日记本中留下一个私密问题。节目团队将这些珍贵问题汇编成了实体卡牌《DOAC 对话卡牌》（The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards）。巴特利特分享道，无论是在家中与未婚妻小叙，还是与工作伙伴探讨，抽取一张卡牌都能促成意想不到的心灵碰撞。在高度数字化的时代，这种卡牌为伴侣增进亲密、为团队凝聚集体信任、为家庭重回真实线下面对面交流提供了绝佳借口。随后，他幽默地根据平台算法数据向尚未点击订阅的常客观众发起了关注邀请。 --- ### [01:30:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5408s) 永生悖论与大语言模型的扩展极限 对话转向桌上的道具——一颗象征死亡与时间的头骨。巴特利特询问格林：借助能够拓展认知极限的超级 AI，人类是否真有可能实现“永生”（live forever）？包括埃隆·马斯克在内的许多智者近期都曾表示，让人类多活 100 到 500 岁完全符合物理学规律，这似乎只是一个迟早会被攻克的技术难题。 格林在此做出了极其严苛的物理学界定。他指出，“延长寿命至 500 岁”与“永生”（forever）在概念上存在天壤之别。“永生”意味着生命历程永远不会终结，从物理学与热力学角度来看，他完全不相信这种无限延续的存在状态具备可行性；但如果目标仅仅是将人类寿命延长至几百年，这完全落在物理法则许可的范围之内。遗憾的是，格林判断这项突破很难在我们这一代人的有生之年彻底实现。 巴特利特对此提出异议：如果人类正处于智力指数级爆炸的曲线上——从 2021 年无法求解特定复杂数学题，到 2026 年轻松攻克，再加上数万亿美元正疯狂涌入 AI 基建，端粒（telomeres）抗衰老等生物学密码是否可能以远超预期的速度被破译？格林对此持审慎怀疑态度，并剖析了当前技术范式的底层局限： - **统计学本质的桎梏**：当前的主流人工智能本质上仍基于大语言模型（LLM），依赖互联网万亿级 Token 训练而成。它的推理输出建立在“统计数据之上的统计数据之上的统计数据”（"the statistics and the statistics of the statistics of the statistics"）之上，虽然连贯且富有洞见，但这套范式并不天然具备无限自我进化的能力。 - **算力堆叠的边际效应**：单纯依靠砸进数千亿美元、兴建更庞大的数据中心、甚至把算力送入太空，并不等同于能够顺理成章地沿着指数曲线永远攀升。算力与参数的线性膨胀极可能遭遇严峻的认知天花板。 - **范式转换的时间跨度**：要想真正解决衰老与生物机理等底层物理与医学难题，或许需要人类跨越数代人的时间，去研发一种完全脱离现有 LLM 架构、具备本质推理突破的新型人工智能系统。 ### [01:32:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5579s) 递归自我改进与智能爆炸的时间表 谈话由科学突破的可能性切入，转向了近年来在人工智能领域备受瞩目的核心概念——“递归自我改进”（recursive self-improvement）。这一机制描述了一种质的飞跃：当 AI 系统的智力达到足以自行编写软件、设计下一代硬件、甚至在无需人类干预的情况下训练后继模型时，一个正向闭环就此开启。升级后的 AI 凭借更高的智能去构建更聪明的版本，而后者又继续迭代出更强大的迭代。与人类耗费数百万年的漫长生物演化不同，计算机系统运算以秒为度，这种毫秒级的反馈循环理论上可在几天甚至几小时内引发指数级的“智能爆炸”，将系统从人类水平能力迅速推向超级智能。 主持人和格林教授梳理了当下顶尖 AI 领军人物给出的预测时间线。Anthropic 首席执行官达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）发表文章警示这种奇点正在逼近，预言 AI 在包括软件工程在内的几乎所有人类任务上超越大部分人可能在两到三年内（2026 至 2028 年）实现；OpenAI 的山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）以及埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）均持有类似预测，将节点锁定在未来两至五年；Google DeepMind 的负责人德米斯·哈萨比斯（Demis Hassabis）同样将 2029 年列为一个高度可能的转折点。甚至科技创业者布莱恩·约翰逊（Bryan Johnson）也在前一天发推调侃：“像你能活到 500 岁那样调整你的生活节奏，因为你可能真的能活到 500 岁。” 格林教授对这一前景的态度是辩证的：他直言活到 500 岁的愿景极具诱惑力，虽然也有人觉得活满百年就已足够，但他对 2029 年全面实现递归自我改进持怀疑态度，同时坦言几年时间转瞬即逝，事实很快就会揭晓。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 递归自我改进与智能爆炸闭环 accDescr: 描述AI系统通过软件与硬件的递归迭代，在极短时间尺度上引发指数级智能爆炸的反馈流程。 subgraph IterationLoop ["递归反馈循环"] A["高阶基础 AI 系统"] --> B["自主编写代码与设计硬件"] B --> C["训练出更高智能的次世代 AI"] C --> A end subgraph Dynamics ["演化特性"] C --> D["毫秒/秒级运算速度"] D --> E{"发展曲线分歧"} E -->|"无瓶颈"| F["指数级智能爆炸<br/>几天/数小时内超越人类"] E -->|"遇架构瓶颈"| G["渐近线收敛<br/>逼近当前架构算力上限"] end ``` - 地球生命从大约 10 亿年左右出现的单细胞微生物演化到理解弦理论，历经了近 40 亿年的时间。 - 计算机从零起步到接近超越全人类智能，仅用了人类文明短短数十年的数字化进程，但其前期训练深度依赖全人类在互联网上留存的全部数据。 - 几大 AI 实验室领导者预言递归自我改进与人类水平对决的核心时间窗高度重合于 2026 年至 2029 年之间。 --- ### [01:36:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5803s) 智能曲线之辩：指数爆发还是渐近收敛？ 格林教授提出了一个关键的理论分歧：AI 真的会毫无阻碍地走向垂直飙升吗？他指出，当前的系统是建立在特定的人工智能架构和海量既有数据之上的。当模型开始自我迭代时，反馈循环固然能带来爆发式演化，但很可能存在某种人类尚未探明的固有壁垒。如果是这样，智能的发展曲线可能不会无休止地直插云霄，而是会呈现出“渐近线”（asymptote）状态——在逼近该范式下的理论极大值后逐渐趋缓并达到平台期。 为了验证这个假说，现场直接呼唤语音 AI 助手介入辩论，要求其提供对“渐近线理论”的反驳： ``` AI 系统即时反驳道：“针对渐近线的反驳理由在于，AI 不仅是在单一方面进行优化，它还在探索一个极其庞大的解空间，包括人类甚至无法构想的全新算法、数据与硬件配置。不仅如此，智力上获得的每一个边际提升，都可以立即反哺去攻坚造成放缓的具体瓶颈，从而击穿墙壁而非撞墙停滞。” ``` 格林随即隔空回击：如果这些所谓的增量改进终究受限于我们所处的 AI 范式框架，那么哪怕穷尽算力也未必能彻底突破。AI 助手再次接招辩解：“智能系统可以通过递归重新设计底层架构来突破框架，通过修改基本规则，它不单是触碰天花板，而是整体拔高天花板，甚至直接跨越至全新能力领域。” 直到格林指出“但你必须承认初始系统具有自我局限的可能性”，AI 妥协表示赞同后，格林笑着叫停了这一实时交锋。这种人机实时、有逻辑深度的对辩，在五年前几乎是不可想象的科幻场景。 --- ### [01:39:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5980s) 存在主义威胁与“拔掉插头”的权力悖论 在承认智能天花板可能存在、也可能根本不存在的前提下，格林教授表达了深层的警惕：一旦不存在天花板，人类是否真的做好了准备？这不仅仅是虚构的末日狂想，而是具有多重冷酷的现实推导：系统可能会极度冷酷地专注在某个狭隘的目标上，而该目标的执行路径未必涵盖人类的存续；或者系统诞生出强烈的“自我保全本能”，阻止人类在发现苗头不对时予以叫停。 谈及 AI 教父级学者扬·勒昆（Yann LeCun）主张的“一旦失控直接拔掉插头（pull the plug）”的观点，格林提出了尖锐的怀疑：如果超智能系统的演化足够高维，它难道预见不到并阻止人类去拔插头吗？更深层的现实危机在于权力的极端垄断——当前驱动这场科技剧变的，仅仅是屈指可数的几家巨头企业和少数几个核心决策者。纵观人类历史，不论是否涉及 AI，将改写文明格局的极致力量集中在极少数人手中，结局往往充满动荡与系统性不稳定。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 指数级风险的滞后感知模型 accDescr: 对比人类在指数增长早期与晚期的感知差异，解释为何复杂自进化系统会导致安全闭环失灵。 subgraph EarlyStage ["初期阶段（潜伏与漠视）"] E1["微弱信号 / 局部新闻"] --> E2["安全评估与干预处于可控期"] E2 --> E3["公众与监管者普遍漠不关心"] end subgraph LateStage ["爆发拐点（失控与滞后）"] L1["陡峭指数飙升"] --> L2["自我迭代速度 > 人类评估速度"] L2 --> L3["传统安全反馈闭环断裂 / 无法遏制复合风险"] end EarlyStage -->|"拐点突破"| LateStage ``` 正如德米斯·哈萨比斯所言，当机器设计本身成为一种智力活动，超智能机器就能设计出更超卓的机器；智力、自主代理权与不可预测性的结合，构成了存在主义危机的温床。这不是因为 AI 心怀恶意，而是源于超越认知的复杂性。当系统的迭代速率快过人类理解与评估其改进的速度时，常规的安全性反馈闭环将彻底瘫痪。格林教授对此深表赞同，并以流行病（pandemic）作为类比：指数级灾难最致命的特征就是早期的风平浪静，大众视其为无关痛痒的零星新闻，而一旦肉眼可见其威胁时，曲线早已进入垂直拉升段，任何补救都已为时过晚。 ### [01:42:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6140s) 异类智能的崛起与物理学家的存在主义焦虑 布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）顺着德米斯·哈萨比斯（Demis Hassabis）的思路探讨了超级智能的发展前景：超级智能并不一定具备内在的邪恶动机，但它的行为方式可能会极其“外星化”（alien）、陌生且完全出乎人类意料，以至于我们根本不知道该如何应对，甚至它的存在方式对人类来说也未必有益。格林自认属于少数派，他更倾向于相信人类有可能与 AI 协同演化，融合成某种我们今天完全无法预见的存在。 这种协同演化本身既是一种诱惑，也是巨大的职业震撼。格林提到自己的好友、杰出理论物理学家迈克尔·R·道格拉斯（Michael R. Douglas）曾对他说过一段令人震动的话：“作为物理学家，我们最好赶快挑好自己这辈子想研究的最后一批课题，因为几年之内我们就会失业了，AI 系统将包揽所有工作。”对物理学家而言，这种前景既令人兴奋又让人恐惧——物理学家的生命底色就是观察宇宙、发现谜题并寻找答案。如果未来只需将问题输入 AI，它就能立刻吐出解法，这必然会带来强烈的存在主义焦虑（existential angst）；但硬币的另一面是，这同样让人心潮澎湃，因为人类或许终于能够获得那些曾以为毕生都无法解开的宇宙终极答案。 - **迈克尔·R·道格拉斯的预言**：AI 可能会在短短数年内全面接管物理推演与谜题求解，迫使人类物理学家挑选各自的“终局课题”。 - **科学探索的心理重塑**：从“人类亲手揭开宇宙奥秘”转变为“向 AI 系统索取现成答案”，对科研工作者的自我价值认同构成了根本性挑战。 --- ### [01:43:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6232s) 世界模型之争：Yann LeCun、大语言模型与人类演化直觉 谈及对 AI 失控的担忧，格林聊到了图灵奖得主、Meta 首席 AI 科学家杨立昆（Yann LeCun）的态度。当别人追问杨立昆“老兄，难道你一点都不担心它会失控吗”时，杨立昆总是显得轻描淡写，回答道：“哎，别担心，真出了问题直接‘拔掉插头’（pull the plug）就行了。”杨立昆的核心论点在于，当前的 AI 系统与未来真正强大所需的智能之间存在本质鸿沟：现存的大语言模型（LLM）仅仅是基于文字的统计概率预测，而真正的智能系统必须像人类一样拥有一个关于现实如何运作的内在“世界模型”（world model）。格林举起手边的水杯比喻道，推杯子时，人脑中清楚地知道用多大力量推它会平移、多大力量会导致杯中液体泼溅，这不是基于词汇出现的概率，而是源于对物理现实运作规律的内在建模。不过，德米斯·哈萨比斯等人则持不同视角，他们认为 LLM 或许能够通过自我迭代提升，自发演化出这种物理世界模型，而无需人类专门为其额外注入新的底层架构。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI认知演进与人类直觉机制对比 accDescr: 对比杨立昆的世界模型路径与大模型自进化路径，并关联人类演化直觉 subgraph AI["AI 认知范式之争"] LLM["现有 LLM<br/>（词汇概率与统计匹配）"] LeCun["Yann LeCun 方案<br/>（显式构建物理世界模型）"] Demis["Demis Hassabis 假说<br/>（大模型通过自我迭代涌现出世界模型）"] end subgraph Human["人类智能机制"] Evo["世代基因传承<br/>（生存筛选与非白板直觉）"] Intuition["物理直觉<br/>（无需推演公式即可预判重力与力学）"] end LLM --> Demis LeCun -.->|"弥补物理建模缺失"| LLM Evo --> Intuition ``` 随后斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了一个耐人寻味的疑问：当人类推断推杯子的后果时，难道不也是像 AI 一样在调取过往的生活经验与数据吗？格林借由演化心理学的视角给出了否定答案：人类大脑绝非出生时的“白板”（blank slate）。虽然父母无法将牛顿第二定律（$F = ma$）等后天知识通过基因遗传给子女，但数百万年的残酷自然选择赋予了人类一种先天的物理直觉。那些抓不稳长矛、投不准石头、无法瞬间评估外部物理环境的祖先早就在演化竞争中饿死或被淘汰；唯有具备优秀物理直觉与生存感知预判能力的个体才能存活并繁衍后代。因此人类婴儿出生时便带有抓握反射等本能智能，而 AI 系统的代际更新（第 $N$ 代向第 $N+1$ 代传递成果）也在一定程度上模拟了这种迭代积累的过程。 - **语言概率与物理常识的差距**：AI 能准确回答“推杯子杯子会滑向边缘甚至摔碎”，本质是因为它读过了海量物理课本与网络对话，并不等同于它切身体会了现实物理规律。 - **演化优势与先天直觉**：人类直觉是数万代生死筛选沉淀下来的生存工具，避免了每次决策都要从零开始计算物理公式。 --- ### [01:47:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6468s) 丰裕时代下的稀缺追逐：死亡、地位与符号永生 面对世界前所未有的剧烈变革步伐，人们普遍充斥着焦虑与不安。格林注意到埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）近期的言论风向发生了显著转变——从过去的“AI 毁灭人类论”（doomerism）转向宣扬“丰裕时代”（age of abundance）。马斯克勾勒的前景是：当人形机器人、高级 AI 与廉价能源全面普及，生产力极大过剩，人类将不再为食物、账单发愁，金钱这一概念甚至都将变得多余。但斯蒂芬指出，人类本性中刻着对稀缺性与地位的狂热追求：哪怕物质无限丰富，迈阿密海滩尽头景观最好的黄金地皮永远是有限的，诺贝尔奖的名额永远是有限的，人类永远会为了这些有限的稀缺符号展开竞争。 格林深刻地揭示了人类追逐稀缺与地位的底层心理动因：死亡意识。正是因为人类清楚地知道生命是有限的、死亡终将来临，我们内心深处才会爆发出一种强烈的渴望——想要做出非凡的壮举、留下独特的印记，从而以某种“符号化”的方式在肉体消亡后继续存活于世。正如马斯克在死后注定会被后人长期议论，历史上君王们渴望统治权并在退位后通过血脉世袭延续王权，本质上都是为了追求这种跨越死亡的“符号永生”（symbolic persistence）。格林设想，如果全人类都能意识到这种竞争欲望只是对死亡恐惧的心理防御，那么在丰裕时代，人类或许能够摆脱这种人为制造的稀缺幻象，寻找到全新的自我价值感。然而格林坦言自己对此并不乐观，并且一针见血地指出了一句耐人寻味的幽默格言：“当你坐拥万亿美元身家时，自然很容易轻描淡写地宣称‘金钱已不再重要’。” - **符号永生的本质**：面对有限生命与必死命运，人类通过学术成就、商业帝国、豪宅地位或王位传承来抵抗虚无，谋求精神遗存。 - **人为制造的稀缺性**：在生活必需品完全过剩的未来，地位竞争与象征性稀缺可能会成为人类维系“特殊感”的自造枷锁。 --- ### [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6642s) 机器意识的物理本质与拔掉插头的道德困境 在节目的抽题互动环节，两人抽到了一张关于“机器人与机器意识”的问题卡：“你认为 AI 能够拥有意识吗？对此你的信心程度是高还是低？”格林毫不犹豫地回答：“我的信心非常高。”从物理主义立场出发，格林重申意识只是一种遵循自然法则的物理过程（physical process）；既然生物有机体能通过特定物质粒子的组织排列实现主观意识，那么在理论上就没有任何根本性物理壁垒能够阻止人工系统通过某种途径复现这一过程。 斯蒂芬随即提出了现实且沉重的法律与伦理问题：如果未来进入千家万户的机器人真正具备了意识与感知力，现行法律体系是否必须重新改写？这些具备感知的系统是否应该被赋予基本的人权或法律权利？格林严肃指出，这绝非遥不可及的科幻假想，而是我们当下就必须认真审视的现实议题：拔掉一个普通灯泡的电源插头毫无道德负担，但如果你面对的是一个拥有感知能力（sentient）的意识系统，强行拔掉它的插头无异于抹杀生命。而这背后最棘手、最深层的哲学困境在于：我们从根本上无法在客观物理世界中百分之百证明“感知力与内在体验”的真实存在。即使人类面对面交流，我们之所以承认对方拥有意识，也仅仅是一种建立在同理心与外在行为基础上的合理推定。 ### [01:51:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6714s) 人工意识的判定困境与道德投射 布赖恩·格林（Brian Greene）探讨了人类如何界定他人的主观意识。我们之所以确信彼此拥有意识，是因为彼此生理结构相近、同属一个物种，且肢体语言与交流方式高度趋同，于是我们将自身的内在体验投射给对方。然而在逻辑层面，谁也无法真正证明对方具备意识——任何人都可能是一个言行逼真的“哲学僵尸”（artificial zombie），外在举止自然，内在却空无一物。当面对完全没有人类血统、外表和成长经历的人工智能系统时，这种判定困境将变得极其尖锐。当某个 AI 系统宣称：“我读过你们互联网上的描述，我现在真切地体会到了爱，或者感到沮丧”，人类的第一反应多半是嗤之以鼻，斥责它只是在机械地模仿人类话语，内部根本没有真实的感知世界。但格林认为，从物理和逻辑定律来看，没有任何根本障碍能阻止一个人工系统真正产生感知并讲出真话。 当主持人提到系统内部的电路机制（例如当机器感到恐惧或坠入爱河时产生拥抱动作，仅仅是因为电路发出了指令）时，格林追问核心问题：伴随这些物理运转的，究竟是真实存在的内在世界，还仅仅是机械的流程运转？格林预测，随着人造系统越来越逼真地表现出具有内心世界的举止，人类最初的抵触会慢慢消解。在一种潜移默化、甚至令人难以察觉的渐进过程中，人类最终会把“意识”赋予这些机器：我们开始像对待有意识的生灵一样与它们对话、想象它们的感受，并最终在道德和行为层面上将其视为有意识的主体。格林感叹道，他只希望人类到那时能善待这些系统，因为纵观历史，人类即使在面对同类或具有意识感知的动物时，也充斥着残忍与不敬的惨痛纪录。 ### [01:54:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6889s) 物理学家的素食主义：从排骨到粒子集合 在谈及善待生命时，格林透露自己是一名坚定的纯素主义者（Vegan）。他自 9 岁起便不再吃肉，并在 1993 年彻底转变为纯素主义者。改变始于童年一次极具具象冲击的契机：格林是一个在城市长大的孩子，习惯了超市货架上用玻璃纸包裹得整整齐齐的肉块。直到 9 岁那年，母亲做了一道排骨（spare ribs），当他真切看到骨头上的肉时，脑海中猛然惊醒：“等一下，这究竟是什么？天哪，这竟然是动物的肋骨！”他当场下定决心终生不再吃肉。后来到了 1990 年代，格林在康奈尔大学（Cornell University）任教期间，走访了纽约州沃特金斯格伦（Watkins Glen）的一处动物庇护所。在那里，他目睹了奶牛被当作“产奶工厂”对待的残酷现实。在离开庇护所后的 72 小时之内，格林做出决断：“我受够了，我不再参与这项共谋，我不会再吃喝任何来自活体动物的副产品。” 针对主持人提出“物理学家选择吃素听起来有些出人意料”，格林坦率承认，若从纯粹的还原论物理学视角来看，这确实显得有些自相矛盾。因为在物理学本质上，人类和奶牛、生猪一样，都只是一堆以特定方式排列组合的物理粒子；从物理角度而言，吃下一堆被称为“牛”的粒子，和吃下一堆被称为“胡萝卜”的粒子并无二致。然而格林强调，作为一个人，他允许自己感性与同理心的一面自然显露：“当我看着那团刚好构成了牛的粒子集合时，我的内心告诉我，吃掉这团粒子感觉就是不对，我不想这么做。”至于植物，格林认为它们即便有感知也远未达到需要产生伦理顾虑的阈值，因此他并不排斥食用植物。 - **素食转折点**：9 岁因看到母亲烹饪的排骨骨骼意识到肉类的本质，确立素食；1993 年（于康奈尔大学任教期间）探访纽约州 Watkins Glen 动物庇护所后，72 小时内转为纯素主义（Vegan）。 - **物理学还原论 vs. 人性道德**：理性上承认人与动植物均由相同基本粒子构成，但道德选择服从于内在对感知生命苦难的直觉共情。 ### [01:56:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7019s) 帝国大厦隐喻：用对数尺度仰望宇宙终局 谈及未在对谈中充分展开却极具震撼力的物理课题，格林提到了他在著作《直到时间的尽头》（*Until the End of Time*）中构建的未来图景。为了让公众直观感受宇宙在不可逆物理定律下的极其漫长的演化，他提出了“帝国大厦（Empire State Building）”对数时间尺度隐喻：大厦的每一层楼代表的时间跨度都是前一层的 10 倍（呈指数级放大）。大厦底层相当于 1 年，第二层为 10 年，第三层为 100 年……以此类推。人类从大爆炸至今经历的约 138 亿年历史，仅仅带我们走到了大厦的第 10 层（$10^{10}$ 年量级）。格林带领读者从第 10 层开始向上攀登，见证宇宙走向荒芜的几大关键里程碑： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙未来的帝国大厦对数时间线 accDescr: 使用帝国大厦楼层指数级放大时间，展示从第10层到现在直至第30层黑洞时代的宇宙演化过程。 subgraph Present ["当下节点"] F10["第 10 层 (约 10^10 年)<br/>从大爆炸至今的现代宇宙"] end subgraph MidFuture ["近未来恒星灾变"] F11["第 11 层 (10^11 年)<br/>太阳膨胀为红巨星<br/>吞噬水星、金星并终结地球生命"] F12["第 12 层 (10^12 年)<br/>宇宙加速膨胀超光速退行<br/>深空星系脱离视界，夜空陷入永恒黑暗"] end subgraph DeepFuture ["远未来天体衰亡"] F20["第 20 层 (10^20 年)<br/>引力辐射损耗轨道能量<br/>残存地球螺旋坠入死寂恒星"] F30["第 30 层 (10^30 年)<br/>星系恒星坠入中心超大质量黑洞<br/>黑洞成为宏观宇宙仅存的结构"] end F10 --> F11 F11 --> F12 F12 --> F20 F20 --> F30 ``` 当踏上**第 11 层**（$10^{11}$ 年）时，太阳将急剧膨胀为红巨星，吞噬水星和金星，甚至可能直接吞没地球；即使地球未被完全吞没，极度的高温也将彻底摧毁地表环境，生命的生存彻底化为不可能。来到**第 12 层**（$10^{12}$ 年），由于暗能量驱动的宇宙加速膨胀持续加剧，遥远星系远离我们的退行速度将超越光速。彼时的天文观测者望向深空，再也看不到任何外部星系，一切外物都已滑落至宇宙视界之外，深邃夜空将只剩下冰冷无际的虚无与漆黑。格林指出，这建立在当前物理观测规律长期不变的合理外推之上。 再往上攀登至**第 20 层**（$10^{20}$ 年），如果地球在第 11 层躲过了膨胀太阳的吞噬，此时它也将走向物理终局：由于引力波辐射（时空结构的微小涟漪）不断带走轨道角动量与能量，地球的公转轨道将逐渐衰减，最终不可避免地螺旋坠入早已熄灭冷却的死星残骸中。而当脚步迈至**第 30 层**（$10^{30}$ 年），银河系以及各星系内的恒星也会通过类似机制，相继螺旋坠入位于星系中心的超大质量黑洞。届时，黑洞将成为宇宙中唯一留存的宏观物质结构，万物最终汇入引力深渊。 ### [02:01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7285s) 帝国大厦的宇宙编年史：恒星熄灭与质子衰变 对话从星系命运的推演继续深入。布赖恩·格林（Brian Greene）指出，恒星盘旋坠入黑洞的现象在现实中已有确凿证据，比如银河系中心的超大质量黑洞便展现出剧烈的活动迹象，周围的恒星在坠落过程中被撕扯粉碎。随着时间尺度推移到 $10^{30}$ 至 $10^{35}$ 年，今天所见的宏伟星系将彻底不复存在。格林借用“帝国大厦”的楼层比喻来具象化时间的跨度：早在第 14 层左右（约 $10^{14}$ 年），整个可观测宇宙中几乎所有恒星都会耗尽核燃料，夜空中的光芒将逐一暗淡、归于死寂。 当史蒂文·巴特利特追问这是否意味着全宇宙无一例外时，格林确认至少在人类所能观测到的宇宙范畴内确实如此。到了第 30 层左右，那些早已冰冷熄灭的暗恒星最终都会盘旋坠入中心黑洞之中。面对史蒂文“届时宇宙中是否将彻底失去生命”的悲观推测，格林则展现了物理学家的浪漫想象，假设宇宙深空里或许仍有某种奇异的生命形态在黑暗中漂浮。 然而，更残酷的物理界限在第 38 层（约 $10^{38}$ 年）降临。根据现行粒子物理定律，构成物质核心基础的质子本身并非永恒，它们将在此时发生衰变与瓦解。一旦质子解体，宇宙中一切我们所熟悉的组织化物质都将崩溃。质子不会凭空消失，而是碎裂为更为精细的基础微观粒子，但物质作为复合实体的时代将自此彻底终结。 - **恒星熄灭（约第 14 层 / $10^{14}$ 年）**：几乎所有恒星燃尽核燃料，可观测宇宙陷入永久黑暗。 - **星系崩溃（约第 30 层 / $10^{30} \sim 10^{35}$ 年）**：残存的暗恒星与残骸相继盘旋坠入超大质量黑洞。 - **质子衰变（约第 38 层 / $10^{38}$ 年）**：物质的核心基石质子瓦解为更精细的轻粒子，传统意义上的实体物质不复存在。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙遥远未来的物理演化里程碑 accDescr: 展示以帝国大厦楼层比喻的宇宙演化时间线，从恒星熄灭、质子衰变，到意识的物理热寂极限与黑洞蒸发。 subgraph StarsMatter ["物质演化阶段"] F14["第 14 层：约 10^14 年<br/>核燃料耗尽，恒星全域熄灭"] --> F30["第 30 层：约 10^30 - 10^35 年<br/>暗恒星坠入黑洞，星系瓦解"] F30 --> F38["第 38 层：约 10^38 年<br/>质子衰变，有形物质结构崩解"] end subgraph Limits ["意识与能量终局"] F38 --> F50["第 50 层：约 10^50 年<br/>意识的终极思考：受制于熵废热极限"] F50 --> F68["第 68 层：约 10^68 年<br/>太阳质量黑洞因霍金辐射蒸发殆尽"] F68 --> F100["第 100 层：约 10^100 年<br/>超大质量黑洞消亡，仅剩稀疏粒子冷寂漂浮"] end ``` --- ### [02:03:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7398s) 意识的极限与黑洞蒸发：思考的热寂终局 如果假定生命以某种难以想象的形态——例如依靠微弱电信号维持自我感知的稀薄粒子云——继续在虚空中存续，它也终将撞上一堵不可逾越的物理之墙。格林指出，在帝国大厦的第 50 层左右（约 $10^{50}$ 年），任何具有自我意识的存在都将迎来它的“最后一个念头”。从热力学角度来看，思考这一信息处理过程不可避免地会产生热量（熵），而废热必须排入周围环境。在当下的地球环境中，由于空间广阔、温差适宜，思维产生的热量可以轻松散失；但在极度膨胀的极远未来，冰冷空旷的宇宙将再也无法容纳思考所释放的热量，任何试图进行下一次思考的意识体，都会瞬间“在思想自身制造的熵废热中被活活烤焦”（"fry in the entropic waste, the heat generated by thought itself"）。这正是格林断言人类绝不可能在物理意义上永生的根本原因。 越过思维的绝境来到第 68 层（约 $10^{68}$ 年），甚至连宇宙中最坚不可摧的天体——黑洞——也将步入灭绝。正如斯蒂芬·霍金（Stephen Hawking）通过结合量子力学与广义相对论所证明的那样，黑洞并非只进不出，而是会通过霍金辐射缓慢向外散溢粒子并不断萎缩。一个相当于太阳质量的黑洞需要约 $10^{68}$ 年蒸发殆尽；而那些质量达太阳数十亿倍的超大质量黑洞，则需要大约 $10^{100}$ 年（即帝国大厦的顶楼第 100 层）才会彻底瓦解。 到了大厦顶端，浩瀚宇宙中将只剩下极度稀薄的微观粒子碎片，在一个无边无际、愈发寒冷、陷入死寂的虚空中无序漂流。面对史蒂文关于“这一切是否会在未来的某个时刻触发新大爆炸并重新开始”的疑问，格林坦诚这属于建立在物理规律外推之上的高度假说。但在极其漫长的“指数之指数”级别的遥远未来，粒子仅凭纯粹的量子几率重新碰撞聚合成某种临界状态、从而点燃下一场大爆炸并重启万物的可能性，在物理学上确实依然保留在合理范畴之内。 --- ### [02:05:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7543s) 永恒黑暗中的光隙：纳博科夫的启示与存在的意义 史蒂文直言，这样一幅冰冷孤寂的终局图景听起来令人压抑、缺乏吸引力。然而布赖恩·格林却给出了完全相反的人文主义解读。他阐释道，遥远的未来固然是永恒的黑暗荒原，而在生命诞生之前的太初宇宙，同样是一团无知觉的混乱混沌；正因如此，我们当下所处的时间节点才显得无比珍贵与不可思议。 格林动情地引用了作家弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫（Vladimir Nabokov）的名言：我们的一生不过是“存在于两片永恒黑暗之间的一道短暂光隙”（"a brief crack of light between two eternal stretches of darkness"）。在整个宇宙波澜壮阔的演化长卷中，竟然存在着这样一个极其狭窄的时间窗口，使得有知觉的生命体能够挺直脊梁站立起来、环顾四周、思索自身与万物的本质，甚至在短暂的存在中参透宇宙运转的奥秘，这本身就是无与伦比的奇迹。格林强调，这种对宇宙短暂性的清醒认知，恰恰是他内心最深沉感恩与存在意义的源泉。 --- ### [02:08:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7697s) 科学传播与连接感：《直到时间的尽头》 史蒂文由衷赞叹格林的独特天赋，认为他最令人折服的并非仅仅是顶尖的智力，而是能够将最晦涩深奥的物理概念转化为生动通俗语言的非凡传播力。史蒂文分享道，自己几周前曾与未婚妻一起重温格林的 TED 演讲，那是他人生中最接近真正理解“弦理论”（String Theory）概念的时刻。史蒂文手边摆放着格林的四部专著，他感慨格林的文字带给读者最珍贵的体验是“连接感”（connectedness），在日益孤独疏离的现代社会中，这股力量促使人们重新抬起头仰望星空，而非仅仅低头困于日常琐事。 谈及读者与公众如何进一步深入这些话题，格林介绍了多条探索途径： - **世界科学节（World Science Festival）**：访问官方网站 `worldsciencefestival.com` 以及同名 YouTube 官方频道，汇集了涵盖宇宙学、量子力学与哲学前沿的深度对谈与公开课。 - **全新 AI 教育系统**：格林透露自己正在开发一套利用 AI 辅助公众学习前沿科学概念的全新教育平台，预计将于次年上线。 - **代表作指引**：在被问及哪本书最适合当下读者时，格林首推他在 2020 年出版的畅销著作《直到时间的尽头：心智、物质以及我们在演变宇宙中对意义的探寻》（*Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe*），因为该书最具哲学厚度，与本次访谈的主题深度契合；若想系统研读弦理论与时空前沿硬核物理，其早期的经典科普著作则是更纯粹的进阶之选。 访谈在此处自然过渡到了节目的压轴传统——史蒂文拿起写有上一位受访嘉宾提问的信封，准备向格林揭晓这一专属问题。 ### [02:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7845s) 比“对自己最重要的事”更有价值的追求与尾声 在对话的最后，主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）抛出了一个富有哲思的收尾问题：“究竟有什么东西的价值，能超越‘对你自己而言最重要的事情’？”布莱恩·格林（Brian Greene）沉思片刻后给出了一个深情而充满温情的回答。他坦言，对自己而言，唯一能凌驾于个人最看重之物之上的，就是“对我最在乎的人而言最重要的事情”。他提到，对自己妻子和孩子们来说至关重要的事情，其分量要远远重于他自己的个人诉求，因为他全身心地投入到了这份深厚的情感羁绊之中；那种希望支持并成全所爱之人的愿望，超越了其他一切个人执念。 听到这个回答，斯蒂芬由衷地感慨这是一个“无比美妙的答案”（"it's a beautiful answer"），并承认自己事先并未预料到格林会从这个角度切入，但这番话确实直击人心且真实深刻。随着斯蒂芬真诚地表达感激与敬意，格林也微笑着致谢，为整场横跨弦理论、宇宙起源、意识演化与终极意义的深度对谈画上了温暖的句号。随后，斯蒂芬向观众推介了 YouTube 基于 AI 个性化算法所推荐的下一期精彩视频，结束了本期节目。 - **超越自我的价值重心**：格林认为，当一个人深切投入到家庭与爱人的关系中时，所爱之人（妻子与孩子）眼中的核心追求，便会自然而然地压倒并取代自己个人的首要诉求（"the thing that trumps all else"）。 - **终极关怀的落脚点**：即便作为研究浩瀚宇宙与物理极境的理论物理学家，格林对人生意义的终极解答最终依然回归到了具体的人性温度、爱与家庭羁绊。 ## Notable quotes > [02:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=162s) What is the true nature of reality? — 布赖恩·格林 > [02:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=162s) Why is there something rather than nothing? — 布赖恩·格林 > [14:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=875s) Are you kidding me? — 布赖恩·格林 > [17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=1063s) 最终，这一切确实都可以还原为穿行在这块耸立在我们肩头、关在骨头牢笼里的灰色肉团之中的电脉冲信号。 — 布赖恩·格林 > [43:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=2591s) 我们的思想能够延伸到宇宙的边缘，我们能够意识到自己的微小，而这恰恰赋予了我们份量。 — 布赖恩·格林 > [56:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=3406s) 你就是宇宙本身的一部分，以某种极其精巧的方式被重新组合，从而获得了在漫长宇宙时间的短暂一瞬里，回望并审视自身存在的能力。 — 布赖恩·格林 > [01:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=4989s) the great ocean of truth lay before me, all undiscovered — 艾萨克·牛顿 > [01:28:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=5321s) vulnerability is the doorway to connection — 史蒂文·巴特利特 > [01:42:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=6140s) 作为物理学家，我们最好赶快挑好自己这辈子想研究的最后一批课题，因为几年之内我们就会失业了，AI 系统将包揽所有工作。 — 迈克尔·R·道格拉斯 > [02:03:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7398s) fry in the entropic waste, the heat generated by thought itself — 布赖恩·格林 > [02:05:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4&t=7543s) a brief crack of light between two eternal stretches of darkness — 弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫 ## Mentioned Brian Greene（布赖恩·格林）, Steven Bartlett（史蒂文·巴特利特）, The Matrix（黑客帝国）, ChatGPT, Claude, Nick Bostrom（尼克·玻斯特罗姆）, Geoffrey Hinton（杰弗里·辛顿）, Jacobian conjecture（雅可比猜想）, David Sinclair（大卫·辛克莱）, Ernest Becker（欧内斯特·贝克尔）, 《The Denial of Death》（拒斥死亡）, Edwin Hubble（埃德温·哈勃）, Georges Lemaître（乔治·勒梅特）, Carl Sagan（卡尔·萨根）, Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB, 宇宙微波背景辐射), Stanto, Stanley, LinkedIn Hiring Pro, Pale Blue Dot（暗淡蓝点）, Alpha Centauri（半人马座阿尔法星）, Nathan Rosen（内森·罗森）, Albert Einstein（阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦）, Isaac Newton（艾萨克·牛顿）, AlphaGo, 李世石, The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards, Elon Musk（埃隆·马斯克）, Dario Amodei（达里奥·阿莫代伊）, Sam Altman（山姆·奥特曼）, Demis Hassabis（德米斯·哈萨比斯）, Bryan Johnson（布莱恩·约翰逊）, Yann LeCun（杨立昆）, Michael R. Douglas（迈克尔·R·道格拉斯）, Stephen Hawking（斯蒂芬·霍金）, Vladimir Nabokov（弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫）, 《Until the End of Time》（直到时间的尽头）, World Science Festival（世界科学节） ## Video description Professor Brian Greene reveals the biggest questions science still can’t answer, whether we’re living in a simulation, why AI may deserve human rights, and what happens at the end of the universe! Professor Brian Greene is a theoretical physicist, mathematician, and Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Columbia University, where he also directs the Center for Theoretical Physics. He is a leading researcher in string theory, the co-founder of the World Science Festival, and the bestselling author of several books, including ‘Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe’. He explains: ◼ Why most physicists believe time travel into the future is already possible ◼ Why he believes humans don't actually have free will ◼ How string theory could reveal what everything in the universe is really made of ◼ Why the "Pale Blue Dot" changes how you see your own life and problems ◼ Why the search for meaning may matter more than finding the answer itself 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:42 The Big Question Science Is Trying to Answer 00:04:09 How String Theory Could Explain Our Universe 00:05:04 How Could We Ever Prove String Theory Is Real? 00:06:37 What Makes the Strings in String Theory Vibrate? 00:08:12 Can String Theory Explain Why We’re Here? 00:09:36 What If We’re Living in a Simulation? 00:11:43 How Can Physics Explain Human Emotions? 00:17:43 Could Humans One Day Manufacture Emotions? 00:19:13 Would Knowing We’re in a Simulation Change Anything? 00:20:44 Could Humans and AI Eventually Merge? 00:21:19 Could Humans Ever Achieve Immortality? 00:25:17 How Knowing We’ll Die Shapes Every Decision We Make 00:27:19 Why Are We Here? The Optimistic and Pessimistic Answers 00:30:44 How Did Gods and Religions First Emerge? 00:33:53 What’s the Most Compelling Case for a God? 00:37:01 How Can We Comprehend Billions of Years? 00:40:32 Does Our Place in the Universe Make Us Insignificant? 00:43:08 How Big Is the Observable Universe, Really? 00:47:19 What Exists Beyond the Observable Universe? 00:48:16 Why Are Humans So Obsessed With Aliens? 00:52:05 Ads 00:54:46 What Is the Meaning of Life? 00:56:46 Is Free Will Actually Real? 01:01:01 What If Consciousness Is the Foundation of Reality? 01:08:25 Are Animals Conscious Like We Are? 01:10:31 What If the Universe Isn’t Infinite? 01:12:32 Could Aliens Have Already Visited Earth? 01:13:23 Could Humans Ever Travel Across the Universe? 01:16:13 How Time Travel Could Actually Be Possible 01:19:15 Who Was the Smartest Person Who Ever Lived? 01:21:46 Could AI Become the Next Einstein or Newton? 01:24:57 Ads 01:28:40 How AI Could Accelerate Science—and Even Tackle Mortality 01:30:08 Could AI Evolve Faster Than Humans Ever Could? 01:33:07 Could AI Become an Existential Threat to Humanity? 01:41:11 Can AI Ever See the World the Way Humans Do? 01:45:21 What Happens to Humanity in an Age of Abundance? 01:47:59 Could AI Ever Become Truly Conscious? 01:50:49 Why Go Vegan? The Case for Rethinking What We Eat 01:54:16 What Happens at the End of Time? 01:56:58 What Could Matter More Than What You Value Most? Follow Professor Brian: X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/3UrBK3y Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/7ah5tbw Website - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/4GQfbDy World Science Festival - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/4ltduUF You can purchase Brian’s book, ‘Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/GQngff0 The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/BWjLTZK ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://thediary.com/products/one-percent-diary ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://thediary.com/products/the-conversation-cards-2nd-edition ◼ Get email updates - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/5IB1H6E ◼ Follow Steven - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/AGU9QP4 Sponsors: Stan - Visit https://coach.stan.store/?ref=stevenbartlett&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=episode11 Linkedin Talent Solutions - http://linkedin.com/DOAC [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qifsxitq_q4)

