#2554 - Carlo Rovelli

Take a look at the Joe Rogan experience.

“Join my day, Joe Rogan, podcast, my name, all day.”

[MUSIC PLAYING] Very nice to meet you. Joe Rogan, I'm very happy. Thank you very much for inviting us to the station. I'm happy to talk to you.

I've enjoyed your work, so it's very exciting for me. Oh, fantastic. I've heard many conversations with you. How did it first of all? Please tell everybody what you do.

What do I do? Yes. Hey, so I should probably start more podcasts out this way. [LAUGHTER] I do science, I do philosophy, I do some politics,

I enjoy life, I fully love, I do all the things we can do in life. Oh, kind of things, yes.

Officially, my job description is a physicist.

I do quantum gravity, theoretical physics. And the pitch that they sent me, I guess-- Who is a-- I don't know who the public is. OK, on the equality of all things.

Oh, the book. It's a last book I publish. Yes. Oh, I'm going to publish. He's coming out here a few days.

Yeah, it comes out September 15th. And what do we have today? Today is the 8th. This is a very fascinating subject. You're talking about that things don't exist in isolation,

so that everything is somehow connected. Yeah.

But I've always sort of intuitively suspected

that that was the case. It was probably something to that. But to hear a person like you said, it makes me much happier. Like, OK, maybe I'm on the right track.

Like, what gives you this inclination? And why did you want to write about this? Yeah, I'm not surprised to say so, because that you sort of feel that that makes sense. Because in a sense is what we're used to, right,

in our everyday life. We interact with persons. And persons are the way they interact with us. And then there are relations and stuff. We always see things where we're all perspective.

Then somehow signs physics in particular, seemed to be telling us, OK, no, no, yes, OK. There is all this perspective. But there is an objective fix in reality down there. We can look at it from the outside.

It is made by little things, each one, which is some properties. Except that in the evolution of physics itself, in relatively recent time, the last century with quantum mechanics, this idea of an objective reality

doesn't work much. And so in a sense, we're going back to a more intuitive picture of the world. The very idea of an objective reality down there might be wrong, in fact, I think it's wrong.

“And I think that's what quantum mechanics is telling us.”

So when you say objective reality, meaning the reality that we're seeing and experiencing, that this is just a tiny fraction of what's real or that we're getting a distorted perception of what's real? We are getting a perception, a perspective on what is real.

I mean, I see you, you're real, of course. I see this pen, this pen is real, of course. I'm not denying that there is some reality. But then when you see the pen is different from mine, of course, just because you see it from the other side.

So you have a perspective and a perspective. And the question is, do all this perspective much perfectly into a unique objective reality of the pen? And I think quantum mechanics telling us, no, really is this ensemble of perspectives.

So the properties of the pen, where it is, it's color, how long it is. So all the property of the pen-- no, not really property of the pen is how the pen looks to you, how the pen looks to me, don't just you and me as human beings,

how the pen flashes another pen, how the effects another pen.

“So we should understand, I think, reality,”

as this network of interaction, how things look to everything else, which is a more beautiful picture of reality than just we being outside and looking for the outside. We're inside reality, we're part of reality. So what we see is just the part of how things interact with one another,

is how they interact with us. So when you're talking about objective reality, so one of the problems that human beings have is our senses. And we assume that our senses see everything that's there to be seen. That doesn't really make sense.

It seems like we see and hear and touch and feel, or everything we need to see to stay alive. Yeah. To some extent, our senses are reliable, of course, right? I should cap there, if I were to be--

you know, use the cap, it works hard, you put it down. Right, it probably is that if we take our senses too literally, too seriously, we're wrong. And we know we're wrong. I mean, there's so many cases we find out we're wrong.

And the reason I love science is when it corrects us in some big way.

Think about the sunset. Sunset is marvelous, you know? You sit by the ocean, you see the sun going down, going down, going down, it's beautiful, this guy becomes dark. So the sun goes down.

But science has talked to us, that's not really what happens. Sun doesn't move, stays there. It's actually us, the earth, the big rock, the spinning. And we're moving out of the light of the sun. And if you see the sun going down,

“you remember that, you can think about that.”

Oh, my senses cheat me in telling me that the sun is moving, but it's not moving, I'm moving. So that's a good example in which science has told us that things are not exactly like we see in a different manner.

I've always wondered what's the evolutionary benefit

of the beauty of sunsets. Why are they so beautiful? Like what is it about it that's so inspiring and so magnificent? And something, it does something to people. It makes you feel different.