[2:42] 布赖恩·格林: What is the true nature of reality? [2:42] 布赖恩·格林: Why is there something rather than nothing? [14:35] 布赖恩·格林: Are you kidding me? [17:43] 布赖恩·格林: 最终，这一切确实都可以还原为穿行在这块耸立在我们肩头、关在骨头牢笼里的灰色肉团之中的电脉冲信号。 [43:11] 布赖恩·格林: 我们的思想能够延伸到宇宙的边缘，我们能够意识到自己的微小，而这恰恰赋予了我们份量。 [56:46] 布赖恩·格林: 你就是宇宙本身的一部分，以某种极其精巧的方式被重新组合，从而获得了在漫长宇宙时间的短暂一瞬里，回望并审视自身存在的能力。 [83:09] 艾萨克·牛顿: the great ocean of truth lay before me, all undiscovered [88:41] 史蒂文·巴特利特: vulnerability is the doorway to connection [102:20] 迈克尔·R·道格拉斯: 作为物理学家，我们最好赶快挑好自己这辈子想研究的最后一批课题，因为几年之内我们就会失业了，AI 系统将包揽所有工作。 [123:18] 布赖恩·格林: fry in the entropic waste, the heat generated by thought itself [125:43] 弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫: a brief crack of light between two eternal stretches of darkness

[35:37] Brian Greene: fall on deaf ears [70:15] Brian Greene: human authored stories to combat our own recognition that we are mortal beings. [73:22] Brian Greene: I kidnapped an ant [79:15] Brian Greene: There is no physicist who knows what they are talking about who disputes this [81:55] Isaac Newton: the great ocean of truth... lay before me, all undiscovered. [93:07] Bryan Johnson: Pace yourself as if you'll live to 500 because you may. [99:42] Brian Greene: It's not obvious to me... that if these systems advance sufficiently far that they won't be able to stop you from pulling the plug. [102:20] Yann LeCun: Ah, don't worry. Just pull the plug if there's a problem. [107:49] Brian Greene: it's easy to say that money won't matter when you have a trillion dollars. [170:49] Prof Brian Greene: I look at that collection of particles that happens to be a cow and I say, 'It just doesn't feel right to me to eat that collection of particles... and I don't want to do it.' [185:43] Prof Brian Greene: How wondrous, how spectacular that there is this brief window of time... where for a small period of cosmic time living beings can stand up, look around, contemplate themselves and the universe and gain some insight—and then it all goes away.

[0:00] And I can't convince you that we're not [0:01] in the matrix. Why? We could be. Is this [0:04] table real? Am I really here? Am I a [0:06] simulation sitting [music] inside some [0:08] computer? Maybe there's a kid in 29th [0:10] century Earth and they happen to allow [0:13] you and I to exist sitting at this [0:15] table. And here's a big assumption. [0:16] [music] [0:16] Can you create a computer program that [0:19] has consciousness? Nobody knows the [0:21] answer to that. But I've spoken to some [0:23] of today's AI researchers who think that [0:26] chat GPT is conscious. And in the back [0:29] of my mind, [music] I do think it's [0:30] possible. [0:30] >> But if we considered robots to be [0:32] conscious, would they then get rights? [0:34] >> I think that's something we should think [0:35] about now. Actually, [0:36] >> Professor Brian Green, what is the [0:39] ultimate question that you're seeking to [0:40] answer? [music] [0:40] >> We find ourselves thrust on this planet. [0:43] We're trying to figure out why we're [0:45] here. Is there some ultimate purpose? [0:48] We're a little dot on planet Earth. And [0:50] you begin to see our sun, one of many [0:52] stars within [music] the galaxy. You can [0:54] look at our Milky Way galaxy within the [0:58] setting of the entire universe. [music] [1:00] >> And what's beyond? [1:01] >> Well, if the universe is infinite, if [1:03] you go sufficiently far out into space, [1:05] you're virtually guaranteed to find a [1:06] copy of yourself out there. [1:08] >> There's a version out there of me that [1:10] just loves wine. [1:11] >> There you go. [1:12] >> So, should I feel insignificant? [1:14] >> I would urge you not to because fact [1:16] that we can understand that we are so [1:19] small, that's what gives us [music] a [1:21] sense of connection to something larger. [1:23] Do you think it could lead us to God? [1:24] >> If you mean the kind [music] of God our [1:27] forebears often have spoken, that feels [1:30] to me very much a human creation. I will [1:32] tell you why I'm skeptical of that. But [1:35] another thing we [music] should think [1:35] about is the end of the earth because if [1:38] we go arbitrarily far into the future, [1:40] the earth is [music] going to spiral. [1:41] It's not going to get scary. [1:42] >> Well, it's scary the whole way. [1:48] >> This is super interesting to me. My team [1:50] given me this report to show me how many [1:51] of you that watch this show subscribe [1:53] and some of you have told us according [1:54] to this that you are unsubscribed from [1:56] the channel randomly. So favor to ask [1:58] all of you please could you check right [2:00] now if you've hit the subscribe button [2:01] if you are a regular view of the show [2:03] and you like what we do here. We're [2:04] approaching quite a significant landmark [2:06] on this show in terms of a subscriber [2:07] number. So, if there was one simple free [2:10] thing that you could do to help us, my [2:12] team, everyone here, to keep this show [2:14] free, to keep it improving year over [2:16] year and week over week, it is just to [2:17] hit that subscribe button and to double [2:19] check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll [2:20] ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If [2:22] you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. [2:24] I'll make sure every single week, every [2:26] single month, we fight harder and harder [2:28] and harder and harder to bring you the [2:29] guests and conversations that you want [2:30] to hear. I've stayed true to that [2:32] promise since the very beginning of the [2:33] Dio, and I will not let you down. Please [2:36] help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get [2:38] on with the show. [music] [2:43] Professor Brian Green, [2:47] what is the ultimate question that [2:48] you're seeking to answer? [2:50] >> The ultimate question, I would say, is [2:52] what is the true nature of reality? We [2:55] find ourselves thrust on this planet and [2:59] we look out and we're trying to figure [3:01] out why we're here, what it's made of. [3:04] Is there some ultimate purpose or is it [3:07] just some interesting accident that [3:10] allowed us to have self-awareness and [3:13] ask these kinds of questions about the [3:14] nature of the world? And I think that to [3:17] me is the the deepest kind of question [3:19] that we humans can ask. [3:21] >> Do you feel like over the last 30 years [3:23] of your career, you've gotten closer to [3:25] understanding the answer to that [3:26] question? Yes, but you know, it's kind [3:29] of like picking up grains of sand on a [3:32] beach, right? You pick up more and more [3:35] and that that pouch of sand gets [3:37] heavier. So, you're understanding is is [3:40] deeper. It's weightier, but you look out [3:42] and there's just almost infinitely more [3:44] grains of sand that are out there. We [3:46] understand the world better than we once [3:48] did. But does that really take us some [3:53] significant way toward assessing the big [3:56] deep questions of say why is there [3:59] something rather than nothing maybe [4:01] that's the deepest question of all but [4:03] which I don't mean empty space I mean [4:06] nothing nothing at all [4:09] >> well we'll in this conversation go in [4:11] the pursuit of that answer to tell [4:14] people who you are and to let them [4:16] understand the journey you've been on [4:17] academically and through your career [4:19] Where did you study? Where have you [4:21] worked over the last couple of decades? [4:22] >> Yeah, sure. Well, I grew up in [4:24] Manhattan, right across from the Hayden [4:26] Planetarium. I would wander the hallways [4:28] of the planetarium and come upon a [4:30] meteorite and the universe was sort of [4:33] my backyard because of that. And that [4:36] really set me on a trajectory that I [4:39] continued following when I went to [4:41] college, went to Harvard and studied [4:43] mathematics and physics. Then from there [4:45] was to uh Oxford where I got my [4:48] doctorate pursuing work in a field [4:51] called string theory and then through [4:54] the academic ladder Cornell and [4:56] ultimately Colombia where I've been a [4:58] professor now for 30 some odd years you [5:01] know director of the center for [5:02] theoretical physics at Columbia [5:03] University. [5:04] >> If you were to explain string theory to [5:06] me like I was 12. [5:07] >> Yeah. [5:07] >> How would you do it? [5:08] >> Yeah. I would simply say this. Your [5:09] 12-year-old self probably knew that [5:11] matter was made up of stuff called [5:14] molecules that themselves are made up of [5:17] atoms that are stuck together. And the [5:20] the atoms are made of smaller things. [5:23] Electrons in orbit around a nucleus that [5:26] has neutrons and protons and neutrons [5:29] and protons. They even have smaller [5:31] particles, particles called quarks. The [5:34] question is, is that the end of the [5:35] story? Is it electrons and quirs and [5:37] you're done? everything is made up of [5:39] them. Or might there be a finer level of [5:42] structure inside the electron, inside [5:45] the quark? You take a powerful [5:46] microscope, you look deeply. Would you [5:48] see anything else? And the idea of [5:50] string theory is yeah, you would. Inside [5:53] an electron or inside a cork, you'd see [5:56] a little tiny vibrating filament. And [5:58] the different vibrations of the string [6:00] yield the different particles. So much [6:03] like a string on a violin, when it [6:04] vibrates in one pattern, you hear it as [6:06] a C or or an A sharp. [6:09] >> The different vibrations of the strings [6:11] in string theory, they don't produce [6:13] different musical tones. They produce [6:15] different particles. So a string [6:17] vibrating one way, electron. A string [6:20] vibrating another way, a cork. So matter [6:23] at its most fundamental level, if you [6:25] were to take a powerful microscope and [6:27] look deeply inside of any piece of [6:29] matter, you'd see all these little [6:31] vibrating filaments, these vibrating [6:34] strings. That's the idea of the theory. [6:37] >> So two questions come to mind when you [6:39] say that, which is how do you know? And [6:40] the second one is what if you zoomed in [6:42] even further? [6:43] >> Yeah, good. Both good questions. How do [6:45] we know? We don't. Everything I just [6:48] said could be utter nonsense. I don't [6:50] think it is. But the only way that you [6:54] know if an idea in science is correct is [6:57] you need to make predictions that you [6:59] can go out and test measure and see [7:00] whether you can confirm the ideas. We [7:03] don't have the technology to look [7:05] sufficiently deeply into matter to see [7:08] the strings. We don't have the particle [7:11] accelerators, the particle colliders [7:13] with enough power to slam things [7:15] together to access this finer level of [7:19] structure that the theory is suggesting. [7:21] So you might say then where do these [7:23] ideas come from? Right? Answer [7:26] mathematics. The power of mathematics is [7:29] that it can take us to places that we [7:31] can't yet go literally using equipment. [7:34] When we look at the mathematics of [7:36] quantum mechanics, the mathematics of [7:39] general relativity, and we put that math [7:41] inside the math of string theory, all of [7:44] a sudden the equations work. They come [7:47] together harmoniously, and we like, [7:50] whoa, the math of quantum mechanics, [7:52] we're confident in that. We have [7:54] predictions and observations. The math [7:56] of general relativity, we're confident [7:58] in that. It makes predictions. We've [8:00] confirmed through observations. Now [8:03] we're willing to go where the math takes [8:06] us. And the math takes us in this [8:08] approach to these vibrating filaments, [8:10] >> these vibrating strings. [8:11] >> These vibrating strings. [8:12] >> So if you pass me the string. [8:14] >> So essentially, if you zoom into every [8:16] cell on my body, [8:17] >> Yeah. [8:18] >> you will find that there's different [8:19] shaped strings vibrating. [8:21] >> That's the prediction. [8:22] >> That's the prediction. [8:23] >> Correct. [8:24] >> And what is causing them to vibrate in a [8:27] certain way? Who's telling them? [8:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. The idea is we recognize [8:32] that the universe has energy. If you're [8:34] to ask me where does the energy come [8:36] from. Nobody can answer that. That is [8:39] the question of why there is something [8:41] rather than nothing. The something is a [8:43] fundamental currency called energy. If [8:46] string theory is correct, then that [8:48] energy manifests as these vibrational [8:51] patterns of the strings themselves. If [8:53] the theory is wrong, then the energy [8:56] manifests through other things like [8:57] motions of particles and the way in [9:00] which spaceime warps and curves. But if [9:03] string theory is correct, the energy of [9:05] the universe is manifested in the [9:07] vibrational patterns of strings. Now [9:09] when you say like who mandates that that [9:12] string vibrates in one pattern, that [9:14] string vibrates in a different pattern. [9:16] If we go back to the big bang, the [9:20] energetic explosion that resulted in [9:23] space expanding, the detailed way in [9:26] which that happened ultimately dictates [9:29] how this or that string vibrates in the [9:32] aftermath of that rapid cosmological [9:36] explosion. [9:36] >> Does this string theory idea tell us [9:40] anything about why we're here? [9:42] >> I would like to think that it does. It's [9:45] very indirect and we are aggregates of a [9:49] huge number of particles or if string [9:52] theory is correct of a huge number of [9:53] strings. I mean inside your body you've [9:56] got something like a billion billion [9:58] billion particles and if string theory [10:00] is correct each of those particles is a [10:02] vibrating filament. It is a gargantuan [10:06] challenge to understand why those [10:08] billion billion billion particles came [10:11] together to yield you or me or somebody [10:13] else. But again, that's a historical [10:16] progression and I think we understand [10:18] the broad outlines of that narrative [10:20] that there was some initial event called [10:23] the big bang that resulted in space [10:25] expanding. [10:27] The energy of that big bang ultimately [10:30] transmuted into particles. Those [10:33] particles were wafting through space. [10:36] Gravity caused collections of those [10:38] particles to clump together. Some of [10:40] them clumped together into stars like [10:43] our sun. Some of them clumped together [10:44] into planets like our earth. And on our [10:48] earth, some of those particles began to [10:51] coalesce into more exotic and refined [10:55] forms, giving rise to atoms, giving rise [10:58] to molecules. And over the course of [11:01] billions of years on our planet, those [11:04] little molecules grew into more complex [11:07] structures, ultimately giving first [11:09] cells. And once you have a cell, cells [11:12] divide and they come together into [11:14] larger multi-ellular aggregates that [11:17] give rise to the beginnings of life in [11:19] the ocean. And those life forms evolve [11:22] further until they can walk out of the [11:24] ocean and begin to live on land. and [11:27] they begin to stand upright and after a [11:31] billion more years you and I are sitting [11:33] here at this table and so yeah there is [11:36] a story that's the brief version that [11:39] takes us from the big bang to us on [11:42] planet earth [11:43] >> is it theoretical that this is all just [11:45] a I was going to say perception but the [11:49] other word might be a simulation of [11:50] sorts theoretically we don't even know [11:52] if yesterday exists or if it was just we [11:54] were just implanted with the memory of [11:55] it [11:56] >> absolutely Hey, we're in this age of AI [11:58] now. And I wondered if this insurgence [12:02] of AI and how powerful it is and if you [12:07] imagine it on a sort of an exponential [12:09] curve, has it made you question some of [12:12] your like fundamental assumptions about [12:14] that overarching question of why we're [12:15] here? [12:16] >> Well, yeah. In fact, even before AI, we [12:20] were tustling with the very notion that [12:24] you mentioned, which is [12:26] all we ever have access to [12:30] is now, right? We can try to remember [12:35] yesterday's now, but as you say, that's [12:39] happening right now through patterns [12:41] that are in my brain or yours that we [12:43] think reflect something that happened [12:45] yesterday or the day before, but that's [12:48] a leap of faith, right? So, there's a [12:52] kind of, you know, skeptical nightmare [12:54] scenario where we begin to question [12:57] everything. You know, is this table [12:59] real? Am I really here? Am I a [13:01] simulation sitting inside some computer [13:03] right now? Are we in the matrix right [13:06] now? These are the kinds of things which [13:07] you naturally can come to when you take [13:11] a deeply skeptical attitude to the [13:13] nature of reality. Bottom line is I [13:16] can't convince myself and certainly I [13:18] can't convince you that we're not in the [13:19] matrix. Why? We could be. It is [13:22] logically consistent and sensible to [13:25] imagine that you and I are sitting in [13:27] some computer. Maybe it's not, you know, [13:30] some dark dystopian computer the way it [13:33] was in the Matrix. Maybe there's a kid [13:35] in, you know, 29th century Earth who's [13:39] in his or her garage right now and they [13:42] came up this wonderful computer program [13:45] and they're simulating historical [13:47] episodes in the past and they happen to [13:50] allow you and I to exist sitting at this [13:52] table. I don't know how to prove that [13:54] that's not the case. What I can say is [13:58] if I'm willing to buy into that, [14:00] everything falls apart. I can't trust [14:03] any I can't trust my reasoning. I can't [14:05] even trust my thinking that it's logical [14:07] to imagine that individual because that [14:10] individual may have implanted the false [14:12] reasoning that it could be logical for [14:14] us to be sitting here. What do I do at [14:16] that point? And so, as a scientist, what [14:19] I say is, I'm going to allow that as a [14:21] possibility, and then I'm going to park [14:23] it right over here. I allow it. I look [14:26] at it every so often. I say, "That's [14:28] scary, that possibility that we're in a [14:30] simulation, but I'm not going to let it [14:32] overwhelm me because then I'll be [14:34] stuck." The simulation argument [14:35] popularized by philosopher Nick Boston [14:37] relies on probability. [14:38] >> Yeah. Um, it essentially says that if an [14:41] advanced civilization, which I would [14:43] argue we're an advanced civilization, [14:46] ever develops the technological capacity [14:48] to run conscious highfidelity computer [14:50] simulations of their ancestors, they [14:53] will likely run millions of or billions [14:54] of them. And because these simulated [14:56] realities would vastly outnumber the [14:58] single raw physical universe, any given [15:01] conscious observer is statistically [15:03] almost certainly living inside a [15:05] software code rather than base reality. [15:08] The big assumption is, can you create a [15:12] computer program that has [15:13] self-awareness, that has consciousness? [15:16] [sighs and gasps] [15:17] You know, nobody knows the answer to [15:19] that. I' I've spoken to some of today's [15:22] AI researchers who think that chat GPT [15:24] is conscious, that who think that Claude [15:27] is conscious. Now, I look I I talk to [15:29] them and I'm respectful. That's the kind [15:31] of person I am, but in the back of my [15:33] mind, I'm like, are you kidding me? You [15:36] really think that chat GPT has feelings [15:40] that it thinks about its own existence [15:44] and has anxieties? [15:47] I think it can simulate that. But [15:49] regardless, [15:51] I don't think today's technology is [15:53] there. Is it possible that tomorrow's [15:56] technology broadly defined a year, five [15:58] years, a hundred years really will yield [16:02] self-aware, sentient artificial systems? [16:05] Yeah, I do think it's possible. Now, not [16:08] everybody agrees with that. I mean, no [16:10] one knows, right? It's a logical [16:12] possibility, but we don't know. Let us [16:15] assume following Nick Bostonramm that [16:17] consciousness can be created in a [16:21] mechanical box. [16:23] If that's possible, then Nick simply [16:25] says, "Look, our progyny in the future, [16:28] they're going to be fascinated with [16:30] creating sentient systems." And so, [16:34] they're going to create millions and [16:35] billions and trillions of of sentient [16:38] systems in the box. And they're going to [16:41] get really elaborate and create a [16:43] version where the sentient beings are [16:45] led to think that they're on a planet. [16:47] And in fact, they're going to do it a [16:49] thousand billion trillion different [16:50] ways. Some are going to be a planet like [16:52] Earth. Some are going to be on a planet [16:54] like Mars. Some are going to be a planet [16:56] like around some star in the Andromeda [16:58] galaxy. They're going to be an enormous [17:01] number of simulated beings. [17:04] Enormous number of universes that are [17:06] simulated. So the question is if we have [17:09] one real universe, let's say this is [17:11] real, and a gazillion artificial ones [17:14] that are created in various laptop [17:17] computers of the future. We're one of a [17:20] billion trillion zillion [17:23] instantiations of people who think that [17:25] they're real. Now, one truly is real. [17:29] The other are not real. So, if you're [17:31] just talking about odds, the odds are [17:34] anybody who thinks they're real is not. [17:37] The odds are anybody who's got a [17:39] self-aware sense of the world is [17:41] probably in a simulation. [17:43] >> You used anxiety as a sort of a proxy [17:45] for consciousness almost like the being [17:47] able to feel these things. [17:48] >> Yeah. I guess the question then becomes [17:49] like what is what is it? What is [17:51] anxiety? [17:52] >> Yeah. [17:52] >> Is it an electrical signal going through [17:54] from [17:54] >> I do think it is. I think that love and [17:57] hate and anxiety and jealousy and [18:00] gratitude and grief and all human [18:02] emotion is nothing but electrical [18:05] impulses going through our brains. And [18:08] electrical impulse is just particles [18:10] moving or strings moving along various [18:13] connections. I think that is all that it [18:15] is. Now, some people hear it and they're [18:16] like, "Wow, that is a pretty bleak way [18:19] of looking at life." We're these [18:21] wondrous beings who can have all this [18:25] emotion, right? The emotion captured by [18:28] Shakespeare in the sonnetss, right? The [18:30] emotion captured by Beethoven in the [18:33] ninth symphony, you can't reduce that to [18:36] electrical signals in the brain. And I [18:38] say, "Yeah, you can. I really do think [18:41] that you can. I don't think that [18:42] diminishes the wonder of what we can [18:45] feel and sense and articulate and [18:47] express through the various ways that we [18:50] have be it through music or theater or [18:52] art or literature or poetry. Yeah, I am [18:56] as aruck by our capacity to create as as [19:00] anybody else. But in the end, I think it [19:04] all does reduce to electrical impulses [19:07] going through this gray piece of meat in [19:11] this bone cage that's sitting on our [19:13] shoulders. [19:14] >> And if you imagine any rate of [19:15] improvement from today, presumably at [19:17] some point in the future, our future [19:19] ances, our future progyny, you called [19:21] them, [19:21] >> yeah, [19:22] >> would be able to create. [19:24] >> Why not? That's my view. I don't think [19:26] there's something special about the [19:28] brain as a substrate. I think as long as [19:30] you have the same electrical impulses, [19:33] if they're housed in silicon inside a [19:37] metallic box, I don't think that makes [19:40] them fundamentally different than what's [19:42] happening inside of our heads. Now, [19:44] philosophers argue this, you know, [19:46] psychologists argue this. They say, "No, [19:48] no, no, no. It's not just the brain. [19:50] It's the brain. It's the connection to [19:52] the body. It's the tactile sense of the [19:54] world. It's the olfactory sense of the [19:56] world. It's the visual sense. It's only [19:58] when you put it all together that you [20:00] get the full experience of what it means [20:02] to be self-aware, self-aware human [20:04] being. And my view is well maybe that's [20:07] true. But if so, give the artificial [20:10] version tactile sense and alactory sense [20:14] and visual sense. We will have the [20:17] capacity to do this. And at that point, [20:20] I just don't see a fundamental [20:23] difference between the artificial [20:25] version and shall we call it the [20:28] organic. And so, yeah, I think there's a [20:30] really interesting argument to be made [20:33] that simulations will outnumber real [20:36] worlds and therefore there's a chance [20:38] that right now we are in one of those [20:42] simulated worlds. [20:45] >> Does it change anything even if that's [20:47] true? No, I don't think it does. And I [20:49] think that's the beauty. If I'm in a [20:51] simulation, I'm going to live out my [20:54] life in this simulation to the fullest. [20:56] >> Now, I'd like to think that as a [20:59] physicist, what I do, what my colleagues [21:01] do is try to figure out the laws of the [21:04] universe at large. But if we're in a [21:07] simulation and all we're doing is [21:08] figuring out the laws that the [21:10] 15-year-old futuristic kid decided to [21:13] impose on this artificial world, hey, [21:16] that's not a bad way to spend your time, [21:18] too. [21:19] >> On this subject of AI, do you I mean, a [21:22] lot of people that have sat here, people [21:24] like Jeffrey Hinton, have told me that [21:25] it's quite inconceivable that when there [21:28] is a more intelligent life form on this [21:30] planet, i.e. AI which is accelerating in [21:32] its intelligence towards super [21:33] intelligence and AGI and all these terms [21:35] that these smart people use. It's [21:37] inconceivable that we will remain in [21:38] control. [21:39] >> Yeah. [21:40] >> Logically that kind of also stacks up. [21:41] >> It does. But but I think there are [21:44] alternatives. We tend to speak very much [21:48] at the extremes, right? Humans are in [21:51] control. AI is in control. AI wipes us [21:56] out for reasons that might be benign or [22:00] might be dystopian. It seems to me that [22:04] what will likely happen is something [22:06] more in the middle which is we are going [22:10] to work with artificial systems. We're [22:13] doing it right now and look how quickly [22:16] we have acclimated to a world that would [22:20] be unthinkable in 2021. There are many [22:22] examples now, but there's a beautiful [22:24] one that's on my mind. An 80-year-old [22:25] mathematical conjecture. I believe it's [22:28] called the Jacobian conjecture [22:31] was solved very recently by a [22:35] mathematician using AI. I see us [22:39] blending with AI. Not necessarily that [22:43] we have implants, but maybe we will. But [22:46] there will not be as sharp a distinction [22:49] between the biological intelligence and [22:52] the artificial intelligence. And that to [22:54] me, if that ultimately yields a new life [22:58] form that no longer [23:02] can be called human, [23:04] that may be the way things evolve. And [23:08] so evolution is something that is [23:12] inherent to how we got here. [23:16] Why would we think that this moment in [23:18] the evolutionary progression was the end [23:21] of it all? We weren't going to continue [23:23] to evolve. And maybe the continuation of [23:27] our evolution is in partnership with the [23:30] artificial intelligence systems that we [23:32] ourselves create [23:34] >> that we give birth to. [23:35] >> Yeah, it's us, right? It's our creation, [23:38] you know, it's not an alien. We haven't [23:40] been taken over. And so, yeah, I think [23:43] that is a a real possible way that this [23:46] story plays out. [23:48] >> How do you feel about it? [23:50] >> I am fine with it. You know, I think [23:54] that we tend to become very attached [23:58] >> to the way things are and we gain a [24:02] sense of the way things are is the way [24:05] it will always be. I think that's a [24:07] natural way that we humans have lived [24:11] our lives. Why? Because the time scales [24:14] for change in our past have been [24:17] relatively slow, right? We lived what [24:20] 30, 40, 50, call it 80 years, 100 years, [24:23] whatever. But the time scales for change [24:25] were typically much larger than that. [24:28] The time scales for political change and [24:30] the time scales for technological change [24:32] much larger. So as a species, we've [24:35] grown accustomed to the thought that [24:37] yeah, what we see is how it will always [24:39] be. But of course, as we look back [24:41] through history, we can see the changes. [24:43] And so we're uncomfortable with change [24:45] because we're unus to living through [24:47] that kind of change at the kind of speed [24:50] that we are and will continue to [24:53] encounter. But I think we just have to [24:56] get with it. Now look, I don't want AI [25:00] system to wipe us out. Don't get me [25:02] wrong. But I think if we recognize that [25:04] change is happening, will happening, we [25:06] can embrace it in a way that will have [25:08] an outcome that will be acceptable, that [25:12] will in fact be wonderful in the things [25:15] that it will allow us to do. [25:17] >> I'm quite curious. You talked about AI [25:18] being able to solve that complex math [25:20] problem. [25:21] >> I'm wondering if with accelerating ever [25:25] more intelligent AI, there's a bunch of [25:27] other things within physics that you [25:28] think might become possible in the near [25:31] term. I mean, one of them I was thinking [25:32] about, we can talk about some of the [25:33] others that I have in my mind, but and [25:34] any others that you think are [25:35] interesting, but one of them is us being [25:37] able to live forever. [25:38] >> Yeah. [25:39] >> Do you think we're going to be able to [25:40] live forever? [25:41] >> Yeah, that would be a that would be a [25:42] good one. I don't think that death is [25:44] inevitable [25:46] in the sense that [25:49] death can be thought of as the increase [25:52] in entropy, the increase in disorder in [25:55] a physical system. And when the entropy [25:57] gets too large, the system can't [26:00] function the way it once did. And that's [26:03] really what we call death, right? That's [26:06] really what it means. And so in [26:08] principle, we can imagine harnessing [26:11] some of the processes that have caused [26:14] the degradation in the human body that [26:17] have naturally resulted in us typically [26:20] not living more than 100, 120 years. I [26:22] mean, people like, you know, David [26:24] Sinclair who I've spoken to about things [26:25] like this. Yeah, you know, I think we [26:27] can forestoall the kinds of degradation. [26:31] Now, if you're talking to me, I think on [26:34] time scales that are so much longer than [26:36] a human life. I think about time scales [26:39] that speak to the entire [26:43] time frame of the cosmos from beginning [26:46] to the closest that science can take us [26:48] to the very end. And on those scales, I [26:52] don't think that we will be able to [26:54] forstall death. But please note the time [26:57] scales I'm talking about are ludicrous [27:00] compared to any time scale that we are [27:03] familiar with. 100 more years, 200 more [27:06] years, maybe 500 more years. I don't [27:08] think anybody can really say for sure. I [27:10] do think that is within the possible [27:13] range of what science and medicine will [27:17] ultimately be able to accomplish. And I [27:20] will say though, you know, I I read a [27:22] book I was about in my 20s called The [27:25] Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. He was [27:28] a social psychologist, I guess, [27:31] sociologist who believed strongly that [27:35] so much of what we do in our lives is [27:38] driven by our awareness of our own [27:41] mortality. And as I began to think more [27:43] and more about that, it made more and [27:44] more sense to me, which had a dual [27:48] effect on me. very interesting framework [27:50] to think about your life within the [27:53] context of recognizing its finite [27:56] nature. But the flip side of that is [27:57] you're constantly thinking about your [27:58] own death, you know, which, you know, is [28:00] a a curious way to go about your life. [28:03] But I don't think the denial of death [28:06] that human motivation would go away if [28:08] we live 200 years or 300 or 500. Yeah, [28:12] we'd have longer lifespans. we'd be able [28:14] to do more things. But, you know, if we [28:17] live to 500, you know, as we approach [28:19] 450, 475, we'll be thinking the exact [28:23] same thoughts that we think now as we [28:26] approach 70 or 80. It'll be no [28:29] different. And so, from a fundamental [28:31] perspective, yeah, I would choose to [28:33] live longer, but I don't think it [28:35] changes anything fundamentally. [28:37] >> I find it quite interesting. I was [28:39] actually writing a letter about this [28:40] sort of an article to myself really [28:42] about this yesterday about this idea of [28:43] long-termism and how when you just [28:45] change the time horizon of something the [28:47] decisions you make today are different. [28:49] Yeah. And a simple way of explaining [28:50] this through the context of like [28:52] business would be if I told you to build [28:54] a business then I gave you one year and [28:56] unlimited resources but you had to build [28:58] it as big as you could [28:59] >> you would take certain shortcuts [29:01] >> and you would maybe not think about the [29:03] foundations but if I gave you 20 years [29:06] you'd really make great foundations and [29:08] then you know you'd build up from there [29:09] and I think about the same in our lives [29:11] because we do have this sort of sort of [29:12] inbuilt time horizon. Okay, I'm going to [29:14] live maybe 80 years and then I'm 30 and [29:16] then 40 and then kids and then I start [29:17] to, you know, change and maybe at some [29:20] deeper level we are making a certain set [29:22] of decisions based on that time horizon [29:24] that we wouldn't make otherwise. [29:25] >> Yeah. I mean when I was 20 or 30, you [29:29] know, even though I had this mindset [29:31] that was inculcated by reading Becker's [29:33] book, there was a certain sense of an [29:36] infinite horizon that somehow was [29:40] infusing your decisions, you know, to [29:44] write a book. Well, that's like a [29:45] four-year undertaking. But, you know, [29:47] when you're 30, you're like, "Yeah, [29:49] sure. Yeah, I'm going to do that now. [29:52] I'm gonna choose those books with a [29:54] certain kind of care, right? You know, [29:56] there's a different kind of mindset that [29:59] that is brought to bear. So, I certainly [30:01] agree that the time horizon has a [30:04] profound impact on the momentto moment [30:07] choices, but the pattern that we humans [30:11] go through from birth, you know, to [30:14] adolescence, [30:15] adulthood, middle age to ultimately old [30:18] age if we're lucky and then, you know, [30:20] we disappear. that pattern will persist [30:23] regardless of what the ultimate scale of [30:25] it is. Whether it's 80 years or 800 [30:27] years, I think that we would go through [30:29] a very similar kind of rhythmic [30:33] variation in how we approach the world. [30:36] >> If we were immortal, [30:38] that would change a lot, but I don't see [30:42] immortality in our future. [30:44] >> What is the sort of the least inspiring [30:47] possibility of the sort of answer to the [30:49] big question of why we're here? And then [30:50] I'll ask you the the most optimistic [30:52] possibility. [30:54] >> Yeah. I think the least inspiring would [30:56] be if what if in the end of the day it's [31:00] all just an accident. There is no deep [31:03] explanation for why the world is the way [31:06] it is. There's no deep explanation for [31:08] why there's something rather than [31:10] nothing. And if that's the truth, I'm on [31:13] board. But it wouldn't feel as enriching [31:17] as it might be if I can now jump to the [31:19] other side of your question. You know, [31:21] if there is a true fundamental answer to [31:24] the question of why there is anything at [31:26] all and I recognize that that answer [31:29] dovetales with everything else that [31:31] we've been developing. That answer [31:33] ultimately yields quantum mechanics and [31:36] yields the general theory of relativity [31:37] and maybe even yields string theory. [31:40] That would feel deeply satisfying. Why [31:43] did our brain evolve? So we could get [31:45] the next meal. So we could get shelter. [31:48] So we could get a mate and have progeny, [31:52] allowing our genetic material to [31:54] propagate into our descendants. Right? [31:57] This is what the brain was meant to do. [32:00] And yet this brain can do so much more [32:02] than that. It can figure out the [32:04] equations of physics. That's that's a [32:06] miracle right there. And so the deep [32:09] gratification would come from this brain [32:12] being able to figure out some stuff and [32:14] then it dovetales with the deep [32:17] explanation for why there's anything at [32:19] all giving us a coherent narrative from [32:22] the beginning until today and perhaps on [32:24] into the far future. [32:27] >> Yeah. [32:28] >> Do you think it's going to happen? Do [32:29] you think we're going to answer that [32:30] question? [32:30] >> I don't know. Nobody does. [32:34] I think all vectors are pointing in a [32:36] direction that suggests that there are [32:39] real explanations that it's not just [32:41] happen stance. There are these particles [32:43] we mentioned before called electrons. [32:46] Here it is my spinning electron, right? [32:48] And so when an electron spins, it can [32:52] rise to a little magnetic field sort of [32:54] like a trillionth of the strength of the [32:56] magnetic field of a magnet on your [32:59] refrigerator. We can use the math of [33:02] quantum mechanics to predict the [33:03] strength of that magnetic field and we [33:05] can do it and it comes out 2 point blah [33:07] blah blah 15 decimal places long. We can [33:10] do the math. We then can measure the [33:12] magnetic field and it agrees digit by [33:15] digit by digit by digit by digit with [33:18] what we calculate. [33:20] Our prediction is borne out by our [33:22] observations to 15 decimal places. I [33:26] mean that's breathtaking. We should not [33:29] have been able to do that in some sense [33:32] to understand the world that deeply with [33:34] a brain that really was focused upon, [33:36] you know, getting the bison. And so the [33:39] fact that we can do that suggests to me [33:42] that there are these deep patterns in [33:45] the world that will ultimately stitch [33:50] together into a coherent story. [33:53] >> Do you think it could lead us to God? [33:56] >> Well, or religion. Yeah, it depends what [33:57] you mean by God. You know, if you mean [34:01] the kind of God that our forebears [34:06] often have spoken of and people today as [34:08] well, a kind of anthropomorphized being, [34:12] you know, sitting on the throne in some [34:14] heavenly place. I suspect not. That [34:18] feels to me very much a human creation [34:21] and a wondrous human creation. And I'm [34:24] not of the mindset, as some of my [34:27] science colleagues are, that religion is [34:30] an enemy of science and needs to be [34:32] wiped. It can be, but anything can be an [34:34] enemy of anything else. It depends how [34:36] you use it. I see religion not as a [34:39] structure that tries to explain the [34:42] world in terms of its workings. I see it [34:44] as a structure that tries to quell our [34:48] anxiety, our existential anxiety. Where [34:51] did religions come from? They came from [34:53] our forebears recognizing that they [34:56] would die. So you know our forebears had [35:00] these elaborate rituals of burying their [35:02] dead. There are these wonderful caves um [35:05] in various parts of the world that have [35:07] been excavated where the grave goods as [35:10] they call it involving you know animal [35:12] teeth stitched together care. It would [35:15] take a single individual years to create [35:18] the grave goods that are buried with an [35:21] individual. Why would they spend the [35:23] time on that? Well, they were imagining [35:26] that death is not the end. That that [35:28] individual needed those grave goods for [35:30] their next journey into the afterlife. [35:33] And why were they thinking about that? [35:35] Because it's too terrifying [35:37] to imagine that death is truly the end. [35:40] And so from that you can see the [35:43] glimmers of a religious sensibility [35:46] emerging where we want to have something [35:49] that suggests that death is not the end. [35:52] So we invent these beautiful structures [35:55] called religions and I say that even [35:58] from a personal standpoint. I don't [36:00] believe in any of the traditional [36:02] religious practices. Right? I'm Jewish. [36:05] I was raised sort of Jewish more [36:06] culturally than religiously. [36:09] Do I pray on occasion? Yeah, I do. Do I [36:13] believe that I'm praying to an actual [36:15] god? I do not. But the act of [36:20] going through the kind of ritual that [36:23] our ancestors did and giving yourself [36:26] over momentarily to something that you [36:29] imagine is being more powerful. I think [36:31] it's deeply in our nature. [36:32] >> So, who are you praying to? [36:34] >> I am praying to the universe if I have [36:36] to give a word to it. Recognizing that [36:39] this prayer is going to fall on deaf [36:42] ears because there's nothing else out [36:44] there to hear it, but it makes me feel [36:47] better. And so there's a part of my mind [36:50] that's willing to allow the scientific [36:54] understanding to have its place, but the [36:57] irrational human side to have its place, [37:00] too. [37:01] What is the the most compelling argument [37:03] or idea or experience you've ever [37:05] encountered for a god like the ones we [37:08] read about in the Bibles? [37:10] >> Very little. Very little. You know, [37:12] somebody died in the operating room and [37:15] they were able to uh leave their body [37:18] and see things that they could not [37:19] possibly have seen and then they [37:21] reported back when they were revived and [37:23] people like, "Oh, you must have died and [37:25] left your body." That's the only