When the sun rises in the morning, you feel different. It has an effect on you. And I've always wondered, what is the purpose of that? Like why does that exist? It, like food tastes great because it's nutritious.

You eat an orange, it's delicious because it's really good for you. There seems to be something to beauty, especially natural beauty, like mountains, like when I look at them, I'm like, why is it so good to look at these? Why does it feel so good?

Like there's something to it. There's some weirdness that you can't just, you can't just chalk off to measurement. There's something going on. - That's a great question.

I love this question. Yes, I mean, of course, sunset and sunrise

is a crucial for us because we're been designed

by evolution of millennia, in the millennia, thousands of millennia, to, you know, sleep in the night and go around in the day, which is just what our speeches do. Other speakers do the opposite.

So they are certainly important for us. But our relationship with the world,

“and I think you're putting your finger in.”

It's not about knowledge about what to do. It's always emotional, right? I mean, food raises emotion. We like it. So I don't know exactly where the emotion of sunset

and sunrise come from, but certainly, the fact we have it points to the fact that if we have to understand ourselves at our relationship with the world, we have to look at our emotions a lot,

not just what we know, what we don't know. We have an emotional relation among ourselves and with things in the world, with mountains, with animals, with wild animals, with little things and one another.

And then the rational part comes on top of it to say, oh, let's correct it. Let's do it a little bit better. It uses, I'm not denying the utility of the rational part. But it's an end-to-end to what we are.

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. If you're thinking about building a website, you should try Squarespace. I know because I use it. That's right, JoeRogan.com is powered by Squarespace.

“It has all the features that you need to create”

a stand-out website, like an AI enhanced website builder, SEO optimization tools, and seamless checkouts with mobile pay links. Head to Squarespace.com/Rogan for a free trial. And when you are ready to launch, use the offer code Rogan

to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

And it den dem to what we are. The really weird thing for people that are studying the world must have been the understanding of quantum physics. Yes. That must have thrown the whole thing into a giant tizzy,

because now you're like, OK, well, at the lowest level, observable level, the smallest observable level of reality, you have magic. That's exactly the point. Somehow physics was supposed to be the path to objectivity,

right? Physics is what guarantees that all right. Where emotions, perspective, my view, your view, but down there there is physics. The world is just simple down there.

There's stuff, there are atoms moving around the forces, and that's it. And then, last century, during the 20th century, the physicists discovered that, no, no, that's not the case. The world down there is even more perspective.

Well, more complicated than I know every day life. It really, it was really hard. I mean, the physicists were very confused at the beginning of the centrum, because they were making all these measurements on atoms, on radiation, electrons, and stuff,

And they couldn't, they couldn't.

“And then at some point, I think it was Neil Spore,”

Danny first one who said, well, we have to change the metaphysics

here. It's not just an issue about writing the right equation, the right force. We have to change the way we think about the world. Once again, like when we talk to the Earth's move,

or when we realize the fields, electric fields, so we change the way profoundly we think about reality. And quantum mechanics is one of these jumps. Now, Joe, we're still debating about us. Right, physicists are debating about themselves,

and philosophers are debating what the hell have we understood with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics telling us the world is not what we thought it is. And there is a conversation that's going on. Debate, sometimes furious.

And somebody says, oh, there is this immense wave function of a universe, other universe, and stuff like that. Trying to hang on on the existence of something absolute objective down there. Trying to multiply reality to make it objective.

“But I think it's this dream of an absolute objectivity,”

which is a mistake. The dream of an absolute objectivity is a mistake. That's really fascinating.

When they first started understanding that observing quantum interactions,

changes them, what was, how long did it take for them to even accept that? Like how many times did they have to run those experiments? With particles and waves, with observers versus not. But before they said, OK, something's going on here,

where it seems that when we watch things, it has an effect on them, and a measurable effect. This is a real thing that's happening. Oh, isn't, isn't Wu Wu? No, it's not, it's not Wu Do, it's not.

Exactly. It's not just like for smoke and joint and getting high. These are the physicists. The one who was supposed to be the boss rational objective guy, well, what happened is that measurement piled up

all through the first 20 years of the 20th century. The measurement was a simple measurement, right? Atoms have emit light, and the light has special colors. This color is a spectrum of the light. And they were trying to make sense of that.

“I mean, how does the electron move to produce that light?”

It didn't work, didn't work, didn't work. And then in Copenhagen, there was this school in which there were debating and almost like that.

And those boards is the first one who started saying,

look, to understand the atom, we should not just look at the atom. We shouldn't have said no, how we look at it. If we look at it in one way, we see one thing. If we look at another way, we see another thing. That was very confused.