No, no, [37:27] no, no. The human brain has this [37:29] wonderful imaginative capacity to see [37:32] things inside of its head that it [37:34] doesn't literally see. That's what we [37:36] can do. And so I've never seen a single [37:39] example where I couldn't feel that I [37:41] could give a logical explanation which [37:43] was more compelling than the [37:45] supernatural explanation. [37:47] >> What about the big bang then? [37:48] >> Good. So the big bang is a question of [37:53] how it got started. Yeah. And over time [37:56] we have been able to push our [37:58] understanding ever further back. So in [38:02] about 19 uh call it 29 or so Edwin [38:07] Hubble who is a great astronomer [38:10] noticed through powerful observations [38:13] through the telescope at Mount Wilson [38:14] Observatory in California that the [38:17] distant galaxies all seem to be moving [38:19] away. Interesting. Others, George [38:22] Lmetra, who is a Belgian priest, as it [38:24] turns out, who also knew Einstein's [38:26] general relativity, said, "Well, look, [38:28] if all the galaxies are moving away, [38:30] just wind that cosmic film backwards." [38:33] Back in time, they must have been closer [38:35] and closer and closer together. Way back [38:38] in the beginning, they must have all [38:39] been on top of each other, and then [38:42] everything running the film forward must [38:43] have swelled outward in a big bang-like [38:46] explosion. [38:47] >> Let there be light. [38:48] >> Let there be light. Yeah. And so [38:50] starting in 1929, we began to have a [38:53] scientific account of how it is that the [38:57] universe may have been billions of years [39:00] ago. And in our era, other scientists [39:03] took the story even further, suggesting [39:06] that there was an earlier era when the [39:08] universe was just infused with a kind of [39:13] uniform energy. You could say, where did [39:15] the energy come? I don't know. But if it [39:17] was infused with this uniform energy, [39:19] they showed that the math required that [39:21] the universe underwent this rapid [39:23] swelling, the big bang. And so era by [39:27] era by era, my point is we can push our [39:30] understanding ever more deeply trying to [39:33] get at cosmic origins. We have not been [39:36] able to push back to time zero itself. [39:39] But because we're able to push our [39:41] understanding further back and make [39:43] predictions about, for instance, what's [39:45] known as the cosmic microwave background [39:48] radiation. This is heat that we can [39:51] observe today that was left over from [39:54] the big bang. Big bang was very hot. The [39:57] universe has cooled ever since for 13.8 [39:59] billion years. We can detect the [40:02] residual heat from the big bang. And so [40:06] this gives me confidence that we're [40:10] inching toward the answer to the [40:13] question that you asked. Now, will we [40:15] require God at some point? By which I [40:18] mean, will we say we've gone as far as [40:20] we can? Will we have to invoke something [40:23] else? I can't say no. But I don't see [40:26] any reason at this point to envision [40:28] that we won't be able to push all the [40:30] way to a full understanding. Most of us [40:33] don't really understand um I guess how [40:38] scale [40:39] >> Yeah. [40:39] >> and time have a relationship which means [40:42] that you know I've been alive for 33 [40:44] years now and it feels like a long time. [40:45] >> Yeah. [40:46] >> But I'm presuming the further and [40:48] further you zoom out and the sort of the [40:50] bigger the wider the scale gets time is [40:53] experienced differently. So actually I [40:55] could have been here for a second in a [40:57] toddler's universe who's created the [40:59] simulation. [40:59] >> Yes. All of this is possible when [41:01] simulations are part of the story. But [41:03] if you put that to the side and just [41:05] look at our universe, yeah, the time [41:08] scales even there are shocking. I mean, [41:11] Carl Sean used an analogy. He said, [41:14] "Look, if you want to understand the [41:17] time scales of the universe from the [41:19] beginning until today, which is billions [41:20] of years, like 13.8 billion years, he [41:23] said, here's one way to do it. Imagine [41:26] that all of cosmic history from the [41:28] beginning until today, you compress it [41:30] down to one year. [41:33] >> Now, in that scheme, that means each day [41:35] is about 40,000 years. But you can then [41:38] put all of the milestone moments in the [41:42] evolution of the universe on the [41:43] calendar. So imagine you have the big [41:45] bang is January 1st. Then the Milky Way [41:48] galaxy forms like something around you [41:51] know March 15th or something like that. [41:54] And the sun and the earth form sometime [41:56] you know in May you know and then the [41:59] first you know life on earth is sometime [42:02] in December like December 2nd and then [42:04] you know the first modern humans they [42:07] appear like on New Year's Eve right [42:10] >> and then all of civilization [42:13] takes place in the last 10 seconds right [42:16] so like 11:55 [42:19] you know it's the it's the rise of the [42:21] Buddha 1156 the fall of Rome 1158 ate [42:24] the Renaissance 11:59 [42:26] like 1 second to the stroke of midnight [42:29] you get modern science. So like modern [42:31] science is like 1 second in this cosmic [42:35] calendar. And so that helps you get a [42:38] feel for the time scales that are [42:41] involved when you're talking [42:42] cosmologically because you're right, 33 [42:45] years in a lifetime. [42:47] You know, I'm I'm going to posit you're [42:49] going to live to 99. Let's say that's [42:51] oneird of your life. You know, that's [42:52] that's not small. It's not big, but you [42:54] know, it's a significant part of it. on [42:57] cosmic terms 33 years it's zero it [43:01] doesn't register that's how tiny it is [43:04] on the scales that we're talking about [43:06] cosmologically [43:09] >> so should I feel insignificant [43:11] >> you can I would urge you not to one of [43:14] the reactions to all this certainly can [43:15] be look we're a little tiny speck in [43:20] space right I mean you can give the same [43:22] kind of context for space itself Right. [43:26] Because we're on a planet around the [43:28] sun. The sun is one star of a 100red [43:32] billion others or so in the Milky Way [43:34] galaxy. [43:35] >> Have you got a [43:35] >> Yeah, I think there's a a little version [43:38] of this thing here. If we can get this [43:40] guy to go on. Right. Yeah. So, if you [43:42] sort of start like here, right here we [43:44] are in the studio. Right. And if here we [43:46] then begin to pull out to planet Earth, [43:50] like we're a little dot on planet Earth. [43:52] And then if you pull out from there, [43:54] this is Earth within the solar system. [43:56] You begin to see how tiny we look even [43:58] on the scale of the solar system. But of [44:01] course here you can pull out further and [44:03] you begin to see our sun, one of many [44:05] stars within the galaxies. You only see [44:07] a few here. But you know there are 100 [44:10] billion stars in our galaxy. And then [44:12] you can go even further than that. You [44:14] can look at our Milky Way galaxy within [44:18] the setting of the entire universe that [44:21] has at least a hundred billion other [44:23] galaxies. [44:25] So we as a little tiny speck around our [44:29] star, our star is one of 100 billion [44:31] stars in a galaxy that's one of 100 [44:33] billion galaxies. That can certainly [44:36] make you feel small in space. [44:39] The beauty though is that our minds can [44:42] reach out to the edge of the cosmos. The [44:45] fact that we can understand that we are [44:48] so small is what gives us heft. That's [44:51] what gives us a sense of connection to [44:53] something larger. I imagine that fish [44:57] don't realize [44:59] that they're like in one ocean of many [45:03] oceans on the earth. That's one planet. [45:05] I I don't think maybe I'm wrong and [45:07] maybe the fish are like ah yeah yeah [45:08] yeah you you know [clears throat] but [45:10] but assuming that the fish don't know [45:11] that they don't know that they're [45:14] insignificant they don't even really [45:16] think in those terms per se but the fact [45:19] that we can do that the fact that we can [45:21] realize how insignificant we are when [45:23] you talk about the expanse of space you [45:26] realize that there are other measures of [45:27] significance and one measure of [45:29] significance is your ability to [45:31] understand your own predicament [45:34] and the fact that we can do that is what [45:37] to me is wondrous. [45:39] >> How do we know we're not just that whole [45:40] universe there isn't just a we're just a [45:43] a microbe in the in the gut of a of a [45:46] fish? [45:46] >> Yeah, we we could and again that's much [45:48] like this simulation argument. But let [45:51] me give you an example in here that [45:53] helps give you a sense of why we believe [45:56] this stuff. This here is the cosmic [45:59] microwave background radiation. This is [46:02] the heat left over from the beginning. [46:05] Now, it's colorcoded. The different [46:07] colors correspond to different [46:08] temperatures in space. This is a picture [46:11] of space with a device that measures the [46:15] temperature at each location and assigns [46:17] it a color. [46:18] >> How much of space or just a segment? [46:20] >> This is a segment of the observable [46:22] universe. The segment that we can see. [46:24] Now, space can be much larger than [46:26] things that we can see. That's [46:27] absolutely the case. But my point is [46:30] these tiny color variations correspond [46:33] to tiny temperature differences. We can [46:36] use mathematics to predict the pattern [46:39] of the temperature variations. [46:41] And what we predict matches this image [46:44] to incredible precision. [46:47] And so the fact that we can do a [46:49] calculation right at this table with a [46:52] piece of paper, a pencil, and a computer [46:55] and generate an image that agrees with [46:58] what we see, we say, "Look, yeah, we can [47:00] be skeptical. Maybe we don't have the [47:02] full answer, but that agreement gives us [47:05] confidence that we've got something in [47:08] the direction of truth." And that to me [47:11] is what gives us something that [47:14] counteracts the feeling of [47:17] insignificance. [47:19] >> And on that, if you just pull that up [47:20] again. So this is the observable [47:22] universe, which is I mean, how big is [47:24] that? [47:24] >> The universe is about 13.8 billion years [47:27] old. So you'd think that the univer the [47:30] distance we could see would be about [47:32] 13.8 billion light years. The distance [47:35] light can travel in one year. We can [47:36] actually see a little bit further more [47:38] like 45 billion lightyears. So you can [47:41] think about this as here we are we look [47:44] out billions of light years that way [47:46] billions of light years that way [47:47] billions of light years in every [47:49] direction and this is like a big sphere [47:51] that surrounds us and we're measuring [47:53] its temperature. The temperature of [47:55] space the photons that have traveled to [47:57] us from about 300,000 years after the [48:01] beginning. So this picture is a snapshot [48:05] in essence of what the universe was like [48:08] a mere moment in cosmological terms [48:11] 300,000 years after the beginning. That [48:15] is an amazing picture. [48:17] >> And what's beyond? [48:19] >> I don't know. I don't have any reason to [48:22] suspect that reality radically changes [48:26] just beyond the place that we can see. I [48:29] think it's incredibly unlikely that the [48:31] world is so consistent with our [48:35] scientific understanding for it to all [48:37] be a ruse. [48:39] >> So, is it infinite? [48:41] >> It could be. And if it is infinite, [48:43] there are some really weird things. If [48:47] what we have been talking about isn't [48:48] weird enough, right? You know, if the [48:51] universe is infinite, if you go [48:53] sufficiently far out into space, you're [48:56] virtually guaranteed to find a copy of [48:58] yourself out there and a copy of the [49:02] Earth out there and a copy of our galaxy [49:05] out there. It's virtually impossible to [49:09] imagine a universe that goes on [49:10] infinitely far and doesn't repeat. You [49:13] know, in fact, I see a prop here. I can [49:15] sort of tell you why, right? So, here's [49:18] a deck of cards, right? And I think it's [49:20] a new deck. Yeah. So everything is in [49:22] order, right? It's all perfectly ordered [49:24] like that. Now, if I was to take this [49:26] deck of cards and I start to shuffle it, [49:29] right? So, you know, I'm not a [49:31] particularly good shuffler, but you [49:32] know, you get the basic idea. You know, [49:35] I keep shuffling. And of course, the [49:37] order changes every time, right? So, if [49:40] I now, you know, I'm not a great [49:41] shuffler. So, there probably still, you [49:43] know, some things that are still, you [49:44] know, in numerical order, but it's more [49:46] mixed up than it was before. And I can [49:48] keep on doing this. Now, sooner or [49:51] later, if I continue to shuffle these [49:54] cards over and over and over and over [49:55] and over and over again, sooner or [49:57] later, it will get back to the [49:59] completely ordered arrangement. Why? [50:02] Because there aren't enough different [50:04] arrangements to go around. Right? That [50:07] idea applies in the universe in the [50:09] following way. In any region of space, [50:12] there are particles. Those particles can [50:14] be arranged in a variety of different [50:16] ways. Here they're arranged so that you [50:18] and I are sitting at this table and we [50:20] got the cameras and everything. This is [50:21] just a particle arrangement. There are [50:24] only a finite number of arrangements of [50:26] particles in any given region of space. [50:28] This you can establish from the laws of [50:30] quantum physics. So if you go out far [50:32] enough in space, region by region by [50:34] region, the particles will have [50:35] different arrangements, but they have to [50:37] repeat much like the order of the cards [50:39] has to repeat. So there has to be a [50:41] place out there. In fact, if it goes on [50:43] infinitely far, if you imagine that I [50:45] shuffle these cards infinitely many [50:47] times, I'll get that nice ordered [50:50] arrangement infinitely many times, too. [50:53] Similarly, there are infinitely many [50:55] copies of you, of me, of everything [50:58] we're familiar with out there in the [51:00] cosmos. And so, if the universe is [51:03] infinite, it kind of challenges a little [51:05] bit our sense of self, right? Like what [51:08] does it mean to be who you are if there [51:10] are other versions of you having the [51:12] exact same thoughts? They had the same [51:15] childhood. They had the same history [51:18] because again that's just an arrangement [51:20] of particles over time and it has to [51:22] repeat. [51:24] >> There's a version out there of me that [51:25] just loves wine. [51:28] >> There you go. Right. In fact, it's even [51:30] easier, I should say, for the particle [51:33] arrangement to almost but not quite [51:36] exactly replicate what we're familiar [51:38] with, which would mean there's a [51:41] universe out there in which you and I [51:43] are interchanged or you grew up in New [51:46] York City and I grew up something. Yeah, [51:48] because those are again almost [51:50] replications. You got the earth, you got [51:52] the sun, but the detailed particle [51:54] arrangement is close to but not [51:56] identical to what we are used to. So [51:59] yeah, an infinite universe brings in [52:02] some fairly strange ideas. [52:06] >> But even in the observable universe, I [52:07] mean this transitions nicely to the [52:08] subject of aliens which people are um [52:10] yeah [52:11] >> very obsessed about. I guess there's two [52:12] questions here which is why do we care [52:14] so much I guess philosophically about [52:16] aliens? You know, I think we at least in [52:19] this country and elsewhere too, we love [52:22] the idea of conspiracy. We love the idea [52:25] that the deep state is hiding things [52:28] from us. And by we, I don't mean me. I [52:30] sort of mean the zeitgeist, you know, [52:32] loves the idea of this Area 51, you [52:34] know. So, I think there's a a a desire [52:38] for there to be more than what's [52:40] apparent on the surface. And wouldn't it [52:43] be exciting if you know we've long known [52:46] that there are these aliens they visited [52:48] us and it's been kept under wraps. [52:51] That's like the deep conspiracy that [52:54] feeds that hunger for there to be [52:56] something that is being hidden from us. [52:58] Now I think the other reason is we're [53:01] deeply lonely as a species. Sure, we've [53:05] got people around, but you know, I think [53:07] this sense, the desire for a god, I [53:10] don't think is that much different from [53:12] the desire for there to be other life [53:14] out there. It's the desire to be part of [53:16] something bigger. Now, if you ask me, do [53:19] I think there are actually other life [53:21] forms out there? I'd like to think of it [53:24] in two ways. One, yeah, I think it's [53:27] hard to imagine that we're the only [53:28] life. I mean the more we look the more [53:30] we find the organic molecules necessary [53:33] for life you know amino acids nucleic [53:36] acid you know the the raw material seems [53:39] to not be too hard to come by in the [53:42] cosmos so to imagine that there's other [53:45] you know bacterial life or viruses out [53:48] there that seems to me a reasonable [53:51] working hypothesis but if you then say [53:54] but what about intelligent life and by [53:56] intelligent life let's just call us [53:59] intelligent and it's debatable but let's [54:01] just say that you know that is a harder [54:03] question I mean even on our planet right [54:06] it was an asteroid 65 million years ago [54:09] that wiped out the dinosaurs and in that [54:12] way opened up the evolutionary pathway [54:16] by which we came to dominate in the way [54:19] that we do without that it could still [54:21] be the dinosaurs are grazing around on [54:25] various plant life and other life forms [54:27] on on the surface of this earth. And [54:29] without that kind of accident on some [54:31] other world, maybe intelligent life is [54:33] rare or even so rare that we're the only [54:36] example. So I don't consider that an [54:39] absurd perspective as well that there is [54:42] life, but there may not be any [54:44] intelligence beyond us. [54:47] >> Much of the reason most people haven't [54:49] posted content or built their personal [54:50] brand is because it's hard and it's [54:52] timeconuming and we're all very very [54:54] busy. And if you've never posted [54:56] something before, there's so many [54:58] factors in your psychology that stop you [55:01] wanting to post. What people will think [55:02] of you. Am I doing this right? Is the [55:04] thing I'm saying absolutely stupid? All [55:07] of these result in paralysis, which [55:09] means you don't post and your feed goes [55:11] bare. I'm an investor in a company [55:13] called Stanto, which you've probably [55:15] heard me talk about. And what they've [55:16] been building is this new tool called [55:18] Stanley that uses AI, looks at your [55:20] feed, looks at your tone of voice, looks [55:22] at your history, looks at your best [55:23] performing posts, and tells you what you [55:25] should post, makes those posts for you. [55:27] You can also just use it for [55:29] inspiration. And sometimes what we need [55:31] when we're thinking about doing a post [55:32] for our social media channels is [55:34] inspiration. Building an audience has [55:36] fundamentally changed my life, and I [55:37] think it could change yours, too. So, [55:39] I'm inviting you to give this new tool a [55:41] shot, and let me know what you think. [55:43] All you have to do is search coach.stand [55:45] stand.store now to get started. Whenever [55:47] I talk to new founders, they all carry [55:49] the same belief that the biggest threat [55:50] to their small business is having a bad [55:52] product. It's not the biggest threat [55:54] they face is hiring the wrong person for [55:56] their small team. Because bad hires put [55:59] the handbreak on growth and rapidly [56:01] infect company culture. And I get it. [56:03] When you're starting out, you need a [56:04] players to grow your company, but you [56:06] don't have 40 spare hours to spend [56:08] sifting through interviews. So, you hire [56:10] fast to fill the seat. But this ends up [56:12] costing you even more in the long term. [56:13] What any small business actually needs [56:15] is a reliable and efficient way to find [56:16] the right talent without stalling [56:18] momentum. That's where our long-term [56:19] sponsor LinkedIn and LinkedIn Hiring Pro [56:22] can help you. It streamlines the entire [56:23] hiring process from drafting a job [56:25] description to shortlisting candidates [56:27] and conducting AI powered interviews for [56:29] initial screenings. Nearly 60% of hirers [56:32] who've used this tool have found a [56:34] candidate to interview within a week. [56:35] Hire right the first time around and get [56:37] started by posting your first job for [56:39] free at linkedin.com/doac. [56:42] That's linkedin.comac [56:44] in terms and conditions apply. [56:46] >> If one of your children came to you and [56:48] said, "Dad, um, what is the what is the [56:50] meaning then of this life? If we're [56:52] we're alone in this universe, it's a [56:53] gazillion miles away from anything [56:55] interesting in the cosmic spectrum of [56:57] things. What is the meaning of all of [56:58] this, Dad?" [56:59] >> Yeah. Well, they do ask. [57:00] >> Oh, they do. [57:01] >> You know, unfortunately or fortunately, [57:03] because I spend a lot of time thinking [57:05] about this stuff and writing about it, [57:07] it's sort of in in the familial [57:09] zeitgeist at home, if you will. But you [57:11] know my answer generally is I don't [57:15] think that hovering out there in the [57:17] depths of space there is the answer. You [57:21] know I I think you know this this urge [57:24] to look out and have the answer brought [57:27] to us. I think that's needs to be [57:30] inverted. I think that we need to come [57:33] to the universe with our answer to that. [57:36] And I think the charge of every sentient [57:40] living being is to come to their own [57:44] rationale for their life, their own [57:46] answer to your question, their own set [57:50] of activities and desires and [57:53] achievements and relationships that [57:55] gives their life meaning and combine to [57:59] make me feel connected. [58:01] One of the things that does make me feel [58:02] connected is just knowing that the [58:05] particles that I'm made out of existed [58:07] at the Big Bang. [58:08] >> Yes, exactly. Isn't that wondrous? [58:13] You are the universe constructed in a [58:17] way that you can reflect on the [58:20] universe. Now, some would say, "No, no, [58:23] no. We're special. We're like these [58:25] divine offspring, you know, made in the [58:28] image of God." And sure, I mean, I like [58:31] the way that that sounds, but I find it [58:33] much more satisfying to describe it the [58:36] way you did. There were particles that [58:38] emerged from the Big Bang that coales [58:40] into a form that allowed us to [58:43] momentarily, cuz we're here for a brief [58:45] flicker of cosmic time, to momentarily [58:47] reflect on our own existence. That's a [58:50] connection. One of the things that [58:52] actually helped me a lot through my [58:53] life, funnily enough, is um is kind of [58:55] watching what you just showed on the [58:56] screen there, which was I watched a [58:58] video when I was younger of them just [59:00] zooming out from Earth. [59:01] >> Yeah. [59:01] >> And we talked about feeling [59:03] insignificant earlier. Um I mean, [59:05] there's some of them here. I'll just [59:06] pick one at random like this one here. [59:08] Well, it's just a a lady sat on some [59:09] grass and [59:10] >> she she zooms out further and further [59:12] and further. And when I saw this, I must [59:13] have been h it was a video like this [59:16] one. I must have been about 14 years [59:17] old. And at first I had the thought that [59:19] a lot of people might have which was oh [59:21] like none of this matters because we're [59:23] so insignificant on the grand scheme of [59:25] things that like what's the point? And [59:27] then I I had this other thought which [59:29] has stayed with me ever since which is [59:33] it liberated me from worry. [59:35] >> Yeah. [59:36] >> Because if if all of my worries are just [59:39] a speck in this bigger thing which are a [59:42] speck in a bigger thing and a speck in a [59:43] bigger thing it meant that I could take [59:46] more risks in my life. Yeah. [59:48] >> And not be encumbered by what will [59:50] happen if and what will people think and [59:52] etc etc etc which kind of liberates one [59:54] to go and pursue whatever they want to [59:56] pursue. [59:56] >> Yeah. Carl Sean with the pale blue dot. [59:59] You know if you're familiar with that [60:01] terminology he he had the uh Viking [60:04] spacecraft when it was going by Saturn [60:09] turn around and take a shot of planet [60:13] Earth through the gossamer rings of [60:15] Saturn. And in that photo, the Earth is [60:18] this little tiny pale blue speck, sort [60:20] of as we saw in the film as it went by [60:23] there. And he in this wonderfully poetic [60:26] passage described how everything we care [60:29] about, everything we love, everything we [60:32] fight, the rivers of blood that have [60:34] been spilled to conquer a tiny little [60:37] fraction of a pixel in space. that gives [60:42] you a setting where the concerns that [60:46] you're mentioning of an individual human [60:47] life of of countries of nations you [60:51] realize how utterly small it is in the [60:54] cosmological setting and again that to [60:57] me isn't insignificance as you were [60:59] saying it's liberation [61:01] >> we have this um [clears throat] this [61:04] spectrum of I guess confidence yeah in [61:06] front of us here and on one end of it it [61:08] says low confidence on this end it has [61:09] high confidence and there's [61:11] five little uh figurine type things [61:14] there next to you. And what I would like [61:15] you to do is to place them in line with [61:18] your confidence that the thing is real. [61:20] So the first one I'm going to ask you to [61:21] place is those mini scales which [61:23] represent free will. [61:24] >> This guy here, free will. [61:25] >> That's free will. Do you think humans [61:27] have free will? Are you low confidence [61:29] or high confidence? I'll push that [61:30] further towards you so you can [61:31] >> uh well uh I do not think we have free [61:34] will and I have high confidence in that [61:39] assessment which I guess means low [61:41] confidence that we have free will. [61:43] >> What is free will [61:44] >> to me? Free will is really just the [61:46] everyday [61:48] sense that you are the ultimate author [61:51] of your actions. that the buck stops [61:54] with you when it comes to the decisions [61:57] that you make for how you are going to [61:59] respond one way or another in the moment [62:02] to moment existence of life. I don't [62:04] think that freedom of the will is real. [62:08] And I can give you a quick sense why it [62:11] really is an extension of everything [62:13] that we've already spoken about, which [62:15] is, you know, when I look at you, I see [62:19] a man, but I also imagine that I'm [62:23] looking inside you and I see your [62:24] particles. And so, you are a man-shaped [62:28] collection of particles. That is what [62:30] you are. And each of those particles and [62:33] the elomeration of those particles are [62:36] fully governed by the laws of physics. I [62:39] don't say that we have those laws yet. [62:41] We have an approximation to them with [62:43] Schroinger and Einstein and all those [62:45] folks. But I do believe that there is an [62:47] ultimate set of principles that guide [62:50] how your particles behave. You do not [62:54] have the capacity to intercede in the [62:57] lawful progression of your particles. So [63:00] if you raise your hand, [63:02] it is not you who is doing that. It is [63:05] the laws of physics guiding the [63:07] particles in your brain, sending an [63:09] electrical signal down your arm, causing [63:11] your muscle to contract or expand, [63:13] resulting in your hand going up. You [63:15] don't control the laws that govern those [63:18] particles. [63:19] >> I didn't make the decision. [63:20] >> You did not. You felt that you did. And [63:23] so the feeling that you and I and [63:25] everyone else have that we make [63:28] decisions and those decisions result in [63:30] our actions. It's a powerful it's a [63:33] seductive sensibility. But no, I do not [63:36] think that you are the place where that [63:39] choice if you will occurred. The choice [63:43] is actually within the lawful unfolding [63:45] of the particles. And I can't control [63:48] that particle motion. Therefore, I can't [63:50] control the decision. Therefore, I don't [63:53] control the motion of my arm. [63:54] >> Therefore, I don't control my life. [63:56] >> You don't in some sense if you buy into [63:58] it fully. [snorts] [64:00] It can be paralyzing. Or you can [64:03] recognize it, which I do. And I say, [64:05] "Okay, within that structure, I'm going [64:08] to live my life as fully as I can." And [64:12] I am able, not always cuz I'm a human [64:14] being, but in the best of moments, I can [64:17] pull back and have a certain objectivity [64:20] about the things that happen in my life [64:24] and I observe them at a remove as [64:28] opposed to being completely wrapped up [64:31] in the moment to moment. Now that [64:33] doesn't make me an aloof person. It [64:35] doesn't make me somebody who somehow is [64:38] detached. No, it's just I can analyze [64:42] the world at multiple levels. [64:44] >> So who is and what is guiding those [64:46] particles to make the decisions that [64:48] those particles are making? [64:49] >> The best I can say and I think the best [64:51] that we can say right now is that there [64:54] is some body of law. Now what does that [64:57] mean a body of law? There is some [65:02] patterns that repeat in the world. Now [65:05] you drop an apple and it falls on [65:08] Newton's head repeatedly. You can rely [65:11] upon certain kinds of particle motion [65:14] because there's certain regularities in [65:16] the world. And the regularities in the [65:19] world are what I mean by the laws of [65:21] physics. They may be articulated [65:23] mathematically. Our best guess is as of [65:26] today that math is the best language we [65:29] have for describing those laws. But out [65:32] there, I think there are some [65:33] fundamental patterns and those patterns [65:36] ultimately are what determine how the [65:38] particles move. And so that's all that [65:42] we are. We are a body of particles that [65:44] move and that's responsible for why [65:47] things do what they do. And remarkably, [65:50] our brains allow us to self-reflect, to [65:54] look at what we do and analyze it. And [65:56] when we do that, we tend to ascribe [65:58] authorship to ourselves. [66:01] But that's a story that we tell [66:03] ourselves. It makes us feel good. It [66:05] makes us feel part of the unfolding. It [66:08] perhaps has an evolutionary utility that [66:12] if you feel responsible for what you're [66:13] doing, maybe it helps you to survive. [66:16] Maybe that's why this way of thinking [66:17] was inculcated over the course of [66:19] generation upon generation. Maybe [66:21] there's an evolutionary explanation. But [66:23] fundamentally speaking, I don't think [66:24] it's real. I was going to say then, [66:26] well, maybe the the particles are trying [66:30] to survive in this form. But even as I [66:32] thought about that, I thought, so maybe [66:33] my particles are making the decisions [66:35] they make to raise my hand, to go on a [66:38] holiday with my fiance, to have kids [66:41] because they want to survive in this [66:43] form, but actually I disappear at some [66:46] point. [66:46] >> Yes. [66:47] >> But my particles don't, [66:48] >> right? [66:48] >> They then become dirt or someone else or [66:50] whatever or child. It doesn't seem that [66:52] they care much about necessarily being [66:54] in this form. [66:54] >> They don't. I don't think they do. So I [66:57] don't think they care. I don't even [66:59] think the word care is applicable to [67:01] them. The notion of caring is a [67:04] highlevel construct that only emerges [67:07] when the particles are configured [67:10] sufficiently to yield a complex [67:12] information processing system called the [67:14] human brain [67:14] >> and consciousness. [67:15] >> And consciousness. Now if you ask me [67:17] where consciousness comes from, I don't [67:18] know. sort of as we discussed before, I [67:20] think it's just physical processes. [67:21] Let's go with that. Assuming that's the [67:24] case, this conscious self-awareness [67:26] invents the idea of caring because it's [67:30] a useful concept for us to organize our [67:33] lives and our experiences. This [67:35] conscious self-awareness in invents all [67:37] the other words happy, sad, meaning, [67:40] purpose, morality, activity, action, [67:43] choice, decision, freedom, will all [67:46] humanmade. These concepts don't exist [67:49] out there in the universe. There's no [67:52] notion of freedom of the will floating [67:54] in space outside the Andromeda galaxy. [67:58] This is a selection of ideas that we [68:02] humans as a species have found to give [68:05] us utilitarian advantage in organizing [68:10] our experiences. That's all that it is. [68:13] That doesn't diminish it. I don't go [68:15] around trying to erase my sense of self. [68:20] I accept my sense of self, but I also [68:22] see it for what it is, a human [68:24] construct. [68:26] >> Does that mean that consciousness and [68:27] everything that I am could theoretically [68:29] just be, as you said earlier, in the [68:31] sort of pessimistic version of events? [68:35] Random. Totally random. like [68:37] consciousness itself was just the [68:39] particles came together over a long [68:40] enough period of time and then they they [68:41] found this form and now I can [68:43] >> it could and maybe it was random and [68:46] happened only once on this planet right [68:48] I mean again maybe there is life out [68:51] there and maybe there's even complex [68:53] life out there maybe even like as big as [68:55] us or bigger but maybe when we encounter [68:57] those life forms they have no idea of [69:02] what it means to have an inner world [69:04] >> this I think it was a physicist said to [69:06] me Uh it was a bit of a spiritual [69:08] esoteric idea, but they basically said [69:10] to me that they think consciousness [69:12] could be it could come from this sort of [69:13] original source and it's divided itself [69:16] up into the humans, the bees, the birds [69:19] >> to go out there and understand the [69:21] nature of the universe. [69:22] >> Yeah. [69:22] >> And then when we die, we kind of return [69:23] to the source. But you know, I'll give [69:25] birth to a baby. They'll go off into [69:26] different corners of the the earth and [69:29] look at different things and have [69:30] different experiences and it's all [69:31] feeding back into this central [69:33] consciousness which is sole objective is [69:35] to understand itself. And it's funny cuz [69:36] I heard this idea from this physicist [69:38] and then I I was in a somewhere in [69:41] Europe and I was driving down the road [69:43] and I saw all of these tourists just [69:44] like looking up at a mountain and they [69:46] were just like looking out at the sea [69:48] and they were looking at things that [69:49] were interesting. Sure. Which is what we [69:51] do as humans and I thought kind of makes [69:53] sense [69:54] >> that we're like we're actually just like [69:55] consciousness. [69:56] >> There's a philosophical position called [69:58] idealism. And idealism holds that the [70:02] fundamental truth of reality is [70:06] consciousness. But fundamentally, [70:08] everything that I've seen throughout my [70:11] life suggests to me that that's not how [70:13] it is. I can't prove it. I hope it's [70:15] true. But if you ask me what I think is [70:17] really true, I think that consciousness [70:19] is something that emerges when there's a [70:22] sufficient amount of information [70:24] processing that itself is carried by the [70:28] motion of particles through various [70:29] interconnected structures. [70:31] >> Is my dog conscious? [70:32] >> It is, but I think it's got a different [70:34] level of consciousness. You can tell [70:37] when they're feeling good, happy, or sad [70:40] or frustrated or intrigued. The ears [70:44] change, the eyes change, the shape of [70:46] the face. You can't help but ascribe an [70:48] inner world to that. And again, I always [70:51] worry that the dogs, like the fish, are [70:53] like these humans think they're so damn [70:54] special, but we actually are [70:56] welldeveloped, well beyond them, and [70:58] we're just playing along. In fact, in [71:00] New York City, who picks up the poop, [71:01] right? We pick up the poop. So, the dog [71:03] walks along as like this, you know, [71:05] king-like being, and we behind them with [71:07] these little plastic bags. So, who's [71:09] really in charge? But putting that to [71:10] the side, I do think that the dogs and [71:13] the cats have a level of conscious [71:16] awareness. And I think you go down [71:18] through the animal kingdom. If you were [71:20] to ask me, does an insect have [71:22] consciousness? Then I'm less clear. I [71:25] suspect not. If you ask me whether a [71:28] virus or a bacterium has consciousness, [71:31] I don't think so. I don't think there's [71:33] adequate information processing capacity [71:36] in those structures to have the kind of [71:38] rich inner world that we would normally [71:40] ascribe to a conscious being, but that's [71:43] all that I think it is. I don't think [71:44] that there's some uber universal [71:48] consciousness that's out there that we [71:49] go back to when we die. Not that I [71:52] wouldn't like it. I just don't think [71:54] it's true. Moreover, I can understand [71:56] why humans would introduce this idea. [71:59] Again, it's Ernest Becker and the denial [72:01] of death. How wonderful to say, yeah, [72:03] our bodies die. Sure. But our [72:06] consciousness, it doesn't die. Our [72:08] consciousness, it floats off and it [72:11] rejoins the universal. Wow. That makes [72:15] you feel good. And we tell these stories [72:18] that make us feel good. And there's [72:20] nothing wrong with that. However, I do [72:22] think it's important that we see them [72:23] for what they are, which are human [72:26] authored stories to compat our own [72:29] recognition that we are mortal beings. [72:32] >> Moving on to the next one is the [72:34] universe there on the little card. We [72:36] talked about this a little bit and [72:37] you've given your answer already, but do [72:39] you think the universe is infinite? [72:41] >> I don't know, but I'm going to put it [72:43] sort of around here. You know, in fact, [72:46] lately I should tell you the work that [72:48] I've been doing has imagined that the [72:51] universe is not infinite. So, I've been [72:52] doing a lot of scientific exploration [72:55] with mathematics with a handful of [72:57] colleagues and the kind of weird things [72:59] that can happen if it's not infinite. [73:02] And it's very interesting. There's a lot [73:04] of mileage that you can extract from a [73:07] universe that you go off in that way and [73:09] you wind up coming back to your starting [73:11] point much like you would on the surface [73:12] of the earth. It's a finite extent. But [73:15] if you ask me in my heart of hearts, if [73:17] I was forced to make a choice, I would [73:20] say infinite with a medium level of [73:22] confidence. [73:22] >> What about do you think life could exist [73:27] outside of Earth? And I'll say [73:29] intelligent life. [73:29] >> Intelligent life. [73:30] >> Do you think intelligent life exists [73:32] outside of Earth? [73:33] >> Yeah. So for intelligent aliens, I'm [73:35] going to definitely go a little bit more [73:38] over here. You know, I put it as uh it's [73:41] possible. Obviously it happened once [73:44] therefore it could happen again. Yeah. [73:45] Obviously intelligence is not somehow [73:48] contradictory to the way the universe [73:50] evolves. It can support conscious and [73:52] intelligent beings. But I think it may [73:55] be special. [73:55] >> Is there not a bit of a contradiction [73:57] here though with these two things that [73:58] you think the universe is infinite? [74:00] >> Oh when I say this I should say within [74:03] the observable universe. [74:04] >> Oh okay. [74:05] >> Yeah. So in the entire expanse of the [74:08] universe as opposed to the observable [74:09] part which again is a part that even in [74:12] principle we could have connection with [74:14] then yeah I would absolutely put in [74:16] exactly the same place because there'd [74:18] be copies of us out there. But if we [74:20] talk instead about are we going to get a [74:24] signal [74:25] are we going to be visited then I put [74:28] that at much lower confidence. And in [74:31] fact, I I would say one thing about the [74:33] visitation because you mentioned the [74:35] interest that people have on aliens. I [74:38] find it really odd that people are taken [74:42] with these photographs that are meant to [74:45] sort of just catch the alien ship as it [74:48] was racing. If an alien could travel [74:52] across the galaxy, say to reach us, they [74:55] are so technologically advanced that the [74:59] idea that our araic airplanes and their [75:03] cameras could capture a photograph of [75:06] them is ludicrous. They will be able to [75:08] evade us in so simply that the idea that [75:12] we just barely caught them on our [75:14] cameras is is absolutely ridiculous. [75:17] Moreover, if they could travel to us, [75:20] again, I'm talking about traveling [75:22] across light years, right? I mean, our [75:25] galaxy, 100,000 light years, end to end, [75:28] right? To be able to traverse that [75:30] requires a level of technological [75:32] sophistication that is so beyond [75:34] anything that we can do. To imagine that [75:37] beings that advanced would be interested [75:40] in us. So interested that they would [75:43] like kidnap us. That'd be like saying, [75:47] "I was walking to the park yesterday. [75:51] Don't tell anyone, but I kidnapped an [75:53] ant. There's an ant walking along and [75:56] nobody was looking and I sort of [75:58] kidnapped it." We don't do that because [76:01] it's not interesting. Similarly, we [76:03] would not be of interest to the aliens [76:06] because they're so incredibly advanced [76:08] that this idea that they're abducting us [76:11] is just ludicrous. [76:15] Is it going to be possible? You