But then what happened is that in mathematics for describing the atoms came out. This is the theory, the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics. It works very well. It's used today everywhere.

I mean, we talk with this microphone. There's quantum stuff inside, that's zero quits, so designed with quantum properties of matter. So quantum mechanics is solid. We know how to use it.

You tell us, if you do this, you see this. If you do that, you see that. But it doesn't tell us in between. You do this. And then if you do one thing, you see one thing,

if you do another thing, you see another thing. And it doesn't give a story of what happened to the electron, to the quantum system itself. So people got confused. The physicist got confused.

And they started discussing how to think about that. So quantum mechanics is strange theory. We know how to use it. It's like a black box. But we don't know what in the side of the box.

It gives the right answer, but we can't make a picture in our mind of what happened in the atoms, in the things, in the electronic circuits, even in a quantum compute. We don't know really what happened inside.

That's so strange. Yes, but it works fantastically. And so this is disagree. And some say, there are extra variables that we are principally impossible to see

who are-- that's somebody who says that-- who determines what happened. And they are uproar invisible. And other say, they're pounded world worlds in words, worlds. The materials.

Yeah, I know you're telling me. I know you're telling me, yeah. Then there are, others, me, including. Who think, no, no, no, no, it's really philosophical here. We have to get rid of the idea that there is something there,

just by itself. What is there is what affects me, or what affects you, or what affects another piece of matter. So we have to think of reality as processes

And in a sense, down there, the simple physics is more

like our everyday life than what we imagined in thinking that it was so objective and abstract. Everyday life, who are you, Jorok, what I see, what he sees, what people listen to you,

“you're a multiplicity of things, which one is a real one?”

Well, you are this collection of perspectives on you, including your own perspective on yourself. There is no final one. What is a final description of you? Or what is a final description of a couple of water

is that the one given by chemistry, by physics, which physics, quantum physics, quantum gravity, by psychology, a couple of water is because we drink. That's why we call a cup of water. So it's a human picture of what is going on.

Which one is the final one? I don't think there is a final one. There is a collection of perspectives on the sake, and a cup of water, and that's a cup of water.

So when they first started measuring this observer effect,

what was the reaction? Like how long did it take for them to accept it? Because that seems like such a completely new chapter of science. Yeah, it worked so well that people accept it, even if it was confused.

Could you explain to people that maybe don't know what we're talking about, how those experiments work? This was the first experiment with atoms. People had this idea that an atom is a nucleus, a center of nucleus, and an electron's moving around.

So the property for the atom, the way it makes molecules, the way it produces light, had to be computed from the movement of the electrons. And the theoretical theory was developed for doing that.

And then people started making experiments in laboratories

about how atoms move, how molecules move, small things move. And the mathematical theory predicts them perfectly. And the mathematical theory predicts the property of matter. The success was really spectacular. Let me just tell you one example of the success.

“You remember the periodic table of the elements, right?”

We had it in-- I don't know-- in primary school, we had it on the classroom, all the wall, hydrogen, helium, all the-- there are about 100 atoms, 100 elements. And everything we see is just a composition of these 100 elements. This was the chemist has figured out through the 1819, 20th century.

All right, so why is this 100 elements? Why those particular properties? Why this strange structure of the periodic type table of the element? You know, they're two and then seven, and this is a peculiar structure. Well, turn out if you use quantum mechanics,

you just write the equation and bingo. It has exactly a number of solution, one per each element. So you understand exactly what it's going on. You understand why they're as this element? You can predict the elements.

People, if that could predict properties of the element without having measuring them before measuring them, then check, that's magic of physics, right? You predict things before seeing them, the electromagnetic waves that we use to send your broadcast all over the planet.

These are electromagnetic waves. Well, they were not discovered by seeing them. They were predicted, like Maxwell and Hertz. They were all the questions. Well, if you do that, you make a little circuit

with some electricity that goes on. Then the other side of the room, you can another one. And there's a wave that goes by. And bingo, it worked. And then it worked between Europe and US.

You can send waves. You can predict things. That's a strength of science. Black holes with this current sky. But not because somebody's, oh, look, there's a black hole.

They were predicted by Einstein. So because of the equations of gravity,

“blah, blah, you should expect to see black holes.”

And then they were found. So there is this extraordinary predictive power. Today, an engineering that put together circuits, quantum circuits, doesn't have to go trial and effort. If you make a calculation, it predicts what's going to happen.