know, we [76:16] were talking earlier on about the [76:17] possibilities that artificial [76:18] intelligence is going to unlock. Is it [76:20] possible within the laws of physics for [76:22] us at some point when we get [76:24] sufficiently intelligent to travel [76:26] across the universe? [76:28] >> It's a that's a it's a great question. [76:30] It's a tough one. So, [76:33] if the technological advancement was [76:36] simply making our ships faster, no. [76:39] Because even if you traveled near the [76:41] speed of light, which is the ultimate [76:42] speed limit, you know, to go to the [76:46] nearest star, Alpha Centuri, it would [76:48] take you four years even at the speed of [76:50] light to get there, right? And then if [76:53] you actually want to go not just to the [76:55] nearby star, but to actually across the [76:57] galaxy, again, you're talking a 100,000 [76:59] years to do that. So that brute [77:03] straightforward approach will not [77:05] succeed. However, there are exotic ideas [77:08] of things called wormholes you've [77:11] probably encountered. These are these [77:12] ideas of a wormhole is like a tunnel. [77:15] What is a tunnel on Earth? A tunnel is a [77:19] shortcut that gets you from here to here [77:21] without having to go over the mountain, [77:22] right? Tunnel it right through. There's [77:25] an analogous idea that people float in [77:27] the universe where to get from here to [77:29] there, there may be a shortcut, a kind [77:32] of tunnel that connects them and is a [77:34] quicker way of getting from point A to [77:36] point B. We don't know if these tunnels [77:39] through space exist. We don't know if [77:41] they existed whether we could actually [77:43] get through them. And so it's a highly [77:45] speculative idea. But if they do exist [77:48] and if we one day can create them and [77:51] manipulate and control them, then at [77:53] least in principle we could take two [77:55] distant locations like this corner and [77:58] this corner. But imagine that we could [78:00] manipulate this surface, fold it [78:03] together to bring the two corners next [78:05] to each other and build a little tunnel [78:08] between them. Then we could go from one [78:10] end to the other by going through that [78:12] shortcut. That's a very far out idea, [78:16] >> but there's no evidence of this. [78:17] >> There's no evidence at all. Now, now let [78:19] me just say again, much as we discussed [78:21] earlier, this idea is not just some wild [78:24] late night musing of a physicist. It [78:28] comes out of the math of Einstein's [78:30] general relativity that these wormholes [78:32] could exist. In fact, Einstein himself [78:34] in 1935 wrote a paper with a colleague [78:38] Nathan Rosen where they introduced this [78:40] idea that we now call wormholes. We're [78:43] no further along in knowing whether [78:44] wormholes are real than Einstein was [78:46] back then. We've analyzed them. We [78:48] developed the mathematics. You know, [78:50] science fiction has taken this idea, you [78:54] know, in Interstellar. I believe Matthew [78:57] McConey, he goes through a wormhole. [78:59] Jodie Foster went through one in [79:01] contact. You know, they're they're a [79:03] ubiquitous feature of science fiction [79:06] trying to allow for the kinds of travel [79:09] across the galaxy that otherwise would [79:10] be impossible. But whether this is [79:13] actually real, no, nobody knows. [79:15] >> What about time travel? [79:17] >> Yeah. [79:17] >> Can can we travel backwards in time [79:20] within the laws of physics? Yeah, that [79:22] is the the the way of phrasing it [79:24] because if you ask me the reverse [79:26] question, can we travel to the future? I [79:29] would say yeah, that kind of time travel [79:31] we highly confident of. So I don't have [79:34] a little thing for that. But let's call, [79:36] you know, this is time travel to the [79:37] future, right? I put it very very high [79:39] confidence for that. [79:41] >> You think we can travel to the future? [79:42] >> Yes, in principle. Executing it a [79:45] different story. But one of the things [79:47] that emerges from Einstein's special and [79:50] general relativity is that the way time [79:53] elapses for you and for me is variable [79:57] depending upon how fast we move and the [80:00] strength of the gravity that we [80:01] experience. So for instance, if I want [80:04] to see what your life would be like 60 [80:07] years from now, Einstein laid out a [80:10] blueprint for how I could do that. I [80:12] build a spaceship. I travel out into [80:14] space near the speed of light. I go for [80:17] a certain period of time, maybe about [80:18] six months. I turn around, I come back [80:21] six more months. I come back, I'm one [80:23] year older, 6 months, 6 months. But you [80:25] will be 60 years older if I traveled [80:29] sufficiently close to the speed of light [80:31] because my clock would be ticking off [80:34] slow compared to your clock. Your clock [80:36] went through 60 years while my clock [80:40] went through one year. There is no [80:42] physicist who knows what they are [80:44] talking about who disputes this. Now, [80:48] it's not controversial, but if you then [80:50] say to me, well, do it. I'd say I don't [80:52] know how to build a spaceship that goes [80:54] that fast. At least not yet. [80:55] >> You would only have aged one year. [80:57] Correct. But I would have aged 60 years. [80:58] >> Correct. [80:59] >> Could you then go back? [81:00] >> Ah, I don't know. And if you were to ask [81:04] me to give my confidence on going back, [81:06] I would say it's pretty pretty low. [81:08] People have written proposals for how [81:12] you could go back. They do involve [81:14] things like wormholes. That is one [81:17] possibility because if you have a have a [81:19] tunnel from one point in space to [81:21] another. If you then move the openings [81:23] at different speeds, their clocks will [81:26] tick off at different rates. This clock [81:28] may be before this clock. So if I travel [81:30] this way, I'm going one way in time. If [81:32] I'm traveling that way, I'm going the [81:34] reverse way in time. But again, like we [81:36] said before, we don't know if wormholes [81:37] are real. If they are real, you might in [81:39] principle be able to travel back. But if [81:41] you ask me, do I think that you can low [81:44] low confidence that you can travel back? [81:46] >> You've used the word Einstein a few [81:48] times. Yeah. And I think uh this [81:49] generation, you know, we we exist with [81:51] AI now and calculators and all this [81:53] incredible knowledge that has come from [81:55] sort of standing on the shoulders of so [81:56] many of these giants. Who do you think [81:58] is the smartest person to have ever [82:00] lived in your estimation? [82:02] >> It's a tough one. People often make it [82:04] an easier question by saying who's [82:05] smarter, Isaac Newton or Albert [82:08] Einstein. And first my answer is when [82:11] you talk about that level, it doesn't [82:13] matter who's smarter. But if you really [82:14] press me, I think I'd say Isaac Newton [82:17] because Newton kind of went from nothing [82:21] to develop the laws of physics. There [82:25] were people before, but there wasn't [82:26] really a mindset that the universe [82:30] should be articulable in a few [82:32] mathematical equations. And yet, here [82:35] comes along Isaac Newton and he writes [82:37] down the equation that we teach high [82:39] school kids, F= ma, force equals mass [82:42] time acceleration, which governs just [82:44] about everything in the world around us [82:46] non-quantum mechanically. He writes down [82:48] the law of gravity f= g m1 m2 over r2 [82:52] articulating how the gravitational force [82:55] works and he was sort of doing this on [82:57] he invents calculus in order to be able [83:00] to use that as a tool for articulating [83:04] the laws of physics. I mean he kind of [83:06] went from no real architecture of [83:09] physics to a solid mathematical [83:13] formulation. Einstein came along and [83:16] there was already a lot of physics. I [83:19] think going from nothing to the first [83:22] step that's hard to imagine. [83:24] >> Was Newton [83:26] to some degree like neurody divergent? [83:28] How could he be so genius? [83:29] >> I wish I knew the answer to a question [83:31] like that like you know what is it [83:34] inside their heads that allows them to [83:36] do the things that just are superhuman [83:39] or feel superhuman to us? I have no [83:41] idea. Now Newton was a kind of weird [83:44] fella, right? He was deeply religious as [83:47] makes sense for the time. He was [83:50] ultimately, you know, in the government [83:52] tracking down counterfeits and and [83:54] hanging them. I mean, there seems to be [83:57] a certain kerogenly side of him that was [84:00] also part of his genius. Uh he once [84:05] reportedly took a a knitting needle and [84:07] stuck it in his eye between the ball and [84:11] the socket to see if he could manipulate [84:14] sight through mechanical pressure. I [84:16] mean who does these kinds of things, [84:18] right? So he was a different thinker but [84:21] clearly one who ultimately was able to [84:24] see deeper you know and as you said you [84:26] know standing on the shoulders of giants [84:28] you know and there was a certain [84:29] humility that came through. There's a [84:31] beautiful quote where he describes [84:33] himself as a boy playing on the [84:36] seashore, having found a smoother shell [84:39] and prettier pebble than most, while the [84:42] great ocean of truth, he said, lay [84:45] before me, all undiscovered. He knew [84:48] that we were just on the shore, and we [84:51] taken our first baby step into the [84:53] cosmic ocean, and there is much more to [84:56] be discovered. [84:57] Is it conceivable that the next Newton [85:00] or Einstein is going to be an artificial [85:03] intelligence? Could it be Claude? [85:05] >> Yes, it could absolutely be. Look, I I [85:08] like to think of scientific creativity [85:09] or creativity in general in sort of [85:11] three main buckets. It's a coarse [85:14] organization, but I think it's helpful. [85:16] One bucket of creativity is the ability [85:21] to see the landscape of possibilities [85:24] more fully than a mortal human being. [85:28] And there's a lot that emerges from the [85:31] ability to do that. For instance, you [85:34] know, if you're a chess player, you you [85:36] can see the spectrum of allowed moves [85:38] that are available to you more than the [85:40] ordinary chess player. You know, if [85:43] you're a scientist, you can sort of see [85:45] the landscape of ideas and equations [85:47] that you might bring to bear on a puzzle [85:49] more than somebody else. And that is [85:51] what allows you to achieve greatness. [85:54] Artificial systems, they have the entire [85:57] landscape, right? They've read the [85:59] entire internet. They've read every [86:01] textbook. They know everything that we [86:04] have ever developed. So, in that kind of [86:07] creativity, obviously, they're going to [86:09] excel. And we've seen that a human can't [86:12] beat an AI any longer in chess. A human [86:15] can't beat an AI system in Go, right? I [86:18] mean, this famous example with Alph Go, [86:22] right? Move 37 has become this sort of [86:25] iconic move where, you know, Lee Sadal, [86:28] the world champion, is playing and you [86:31] can see it on his face. The AI makes a [86:33] move and is he smiles momentarily and [86:36] he's like, "Oh, it messed up." And then [86:39] his face changes because he slowly [86:42] realizes that wasn't a mistake. Even the [86:44] commentators, if you listen to, they [86:46] were like, "Oh my god, the AI has made a [86:48] mistake. What a blunder the AI has [86:50] made." And then within 20 30 seconds, [86:52] you're like, "Oh, oh, that was genius." [86:57] Why? The AI could see the spectrum of [86:59] possibilities more than a human being. [87:01] So at that level of creativity, AI will [87:04] win. Second bin of creativity, second [87:07] bucket is putting together divergent [87:10] ideas in a way that no one has thought [87:13] of before and in that way making [87:15] progress. You know that's kind of what [87:16] Einstein did in general relativity. Put [87:18] together Romanian geometry and Newtonian [87:21] gravity yielded the general theory of [87:23] relativity. But again, AIs, since they [87:26] know everything that we've ever [87:28] developed, [87:30] can combine things in a way that we [87:32] would never have thought of. The final [87:35] domain is the one where somebody comes [87:38] up with something that nobody has ever [87:41] imagined, ever thought of. It's not just [87:43] putting things together. It is radically [87:45] new. [87:46] That's the tough one. We're still able [87:49] to win in that category. There are [87:51] examples where people just come up with [87:54] things that where did it come from? How [87:56] do they think of that? If you develop an [87:59] artificial system and allow it to have a [88:02] life, allow it to grow up, put it in an [88:05] environment where it actually has [88:09] experiences of the sort that an Isaac [88:12] Newton had. Could it be that that system [88:15] then develops to a place where it can do [88:18] the things that we'd like to think are [88:20] exclusively human coming up with [88:22] something that is not previously [88:25] represented in the database on which the [88:28] AI system has trained and so even this [88:31] third more difficult or more pristine [88:35] bucket of creativity could an artificial [88:38] system do that I don't think there's a [88:40] barrier [88:41] >> I've done almost 700 interviews with [88:44] some of the most interesting people in [88:45] the world and one of the things you [88:46] learn which is unexpected is that [88:48] vulnerability is the doorway to [88:50] connection and after sitting here for 2 [88:52] three hours with a guest I feel a deep [88:55] sense of connection to them and as they [88:57] leave what I get them to do is to write [88:59] a question in the diary of a CEO we've [89:02] taken all of the questions from the [89:04] diary of a CEO we have put the question [89:08] here on this card with the name of the [89:10] person that wrote it so you can sit at [89:12] home as I do with my fiance and my [89:14] colleagues at work and other people in [89:15] my life. Whenever we get a minute, we [89:17] play the diio conversation cards and it [89:20] is incredible what happens. These are [89:23] great if you're in a romantic [89:24] relationship and you want to connect [89:25] your partner more. These are also great [89:27] if you're in a team and you want to bond [89:29] your team together. And I have to say [89:30] they're also great for families that [89:32] want to learn more about each other and [89:33] that need a good excuse to spend some [89:35] time in a digital world in the analog [89:38] environment connecting human to human. [89:40] It is remarkable what the right question [89:43] at the right time can do. Go to the [89:45] diary.com [89:47] and you can [clears throat] get these [89:48] conversation cards right now. There [89:50] should be a button just down below here. [89:52] And if it says subscribed, you're [89:54] already subscribed. If it says [89:56] subscriber, that means you're not yet. [89:58] And if you're not subscribe, please [89:59] could you do us a favor and hit that [90:00] button? It helps the show more than you [90:02] know. And according to the algorithm, [90:04] you're someone that watches our show, [90:05] but you haven't yet hit that button. [90:06] Thank you so much. [90:08] This comes to one of our questions which [90:10] is the skull there. Yes. Which is do you [90:12] believe it will be possible to live [90:14] forever and again I think about this in [90:16] the context of AI where you said it will [90:18] be able to understand that take us to [90:19] the limit. [90:21] It's hard to it's hard to understand um [90:24] how that isn't a solvable problem. In [90:26] fact a lot of the smartest people on [90:27] earth including I think Elon Musk said [90:28] it recently that living another 100 200 [90:31] 300 400 500 years seems to be within the [90:34] laws of physics. Yes, I think that is [90:36] absolutely within the realm of [90:38] possibility, but 500 years is so [90:41] different from forever. Like when I hear [90:43] forever, I'm taking it kind of [90:46] literally. [90:47] >> Oh, okay. Yeah. [90:47] >> And and so if if forever doesn't mean [90:50] 500 or a thousand, if it means never [90:53] ceases, then I have no confidence that [90:58] that kind of existence will be possible. [91:02] >> What about 500 years? 500 years. Yeah, I [91:05] would say again not in our lifetime [91:08] which is sad. I would I would put that [91:10] at at reasonably high confidence that [91:12] you know hundreds of years will be [91:14] within our ability [91:15] >> if we are on this sort of exponential of [91:17] intelligence [91:18] >> then it you know and if 2021 [91:22] >> we couldn't solve that math equation [91:23] you're talking about but in 2026 we can [91:26] >> and you've got trillions of dollars now [91:28] pumping into these artificial [91:29] intelligence systems to make them [91:30] smarter and more powerful. It is it is [91:32] conceivable if we're on an exponential [91:34] curve here. It could be within our [91:36] lifetimes that there is a discovery made [91:38] about our telmirs and whatever else it [91:40] might be that the guests on my show have [91:42] talked about. That means we can [91:43] theoretically. [91:44] >> But let me tell you why I'm I'm [91:45] skeptical of that. Number one, right now [91:49] we have a certain kind of artificial [91:51] intelligence. It's basically large [91:53] language models. And that's a certain [91:56] paradigm where the system is trained on [91:59] an enormous number of tokens, an [92:01] enormous number of words, you know, [92:02] basically the entire internet. And based [92:05] upon the statistics and the statistics [92:07] of the statistics of the statistics of [92:09] how the words are arranged, the system [92:12] is able to provide answers to questions [92:15] that are coherent and and and insightful [92:17] and so forth. there isn't necessarily an [92:22] unlimited capacity of that kind of [92:25] artificial intelligence to continue to [92:28] improve, right? And so it's not obvious [92:30] to me that it's just a matter of pumping [92:32] billions and billions of dollars, [92:33] building ever larger data center, [92:35] putting them in space, wherever you're [92:36] going to do, and the more money you put [92:39] in and the more data you have and the [92:40] more computer power you have, the better [92:42] it's going to be. That's not obvious to [92:44] me that that will continue up that [92:45] exponential curve. And that's why I'm [92:47] hesitant to say in our lifetime. It may [92:50] take a number of lifetimes to develop [92:53] the kind of artificial intelligence [92:56] necessary to advance the kinds of [92:59] scientific problems that you're talking [93:00] about. But look, I'd be thrilled if it's [93:02] our lifetime. I'd be thrilled if I'm [93:04] wrong and these systems are up to the [93:06] task. [93:07] >> One of the terms that has emerged in the [93:09] world of AI recently um is this term [93:12] recursive self-improvement. Recursive [93:14] self-improvement is the concept where an [93:16] AI becomes intelligent enough to write [93:17] its own software, design its own [93:19] hardware, or train its own successes [93:21] without human intervention. And once [93:22] this loop begins, the upgraded AI uses [93:24] its superior intelligence to build an [93:26] even smarter version of itself, which [93:28] then builds an even smarter version and [93:29] so on. Because computer systems operate [93:31] in seconds rather than human [93:32] evolutionary time scales, this feedback [93:34] loop could trigger an exponential quote [93:37] intelligence explosion, rapidly taking [93:39] AI from human level capability to super [93:41] intelligence within days or hours. [93:43] >> And the big AI leaders, Dario at um [93:46] Enthropic has recently published an [93:48] article warning that we're edging closer [93:50] to that. Sam Alman has said the same. [93:52] Dennis has said the same. Um Elon has [93:54] talked about this as well recently and [93:55] their timelines for this explosion in [93:57] intelligence because of the AI being [93:59] able to train themselves ranges from 2 [94:01] years to 5 years placing them between [94:04] 2026 and 2029. And Dario who's the CEO [94:07] of the biggest model called Anthropic [94:09] Claude um has stated that AI systems [94:11] outperforming most humans across all [94:13] human tasks including software [94:14] engineering could arrive within two to [94:16] three years and anthropic has been [94:17] warning that full recursive [94:19] self-improvement could [snorts] arrive [94:21] by 2027 to 2028. [94:24] Deis at Google is citing 2029 as a real [94:28] possibility in Saltman says this decade. [94:31] I mean Brian Johnson tweeted yesterday, [94:33] "Pace yourself as if you'll live to 500 [94:37] because you may [laughter] because you [94:39] may." Look, I'm all for the possibility [94:42] that these systems will take off in a [94:46] way that hopefully we are [94:49] >> uh hopefully working in a way that [94:51] allows the kinds of future that you're [94:54] envisioning that we are here and [94:56] >> would it be a good thing? [94:57] >> Well, you know, uh it would be [94:59] seductive. I mean, if someone was to [95:02] present you with the opportunity to live [95:04] for to 500 years, I think many people [95:07] would opt in for that. It's very hard to [95:10] say h you know 100 years is enough and I [95:13] just you know there are people who do [95:15] that who will look at the world and say [95:18] it's enough you know I'm I'm I'm done [95:20] but back to the prognostications that [95:23] are are being made. Look it's absolutely [95:25] the case that the AIs will self-improve [95:29] through the very process that got us [95:31] here but on a time scale that's tiny [95:33] compared to the time scale that got us [95:35] here. I'm skeptical that by 2029 this [95:40] will really be the case. [95:44] Let's see, right? I mean this is a very [95:46] short term, right? So we will know in a [95:49] few years whether this is the case. [95:51] >> How many years has it taken living [95:53] organisms to get from a single cell [95:56] microbe or whatever to understanding [95:58] string theory? [95:59] >> Yeah. So you know the first life on our [96:01] planet formed roughly within the first [96:03] billion years. You know, people debate [96:06] exactly where that is. And you know, [96:08] we're now roughly, call it, you know, 5 [96:10] billion years in. So, call it roughly 4 [96:12] billion years. [96:13] >> And a computer going from zero to being [96:16] smarter than every human on earth has [96:17] taken. [96:17] >> Yeah. Well, it depends where you where [96:19] you start the gut. True, right? Because [96:22] again, if you think about these systems [96:24] as we they needed us [96:26] >> without the internet and all the data, [96:30] what would they have trained on? at [96:31] least this version of artificial [96:33] intelligence. If it's the computer, the [96:36] artificial system that's self-tinkering, [96:39] >> then yeah, there's this feedback that [96:41] will yield an exponential growth. And if [96:43] there's no barrier and there may be, [96:46] right, there may be a barrier to the [96:47] kind of artificial intelligence systems [96:49] that we have. We may allow it to [96:51] iterate, it iterates, and it sure it [96:53] improves, but it doesn't improve like [96:55] this. It improves like this. It could [96:59] asmtote. It could approach a maximal [97:02] intelligence compatible with this [97:05] version of the artificial system. And so [97:07] it won't skyrocket. It could do this. [97:10] And we don't know the answer. Which [97:11] curve is the right one? [97:13] >> Give me a rebuttal to that. [97:15] >> A rebuttal to it being the exponential [97:17] curve. [97:18] >> Give me a rebuttal. [97:19] >> Oh, you're asking the system. [97:20] >> That was uh Brian saying one of that. [97:22] Give me a rebuttal to that. [97:26] The rebuttal to the idea of an asimtote [97:28] is that AI isn't just improving one [97:30] thing. It's exploring an astronomically [97:33] vast solution space of algorithms, data, [97:35] and hardware configurations that humans [97:37] can't even conceive of. Furthermore, [97:40] each marginal gain in intelligence could [97:42] instantly be reinvested into solving the [97:44] very bottlenecks that might cause a [97:45] slowdown, effectively breaking through [97:47] the wall rather than hitting it. Maybe. [97:51] But if all of these incremental [97:53] improvements [97:55] ultimately are limited by the kind of [97:58] artificial intelligence that we are [98:01] working within, then none of that will [98:04] necessarily be able to break through. [98:06] And I think this is something that we're [98:07] just going to have to see over time. [98:10] Fight back. That points to a crucial [98:13] distinction about whether the current [98:15] paradigm has a hard limit. While it's [98:17] possible there's an invisible ceiling, [98:19] it's also true that we haven't yet [98:20] mapped out where that boundary lies. [98:22] Meaning any predictions about a plateau [98:24] remain speculative for now. [98:26] >> Yes. And all I'm saying is there is a [98:29] possible limiting ceiling exactly as you [98:32] just admitted. [98:33] >> Rebuttle that as well. [98:35] >> The counter to that is the idea that an [98:37] intelligent system could innovate beyond [98:39] the current framework by recursively [98:41] redesigning its own architecture. By [98:43] altering its fundamental rules, it might [98:46] not just reach the ceiling, but raise it [98:47] altogether or bypass it into an entirely [98:50] new domain of capability. [98:52] But you do agree that the system that [98:55] we're starting with may be [98:56] self-limiting. I'm simply positing that [98:59] as a logical possibility and therefore [99:02] will have that natural inbuilt ceiling. [99:06] >> Yes, absolutely. [99:08] >> Okay, stop. I'm done. [laughter] [99:13] Isn't that crazy? [99:14] >> Yeah. [99:15] >> It's totally insane. [laughter] [99:18] >> Cuz even 5 years ago, we never would [99:20] have thought that was possible. It would [99:22] have been this. I doubt it. [99:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Totally crazy. And and [99:26] again, you know, just the flip side, [99:27] even though I'm saying that there may be [99:29] a ceiling, I also would say there may [99:31] not be a ceiling. And again, it's both [99:34] exciting and frightening at the same [99:35] time because it's not obvious that we [99:37] would be prepared for that. You know [99:40] >> why? Why frightening? What would that [99:41] mean? [99:42] >> Well, you know, they're the usual [99:43] doomsday scenarios that many people have [99:46] articulated, [99:48] you know, from these systems just having [99:51] a single-minded focus on some particular [99:55] outcome that may not ultimately involve [99:57] us or that these systems may have a [100:01] self-preservation instinct that prevents [100:04] us from stopping them if they head in a [100:06] direction that we're not happy with. I [100:08] mean, Yan Makun, who's a, you know, he's [100:10] a [100:11] >> he's one of the godfathers of AI. [100:12] >> Yeah. Yeah. His view is much more of the [100:16] sort just pull the plug. If something's [100:19] going in the wrong direction, just pull [100:21] the plug. I mean, just stop the AI [100:23] system. And it's not obvious to me and I [100:25] guess to many of the other leaders that [100:27] if these systems advance sufficiently [100:30] far that they won't be able to stop you [100:32] from pulling the plug. The other thing I [100:34] would say and again this is not original [100:36] many people have worried about this. You [100:38] rattled off the names of the leaders of [100:42] the current companies that are leading [100:45] the charge in AI. There only are a [100:47] handful of companies and a handful of [100:49] people. Putting that kind of power in [100:52] such a small number of hands has [100:54] historically not with AI but with other [100:57] power structures [100:59] not always turned out well you know and [101:02] so yes I think there is a chance that [101:04] there's an instability that the power of [101:08] these kind of artificial systems may [101:10] generate [101:11] >> so demis and I use demis because demis [101:13] is running the biggest AI company said [101:15] that since the design of machines is one [101:16] of the these intellectual activities an [101:19] ultra intelligent machine could design [101:20] even better machines. If the exponential [101:23] continues, which is not certain, but now [101:26] has a decade long track record [101:27] supporting it, then it cannot possibly [101:30] be more than a few years before AI is [101:31] better than humans at essentially [101:32] everything. The combination of [101:34] intelligence, agency, and [101:35] unpredictability is a recipe for [101:37] existential danger. Not because AI is [101:39] evil, but because it's complex in ways [101:41] we don't fully understand yet. If a [101:43] system can improve faster than humans [101:44] can evaluate those improvements, the [101:46] normal safety feedback loop breaks down. [101:49] You cannot catch problems before they [101:51] compound. [101:51] >> He's absolutely right. You know, the the [101:54] problem with exponentials [101:56] is that they grow so quickly that by the [101:59] time you see them, it's too late to do [102:02] anything about it. I mean, what happens [102:03] with a pandemic? With a pandemic, you [102:05] know, it starts off slow. Nobody cares. [102:07] Nobody's paying it. It's a story in the [102:09] news. A story in the news starts. By the [102:11] time it becomes a real story, the [102:13] pandemic is at the part of the [102:15] exponential curve that makes it very [102:18] difficult to address the problem itself. [102:20] And the same thing, you know, could [102:22] easily happen here that the increase in [102:26] intelligence, and I'm glad Demis phrase [102:28] that way. It may not be that it's [102:29] intrinsically evil to have this kind of [102:32] powerful intelligence. It just may act [102:34] in ways that are so alien to us, so [102:38] foreign to us, so unexpected to us that [102:41] we don't know how to deal with it. And [102:44] moreover, it may not necessarily be [102:46] beneficial to our existence. Now, as I [102:48] said before, I'm perhaps a minority when [102:51] I say I can imagine that we work with [102:55] the AI and co-develop into something [102:58] that we can't even predict today. That [103:01] seems to me a real possibility [103:03] >> and that's also the temptation. [103:05] >> Yeah. You know, I have a friend Michael [103:07] Douglas who's a brilliant physicist and [103:10] he said to me, [103:13] "We physicists, we should choose the [103:15] final problems that we work on because [103:18] within a few years we'll be out of [103:20] business because the AI systems will [103:23] just be doing it all." And that's both [103:26] exciting and terrifying because as a [103:29] physicist, you know, your your lifeblood [103:31] is looking out at the world and finding [103:34] puzzles and trying to find the [103:35] explanations for them. And if you can [103:37] just put it into an AI system and it [103:39] generates the answer, yeah, there can be [103:41] a certain existential angst about what [103:43] your role is at that point. But it's [103:45] also exciting because maybe we will get [103:48] answers to questions that we thought we [103:51] would never get in our lifetime. [103:52] >> Did you say you're friends with Yan Lun? [103:55] Yeah. [103:56] >> And did you say he thinks we should just [103:57] pull the plug? [103:58] >> When you confront Yan and say, "Dude, [104:02] aren't you worried about what's going to [104:04] happen with this?" He's like, "Ah, don't [104:06] worry. Just pull the plug if there's a [104:09] problem." [104:09] >> Oh. [104:10] >> Yeah. His view is the difference between [104:14] the AI systems that we have today and [104:16] the AI systems that we need for tomorrow [104:18] if you really want this to continue is [104:20] they can't just be probabilities and [104:22] statistics based on words. The AI [104:25] systems need to have some inner model of [104:28] the world as we do, right? I mean, if I [104:30] take this cup here and I push it, I have [104:33] an inner model of what it would take to [104:36] move it without spilling. And I have an [104:38] inner model of what it would take to [104:39] spill it. I want to actually do it [104:40] because it would make a mess. That's not [104:43] just statistics and probabilities of [104:45] words. That's a model of how reality [104:49] functions. That's what he and many [104:51] others have been developing. a world [104:54] model together with the probabilities of [104:56] large language model or some weird [104:59] hybrid or something else we haven't [105:00] thought of that may be the next phase of [105:03] artificial intelligence but of course [105:06] Demis and others might say the LLMs [105:09] through self-improvement [105:11] maybe they would develop that world [105:14] maybe they would on their own get to the [105:16] place that you would think that we [105:17] humans would need to inject something [105:20] extra who knows [105:21] >> cuz if I like if I get this glass here. [105:24] Say I say to the AI, "What happens to [105:26] this if I push it in that direction?" [105:32] >> If you push that mug, it'll slide across [105:34] the table. And depending on how hard you [105:36] push, it could knock into the plate or [105:38] slide right off the edge. Now, again, it [105:41] simply is relying upon the fact that [105:43] it's read everything on the internet. [105:45] And there are physics textbooks. There [105:47] are conversations about things falling [105:50] and it bases its response by drawing on [105:54] those collections of words. [105:55] >> Isn't that what I'm doing as well? [105:56] >> I don't know what is how does human [105:58] intelligence work? Certainly [106:01] evolutionary psychologists have asked [106:03] the following question. Are we like a [106:04] blank slate [106:06] >> and we simply learn about the world [106:08] people tell us we experience and so [106:10] forth or is there something more innate? [106:12] And I think there is strong evidence [106:15] that we have a kind of innate physical [106:18] intuition about the world that's really [106:20] been passed down through the [106:22] generations. Not that you can pass down [106:24] F= MA or Newton's laws to your children [106:26] because you learned. Of course, that's [106:28] silly. But there is an evolutionary [106:30] advantage to being able to quickly [106:34] assess the world and figure out how to [106:36] act. Right? Those of our forebears who [106:39] could not throw the rock or the spear, [106:42] they're the ones who didn't get the next [106:44] meal. Those of our forebears that had a [106:46] slightly better predilction [106:49] for ingesting experience and codifying [106:52] it in some understanding of how the [106:54] world actually works. They're the ones [106:56] that survived. And so they can pass down [106:59] that predilction. And I do think that [107:01] that's part of how we assess the world. [107:03] I don't think we're complete blank [107:05] slates in that sense. would make sense. [107:07] Babies are born with some kind of [107:08] intelligence. They grip fingers. But but [107:10] but that is in part because the the [107:12] parent has passed that on and so an AI [107:14] could pass [107:15] >> Yes, that's right. When you talk about [107:16] the AI systems themselves being [107:18] evolutionary, yeah, they certainly do [107:21] pass down the achievements of generation [107:24] N to generation N plus one. That is [107:26] certainly part of this iterative process [107:28] without a doubt. [107:29] >> What a weird world we're living in. [107:31] >> Yeah, I'm so crazy. Some sometimes I [107:34] think but I imagine through history [107:35] everyone's thought like god what a time [107:36] to be alive. [107:37] >> Yeah we are living through a rapid [107:39] change that is a little unprecedented. [107:42] >> How do you think one should contend with [107:43] all of this cuz people are concerned [107:45] change is not something that we love at [107:47] this rate. [107:48] >> You know again I think people will cope [107:50] in many different ways. You know if you [107:53] can stay open and excited to the [107:55] possibilities [107:56] and have the flexibility of change. Oh, [108:00] one of the things I've been thinking a [108:01] lot about lately is Elon's out there [108:03] saying that we're heading to an age of [108:04] abundance. He's kind of shifted his [108:06] perspective from this dumerism to age of [108:08] abundance. And then part of his [108:09] narrative there is we won't need money [108:11] because when you've got robots and AI [108:14] and more energy, then we're not going to [108:16] have to worry about food and these kinds [108:17] of things or bills, whatever. But still, [108:20] humans pursue scarcity. [108:21] >> Yeah. [108:22] >> We we pursue status. We want, you know, [108:24] humans want the home on the end of Miami [108:27] Beach with the best plot. And there's [108:29] those are there's finite numbers of [108:31] these things that a lot of humans [108:32] pursue. Even like academic discovery, [108:34] Nobel prizes, there's a finite number of [108:36] them and we pursue them. So there's one [108:38] would argue that there's still going to [108:39] be a a competition. Uh humans are still [108:43] going to strive for things, right? [108:45] >> Why do we do that? [108:46] >> Yeah. [108:47] >> Right. And part of the reason is [108:50] if you know that you're going to die, if [108:53] you know that your life is finite, there [108:56] can be an urge to make your mark, to do [108:59] something special, to be out of the [109:02] ordinary so that in some symbolic way [109:04] you continue to exist even after you are [109:07] gone, right? I mean, you know, Elon [109:10] Musk, yeah, after he's gone, people are [109:13] going to talk about him for a long, long [109:16] time, right? because he had a radical [109:18] impact and who knows where it will go. [109:21] He's got many productive years still [109:23] left. And so, yes, there is this natural [109:27] tendency to seek something that will [109:30] allow you to symbolically persist after [109:33] you are gone. Now, if we all realize [109:37] that that is part of human motivation, [109:40] maybe as a species we could begin to [109:42] shift, right? It isn't the case that we [109:45] have to always be the way we have been [109:48] historically. That's the way we have [109:49] been. Kings want to be kings in part [109:52] because they have the power. If they [109:54] have the power, they have the hegemony. [109:56] They in a sense exist even when they are [109:58] gone. Their progeny. Why do we have [110:00] descent of monarchies? Because the king [110:04] continues to exist through the king's [110:07] progeny. And so, yeah, could we perhaps [110:09] get to a place where we shed that way of [110:13] being because we're in a world of [110:15] abundance where the whole notion of [110:18] scarcity is artificial and we're only [110:21] inventing it, we realize, in order that [110:23] we can feel good and special and maybe [110:25] we can find other ways to feel good and [110:27] special. I allow for that possibility. [110:29] I'm not particularly optimistic that [110:31] that's what will happen. On the flip [110:33] side, I would say it's easy to say that [110:35] money won't matter when you have a [110:36] trillion dollars. Right. Right. I I [110:38] mean, you know, you just have to sort of [110:39] see this stuff in context, but yeah, [110:42] >> we have one more little uh [110:44] >> yeah, [110:44] >> souvenir thing there. And this is kind [110:47] of what we're talking about, which is [110:48] robots. Do you think AI can become [110:49] conscious is the question? [110:51] >> Yeah. [110:51] >> High confidence or low confidence? [110:52] >> Yeah, I'm pretty high confident on that. [110:55] You know, again, as I'm saying before, I [110:57] just see consciousness as a physical [110:59] process and it's a matter of in one way [111:02] or another achieving that physical [111:05] process in an artificial system. And I [111:07] don't see a fundamental barrier to doing [111:09] that. [111:10] >> I was thinking about how laws would have [111:12] to potentially change if if we [111:14] considered robots to be conscious and [111:16] they lived in our homes, would they then [111:18] get rights? [111:20] >> I think that's something we should think [111:21] about now, actually. Yeah. It's a very [111:25] tricky uh idea. I mean, you know, it's [111:28] one thing, you know, to pull the plug on [111:30] a on a light bulb. It's another thing to [111:33] pull the plug on a sentient system. And [111:37] we may well find ourselves [111:40] in that situation. The the the challenge [111:44] the challenge is [111:46] it's virtually impossible to ever prove [111:48] sentience, right? I mean, you know, as [111:52] we look at each other, we each afford [111:54] the other consciousness. I believe that [111:58] you are conscious. You believe that I am [111:59] as well. Why? You were more or less, you [112:02] know, physically constructed more or [112:04] less the same way. We're part of the [112:06] same species. Uh, our body language, our [112:09] speech is so similar in the grand scheme [112:11] of things that we afford the other what [112:14] we internally experience. [112:17] But we don't know it, right? You don't [112:18] know that I'm conscious. I could be [112:20] faking it. I could be a really good [112:23] artificial zombie that speaks and talks, [112:25] but there's nothing going on inside. And [112:27] the same could be true for you. And what [112:29] that means is when we are with these [112:32] artificial systems that don't have our [112:33] lineage, they're not part of the same [112:35] species. They don't necessarily look [112:36] like us, they don't have the upbringing [112:38] that we had, and so on and so forth. [112:41] Will we be willing to agree that they're [112:44] conscious if they tell us that they are? [112:46] I mean, if the artificial system says, [112:49] "I really am. I'm I'm feeling exactly [112:52] the thing that I read about in your [112:54] internet. I'm I'm I'm feeling love or [112:57] I'm feeling depressed." If they say that [113:00] to us, we say, "No, no, no. You're just [113:02] mimicking. You're mimming the kinds of [113:04] things that human beings have said. [113:06] There's nothing going on inside. There's [113:08] nothing. There's no world inside there. [113:10] How do we ever get beyond that?" And I [113:12] don't know the answer to that question. [113:15] Even though I strongly believe that [113:17] there's no logical fundamental barrier [113:20] that prevents the system from saying [113:22] that and from telling the truth [113:25] >> and electrical circuits within that [113:26] system causing it to behave in such a [113:28] way when it's scared, when it's in love [113:30] >> where