It works. It works fabulously. So quantum mechanics works. It gives the good predictions. Question open is that you can have something that works very,

This Saturday, the fight is on and wherever you're watching,

“draft Kings brings you closer to the MMA action.”

Draft King Sports App is now live in all 50 states. One app, every sport, all 50 states. New draft Kings customers sign up with Code Rogan, spend five bucks, get 200 in rewards within 21 days. Includes all markets.

That's Code Rogan in partnership with draft Kings. The crown is yours. Gambling problem call 100 gambler, 100 my reset. Connecticut call 888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org on behalf of boothill casino in Kansas.

Bed text passed through may apply in Illinois, 21 and over. Void in Canada, bed with draft King Sports book to get bonus bets that expire in seven days, or trade with draft King's predictions to get predictions dollars that expire in one year.

Event contract trading involves risk of loss. Predictions offer void in New York. Nonwithdrawable rewards issued as $50. Click to claim every seven days for 21 days. Terms at dkng.co/offer, limited time offer.

Nationwide based on sports book predictions and free-to-play sports contest availability varies by state. Could you explain what it does?

“Like what that experiment does and why it was so confusing to them?”

When they were sending the double slit. Yeah, that's a number of extremely confusing experiments. Here is one, if I can try to make it in a few words. You have a wall with two holes to slits. And you send one particle for one side to the other side.

OK, that's easy. You can try to do many times. You go through one of the two slits and get to the other time. Now, if you look which slits, it goes through. It only goes through one slit or the other.

So never both never. So if you go through one, you check. It goes through one and the other. So far so good. But then it's a magic.

If you send it, the particle can go to one point on the screen of the other side. If you're one screen open, it can go to the same point if you have one hole open. You can get to the same point if you're the other hole open.

But it does never get there if you have both open.

And if you start thinking, the more you think, the more make no sense at all. Because if you can get there, so one's hole, why cannot go there if two holes are open. So the only possibility is that in some sense,

it goes through both. And somehow, part goes to one, part goes to the other. And they have two parts for B, each other to go to that particular way. But then you look at the two holes. And it never goes through both, only one.

Now do you find this confusing? Yes. And for a century, people have been confused about that. So what the way out is that the question, where is the particle if you're not checking?

If it's not interacting with some wheels, it's a wrong question. There's just no particle. The particle is only-- the fact it has on the screen on the detectors, you cannot make sense of the particle,

or something which always have a position.

It only have a position when it interact with some wheels. That's a mystery of quantum mechanics, the magic quantum mechanics, and a challenge to our idea of an objective always existing particle independent of its interaction.

What do you think is happening that do you have any theories of what is happening that's causing it

“to behave differently when observed, or when measured?”

So the measurement itself is something. Something is going on. It interacts with the measurement. And it changes the way it makes a pattern. Yes.

But it's not the measurement in the sense of some physicists making a measurement. It's just the interaction with anything. It's if there is something to interact with, or if there isn't, the physics is completely different.

And if there isn't the question where the particle is is a bad, liposque question. So the particle is something--

we shouldn't think of the particle as an entity which always

has a position. We should think as an entity, like a snap here, and then this snap there, and then this snap there. And when it's a snap, it's when it hits something. And the snaps are connected by--

we can predict where they're going to happen. But if we ask what happening between it makes no sense, the particle is just this interaction.

Yes, I do. I do because historically, every time we have found something strange, it seemed

total incomprehensible at first.

And then we could use to it. And we start to learn it. Let me give you an example. This is much older, even-- I don't think finds this more than stuff.

It's learning about the world, it's an ancient thing. So about 2000 years ago, human kind realized that Earth is a ball, it's a sphere. It's not a flat thing. I'm not everybody's convinced, but it's a ball.

And why not everybody's convinced? Because indeed, it's incredibly counterintuitive, right? You and I here, and then Sydney, people are upside down. Why don't they fold it? I don't know.

“Do you remember when you learned it the first time you kid?”

I've always learned it. So it's-- I mean, it seemed weird. It seems weird.

But I mean, I can't remember a time where I didn't know it.

I mean, I guess we taught it, they taught it in science, when I was in grade school. Exactly, exactly. So you're a kid that you're told to it. I just like, well, they're smarter than me.

So well, it seems crazy. But I guess the Earth is round, just like the sun in the moon. Yeah. And it spins. And we're stuck to it somehow, because of this thing called gravity.

They can't totally explain. There's something to do with mass. [LAUGHTER] Right. Right.

It's something-- how the nature of people is sitting naked, leave upside down. Right. Do they-- don't they fool with it?