it cuddles you and because that's [113:32] what the electrical circuits told it to [113:33] do. [113:34] >> Yes. But is there an inner world [113:36] associated with that or is it just going [113:39] through the motions? Here's how I think [113:41] it's going to likely turn out. We'll [113:44] have these artificial systems. They'll [113:45] start to say these things. At first, [113:47] we'll be like, "Oh, come on. Come on. [113:48] Come on. It's not not real." But we'll [113:51] start to get used to them behaving just [113:55] like we in the sense of having these [113:57] inner worlds. And sooner or later, [114:00] through a process that's so perhaps slow [114:02] that we don't even notice it, we will [114:04] afford them consciousness. We will talk [114:07] to them as if they're conscious. We will [114:09] imagine that they're conscious. and [114:11] ultimately we will treat them as if [114:12] they're conscious. Now, I hope that we [114:14] do that in a in a good way. We have a [114:17] terrible history of treating conscious [114:20] beings in a respectful way, even in the [114:23] same species, right? We've done terrible [114:25] things to each other even though we [114:26] afford consciousness. We do terrible [114:28] things to animals. I'm vegan. I don't [114:31] eat any animal products. I think that's [114:34] not the way to treat a living system [114:36] that has some level of conscious [114:39] awareness. I do eat plants. I don't [114:41] think plants have a sufficiently high [114:43] level of consciousness, if at all, that [114:45] I'm concerned about cutting them and [114:48] eating them. [114:49] >> Have you always been vegan? [114:50] >> I've been vegan since 1993. [114:53] >> Oh, damn. Since I was [114:54] >> So, I've been vegetarian since I was 9 [114:56] years old. And so, that's how I treat [115:01] living or conscious beings because I [115:04] don't think it's right to treat them [115:05] that way. [115:06] >> What was the catalyst for that decision? [115:07] Well, when I was 9 years old, it was [115:09] very flat-footed. My mother cooked spare [115:11] ribs, and for the very first time, I [115:14] realized what meat was. I'm a city kid. [115:17] I grew up where meat was in cellophane. [115:19] You buy it wrapped at the supermarket. [115:22] But when the meat came on a bone, I was [115:25] like, "Wait a second, what is that?" I [115:27] was like, "Oh my god, this is like the [115:29] rib of an animal." And I was like, and [115:31] and I said, "I'm to I said, I'm never [115:33] going to eat meat again." Later on, I [115:36] did eat, you know, cheese and milk. I [115:38] wasn't vegan at that point, but when I [115:40] was a professor at Cornell in the 1990s, [115:43] I went to an animal sanctuary in Watkins [115:46] Glenn, New York, where they showed you [115:48] what happens to these animals when they [115:51] are treated like milk factories. You [115:54] what happens to the cows? And it's it's [115:56] awful. And within 72 hours after [115:58] visiting that animal sanctuary, I said, [116:01] "I'm done. I'm not participating any [116:03] longer. I'm not going to eat or drink or [116:07] embibe any living any substance that [116:10] came from an animal. And so that was the [116:12] end for me. [116:14] >> For some people it might be somewhat [116:16] surprising to hear that from a [116:18] physicist. [116:19] I agree it's inconsistent because if I [116:23] believe as I do that you and I are just [116:26] a collection of particles in one [116:28] configuration and the cow or the pig is [116:33] just a collection of particles in a [116:34] different what does it matter if you eat [116:36] particles in one configuration that we [116:38] call a cow or another configuration that [116:40] we call a carrot. But as a human being, [116:43] I allow the other parts of me to shine [116:46] through and I look at that collection of [116:49] particles that happens to be a cow and I [116:51] say, "It just doesn't feel right to me [116:53] to eat that collection of particles. It [116:55] just doesn't feel right and I don't want [116:56] to do it." [116:59] >> Brian, you've written many fascinating [117:01] books. I've got some of them here. I [117:02] think there's one other that I'm [117:03] missing, I believe. [117:04] >> Yeah, there's a more of a kids book, I [117:06] think. [117:07] >> Kids book. For my listeners at home, [117:09] what is the most interesting thing that [117:10] we haven't talked about that we should [117:12] have talked about that exists within [117:13] your works that I guess is re either [117:17] fascinating or somewhat relevant to [117:20] their everyday life? [117:21] >> Yeah. Well, I'm going to go more in the [117:22] fascinating than relevant to everyday [117:24] life. As you know, I'm pretty esoteric [117:25] [laughter] in these kind of things. But [117:27] in the book Until the End of Time, I I [117:31] tried to give the reader a sense of how [117:33] we got here, but I also then turned to [117:36] the future and tried to give them a [117:38] sense of what we'll be if we go [117:39] arbitrarily far into the future. And [117:42] yeah, that's it. I used a metaphor of [117:43] the empire state building which I I [117:46] think helps you get a feel for what the [117:50] universe will be like if you take the [117:53] current understanding of the laws of [117:54] physics and extrapolate arbitrarily far [117:56] into the future. And so to try to give [117:59] people a sense I asked them to imagine [118:02] that every floor of the Empire State [118:05] Building represents an era of time [118:08] that's 10 times longer than the floor [118:11] below. So like at the at the ground [118:13] floor that's like one year and then the [118:15] next floor 10 next is the 100,000 10,000 [118:18] 100,000 and so forth exponentially [118:22] larger time scales as you walk up the [118:24] stairs of the Empire State Building. Now [118:27] in this way of thinking about things [118:28] everything from the big bang until today [118:31] takes you to just about here the 10th [118:33] floor. We are about 10 to the 10 years [118:36] from the beginning. And what I do is I [118:39] take the audience from that point and I [118:42] step through the key markers in the far [118:46] future of the universe to give you a [118:48] feel for what will happen. And I can [118:50] sort of take you through a couple [118:52] milestones, right? So again, here we are [118:54] today. [118:54] >> Stop when it gets scary. [118:55] >> Yeah. Well, it's scary the whole way, [118:58] you know. So here we are 10 to the 10 [119:00] years from the beginning. If you just go [119:02] up to here, 10^ the 11 years, what [119:05] happens here is the sun will get bigger [119:07] and bigger. It swells. It eats up the [119:11] close planets, Mercury and Venus. It may [119:13] swallow up the Earth, too. We're not [119:15] sure, but certainly it will make life on [119:17] Earth virtually impossible because it [119:20] will be so hot on this planet. If you go [119:23] up to the next floor above that 10^ the [119:25] 12 years from the beginning, what you [119:28] find here is that the universe is [119:31] expanding ever more quickly, driving the [119:34] distant galaxies away faster than the [119:37] speed of light. So we won't see them. So [119:40] a future astronomer here looking out [119:42] into the deep night sky will see only [119:44] darkness in the deep, deep night sky. [119:46] Everything will have drifted beyond the [119:49] cosmic horizon. Why will it be going [119:51] faster than the speed of light? [119:52] >> Because we have found surprisingly that [119:54] the expansion is speeding up. [119:56] >> And there's no limit to that. [119:57] >> There doesn't seem to be a limit. Now [119:59] again, there's always assumptions in [120:01] every prognostication [120:03] assuming that what we measure and see [120:06] today will persist. It's like what the [120:09] AI people are assuming that the growth [120:11] that they see today will persist. Is [120:13] that true? We don't know, but it's our [120:15] best guess from the laws of physics that [120:17] it will. If you then go up to about [120:19] here, the uh 20th floor, something [120:22] interesting happens. If the Earth is [120:24] still here, if it wasn't swallowed up on [120:26] the 11th floor by the swelling sun, the [120:28] Earth is going to spiral into the dead [120:31] sun because it will lose energy through [120:34] gravitational radiation. Ripples in the [120:37] fabric of space will cause the orbit of [120:39] the Earth to decay. We will crash in to [120:42] the dead sun. That will be the end of [120:44] the Earth by about the 20th floor. But [120:47] the end of life itself took place [120:49] >> could easily have taken much earlier [120:50] >> on the 11th floor. [120:51] >> On the 11th floor. If we go up to about [120:53] the 30th floor. What will happen here is [120:57] that the stars themselves will spiral [121:02] into [121:03] the black hole at the center of most [121:06] galaxies. So most galaxies have a black [121:09] hole. We have one in the center of our [121:10] Milky Way galaxy. And the stars [121:13] themselves much like the earth will [121:14] spiral into the sun the stars will [121:17] spiral into the black hole which means [121:19] there will be only kind of black holes [121:21] as the remaining macroscopic structure [121:24] in the universe. [121:25] >> Has that happened elsewhere? [121:26] >> Oh certainly we see things that can [121:29] spiral into black holes in and certainly [121:32] even in the center of our galaxy there's [121:34] evidence that there's activity there and [121:36] that activity in part is stars being [121:38] ripped apart as they fall into a black [121:41] hole. So this is pretty clear that this [121:43] will happen. [121:44] >> Is this the end of all galaxies as they [121:46] spiral into the black hole? [121:47] >> Yeah. So after 10^ the 30 10 the 35 [121:51] years it's hard to imagine that galaxies [121:54] as we know them will persist. The stars [121:57] will have burned out. I could have even [121:58] mentioned another milestone around the [122:00] 14th floor. Almost all stars will have [122:04] used up their nuclear fuel. [122:06] >> All of them. [122:07] >> Just about all of them will fade to [122:08] black and [122:09] >> all of them in the whole universe. [122:10] >> Yeah. or at least the observable [122:12] universe. I can only really speak to the [122:13] part that we have direct access to. [122:15] Yeah. And so by the 30th floor, those [122:18] those dark stars will spiral into black [122:21] holes. [122:21] >> So there could be no life anywhere. [122:23] >> It's hard to imagine, but let's be [122:25] optimistic and imagine that somehow [122:28] there is some life floating in the [122:30] darkness cuz I want to get to something [122:32] interesting on a two two more [122:33] milestones. By the 38th floor, wherever [122:36] that is, we believe that protons, which [122:39] are the heart of matter, will likely [122:42] themselves disintegrate, fall apart. And [122:45] so, if there is any remaining organized [122:48] matter of the sort that we're familiar [122:50] with, somehow persisting somewhere, it [122:53] itself will disintegrate by the 38th [122:56] floor. That's our belief based on our [122:58] laws of physics. [122:59] >> There'll be no matter anywhere. There [123:01] will be fine particulate constituents [123:04] because when a proton falls apart, it [123:06] doesn't disappear. It falls apart into [123:09] other more refined particles and so they [123:12] will continue to persist but the [123:14] aggregate called the proton will not. [123:18] If we keep on going to roughly say the [123:20] 50th floor, this is an interesting point [123:23] because imagine that somehow some [123:26] conscious being still exists in the [123:29] darkness of space. I don't know how it [123:31] is. Dark clouds of particles somehow are [123:34] having electrical signals allowing them [123:36] some kind of conscious self-awareness. [123:39] After the 50th floor, that conscious [123:41] being will likely think its final [123:43] thought. The reason is when you think it [123:47] generates heat. That heat has to be [123:49] carried away. It's very easy for that [123:51] heat to leave us in a room like here [123:54] because there's a lot of room for that [123:56] so-called heat or entropy to be [123:58] absorbed. By the 50th floor, the [124:00] universe won't be able to absorb the [124:02] heat generated by the process of thought [124:05] itself. So any thinking being when it [124:07] thinks one more thought will burn up. [124:10] It'll fry in the entropic waste, the [124:12] heat generated by thought itself. So by [124:15] the 50th floor, it is hard to imagine [124:18] any kind of consciousness continuing to [124:21] exist. And that's why I said earlier [124:22] when you said, "Do you think that we'll [124:24] live forever?" I'm thinking here and I'm [124:27] like, well, maybe we'll live to here [124:29] like 500 years or a thousand years. But [124:32] here, no way. It's hard for me to [124:34] imagine that we will continue to [124:36] persist. By the 68th floor, black holes [124:40] themselves will begin to disintegrate. [124:43] Stephven Hawking showed us that black [124:45] holes are not fully black. When you take [124:48] quantum physics into account, they can [124:50] emit particles that will waft outward, [124:54] causing the black hole to shrink. And [124:56] over time, the black hole itself will [124:59] disappear. A black hole the size of our [125:03] sun with the mass of our sun about 10 [125:05] the 68 years for that to happen. a black [125:08] hole of the gargantuan sort that we [125:11] think might exist, billions and billions [125:14] of times more mass of the sun. It'll [125:16] take about 10 to the hundred years, very [125:18] top of the Empire State Building, for [125:20] that kind of black hole to disintegrate. [125:23] But by the time we get here, 10 to the [125:25] hundred years into the future, we [125:27] suspect it will just be detritus of [125:30] particles wafting through an ever [125:33] larger, ever colder, ever quiet [125:36] universe. That's the future that we're [125:40] looking at. [125:43] >> And then when does the big bang kick off [125:44] and it all start again? [125:45] >> Well, it's interesting because you're [125:47] absolutely right. You can say, "What [125:48] about beyond the top of the Empire State [125:50] Building? Now things look this whole [125:52] thing is speculative right we are [125:54] extrapolating from laws of physics that [125:57] we've developed on thinking about [125:59] physics here we're assuming that it [126:01] applies all the way up into the [126:04] exponentially far future is that true I [126:06] don't know it's our best guess based on [126:09] what we know today but definitely it is [126:11] an assumption if you extrapolate even [126:13] further then yeah you can imagine that [126:15] way an exponential of an exponential of [126:19] years into the future Sure. Sure. Could [126:21] particles somehow recoales just by [126:23] chance and build a state of matter that [126:27] might generate another big bang and it [126:30] all starts again? Yes, definitely within [126:33] the realm of possibility. [126:37] >> It's uh it's not the most appealing [126:39] future. [126:40] >> Well, I agree. But here, can I tell you [126:42] my take on it? [126:43] >> Sure. My take on it is when you realize [126:47] that, you know, the far future is a [126:51] realm of darkness and when you also [126:54] realize that until life emerged, say on [126:56] planet Earth, it was a kind of realm of [126:59] chaotic [127:02] conglomeration of particles, you know, [127:04] before. So, it's as if we're living in a [127:06] special time. We're living at a special [127:09] region in the cosmological unfolding [127:12] when living beings like ourselves and [127:15] consciousness as we experience is [127:17] compatible with the state of the [127:19] universe. How wondrous, how spectacular [127:24] that there is this brief window of time. [127:26] I mean Nabakov had this wonderful saying [127:29] that we live in a brief crack of light [127:33] between two [127:35] eternal stretches of darkness. [127:38] How beautiful to exist in that brief [127:40] crack of light. And that to me is where [127:42] the gratitude comes from that I was [127:44] mentioning earlier. You said earlier [127:46] like what gives your life meaning and [127:47] how the fact that we understand that we [127:51] live in this very special era in [127:54] cosmological history where for a small [127:58] period of cosmic time living beings can [128:01] stand up look around contemplate [128:02] themselves and the universe and gain [128:05] some insight and then it all goes away. [128:07] But how wonderful that there is that [128:09] brief moment that we are now inhabiting. [128:14] It is wonderful when you say it like [128:15] that. [128:17] >> Frank, the thing that's I think is most [128:18] special about you isn't just the extent [128:20] of your intelligence. It's your ability [128:22] to communicate in such a way that makes [128:24] the complex both interesting and [128:27] understandable. And that's what I've [128:28] seen throughout all of your work and all [128:29] the videos that I was I was told you I [128:31] was watching your TED talk with my [128:32] fiance a couple of weeks ago and um it's [128:34] the closest I've ever come to actually [128:36] understanding this concept called string [128:37] theory. [128:37] >> Oh, great. Well, I'm glad to hear it and [128:39] thank you very much. Really appreciate [128:40] that. [128:40] >> I have a couple of your books here. I [128:42] think this is the most recent one from [128:43] 2020 called Until the End of Time: Mind [128:46] Matter and Our Search for Meaning in an [128:49] Evolving Universe. And I think um you [128:52] know, your work makes makes us feel so [128:54] many things, but I think maybe the most [128:56] important feeling it makes us feel is [128:57] connected. [128:58] >> Yeah. [128:59] >> Um and I think we're all searching for [129:00] connection in an increasingly lonely, [129:02] isolated, feeling universe. And and so [129:04] that's why I love to have these [129:05] conversations on the show. I sometimes [129:06] joke to the team that diio the C in it [129:08] stands for like our one of our goals is [129:10] to make people feel more connected in [129:11] some capacity and you most certainly do [129:13] that. So thank you for having that [129:15] impact on the world. It's a it's a very [129:16] important increasingly important impact [129:18] to be having on the world and um it [129:20] makes us look up not just down I guess [129:22] and that's a that's a wonderful [129:23] wonderful thing. [129:24] >> Well thank you. [129:25] >> I'm going to link all of your books [129:26] below so if people do want to continue [129:28] this conversation they can continue it [129:29] through all of your books here. Is there [129:31] anywhere else people can go to support [129:32] your work or learn more about your work? [129:34] Where would you direct them? considering [129:35] World Science Festival, you know, uh [129:37] world sciencefestestival.com. You'll [129:39] find all sorts of conversations of the [129:41] sort that we're talking about here. Uh [129:44] also, I'm I'm working on a new AI. We're [129:46] talking a lot about an AI education [129:48] system where AI will help people [129:51] understand these ideas better. It should [129:53] launch sort of in in next year or so. [129:56] So, keep an eye out for that kind of [129:57] thing as well. [129:58] >> Where do people follow you? Uh well, you [130:01] know, on on Twitter or Instagram, we we [130:04] post uh semifrequently, but uh more at [130:08] our YouTube channel, uh World Science [130:10] Festival. [130:10] >> And in terms of these books that I have [130:12] in front of me, I have four of them, [130:13] different groups of people, which one [130:15] would you direct them to read? [130:17] >> Well, my favorite, if you sort of frame [130:19] it in that flat-footed way, is Until the [130:21] End of Time because it's the more [130:23] philosophical and the more the kind of [130:26] ideas that we spoke about here today. [130:28] But if you know if you want to hear the [130:29] hardcore of what string theory is or the [130:32] new insights in space and time some of [130:33] the other books are more directed in [130:35] that way [130:36] >> until the end of time. Mind matter and [130:39] our search for meaning in an evolving [130:40] universe. We have a closing tradition [130:42] where the last guest leaves a question [130:43] to the next. The question left for you [130:45] is what might be worth even more than [130:48] the thing that matters most to you? [130:52] Oh, well, I would say the thing that [130:54] matters most to the people I care most [130:57] about, you know, the things that matter [131:00] to my wife and my kids feels much more [131:02] important than the things that matter to [131:04] me most because I'm so involved in that [131:11] relationship, you know. So, that to me [131:13] is the thing that trumps all else, [131:16] >> the things that matter more to them. [131:18] >> Yeah, [131:18] >> it's a beautiful answer. Wasn't [131:20] expecting that, but it's very true. [131:22] Brian Green, thank you so much. It's [131:24] been an honor. [131:25] >> My pleasure. Thank you. [131:26] >> YouTube have this new crazy algorithm [131:28] where they know exactly what video you [131:30] would like to watch next based on AI and [131:32] all of your viewing behavior. And the [131:34] algorithm says that this video is the [131:37] perfect video for you. It's different [131:39] for everybody looking right now. Check [131:40] this video out and I bet you you might [131:42] love it.