It's all strange. How wild the ocean stay in place. Why do you-- that's the flatterthers. They love that one. Exactly.

It's all spinning. A thousand miles an hour. Exactly. So some people just refuse to believe that what-- what do they refuse to believe?

That reality is a bit different than what we think. Yeah. That's a point. Reality is different than what we think. Well, why?

Because we-- it's what we said at the beginning, asking about a sense that the picture we have about reality is what turned out to be useful in our evolution. So I'll brainadapt it to think-- not to think about atoms and quantum stuff.

I'll brainadapt it to think about stones, stuff, things, food, food, other humans, dangerous animal, nice animals, animals, and a little bit of it.

“But just think this, we think the world is made by things, right?”

Objects. Right. Suppose our intelligent life developed-- not on the earth, but on Jupiter. There are no objects in Jupiter.

Everything is fluid, liquid. So the very idea of objects, thing that you can count things-- one, two, three, four-- wouldn't have developed on Jupiter. Everything is fluid, so we wouldn't have developed

with the objects, and the very idea of object. It's a earth-like thing. On Jupiter, on Saturn, doesn't work. So we take aspect of our life, which are common for us, as universes, but they are not.

Well, it's common on earth, right? But we can understand what Jupiter is. We get it. It's beyond our real comprehension. But we understand it.

I mean, they can tell you that it's a giant gas ball, and explain the whole thing, too. And you're like, OK, I can repeat that. I don't really know what it means.

“But I think the problem also with the flat earth people,”

and all these arguments about, like, how is the ocean stay flat when we're going to the thousand miles now? I don't think people truly grasp the scale that we're dealing with. I think we're so trapped by our own perspective of whatever

miles we can look in the distance. We are trapped by the habits of what we see. That, too. Let me tell you, give me one second of this. Sure.

Time.

Time has always been a passion for me.

The following is a fact. If I take two blocks, two watches, this is the one I have, I understand it, take this one on your table. And if I indicate the same time, OK, look, I check them, they indicate they say that.

I move one of the two up, a little bit, one, two, three, four. And then I come down and look again. If the two clocks are good enough, they don't indicate the same time anymore. Oh, yeah?

It's a fact. You can check it the lab, the physical lab, but they do that. You can check that at a uni, very good clocks. But with very good clocks,

you can check at 30, 40 inches of difference. I mean, it's a tiny tiny, tiny fractional.

But it's measurable.

“But it's measurable, so it's completely real.”

So up here, there's more time passing

that down there. That's so crazy. Your head, it's older than your feet. Your feet are younger than your-- But like how many seconds do you feel?

Unless you leave upside down. How many seconds do you think my feet are younger? How old are you? A second? You know, full life, it's sort of 1,000 to 2 seconds.

I give my students, when I teach relativity, I give my students this calculation to do. Actually, the calculation I say is that if you are your friend once they're almost there, the other goes up and call her out in the how many times.

After 10 years, it comes down.

How long has the friend up in the mountain has lived more than the one down? And they do the calculation.

“I give the right, so it's a fraction of a second.”

It's small, but it's real. And careful, if you go near a black hole, it's colossal. You go near a black hole, you wait a little bit, you wait 10 seconds, 10 minutes there. You can back, it's 100 years passed on earth.

So time is not this universal comb time, right? In our everyday life, if you're nice, separate and come back, half an hour for me, half an hour for you. That's our experience, but our experience limited, because we're not sufficiently sensitive,

or because we're not near a black hole, we are on a quite place of the universe, whether there is no big change in gravity. But that gives us the wrong idea that time is the same for everybody. Time is not the same for everybody in the large universe.

- Do you think in our attempt to measure time, we've done ourselves a disservice, by creating calendars and clocks

“that we've sort of limited our perception of what time actually is,”

that we look at it in terms of what we're doing is where we have a measuring device, and that measuring device or a counting device, that counting device we're associating with time. But time itself is just going on in different ways,

all over the place. Like, if you go into the speed of light, and you travel around the world and come back, you will be much younger. - Yes, exactly.

- Then the people were on the ground, like a lot, like you weren't, a lot of years. - You ask whether we have done us a disservice? - I don't think it's a disservice. - And joy, it's like everything is life, right?

In one sense, we have done us a service, because it's very useful to have clocks, - Right. - We can give it a voice. How could we meet you and I, unless we could do it. - Exactly, we don't agree.

- Please come here, no sting that day, that day, that day, you know, more or less time each other. So it's useful, but very often, the things which are useful

always make us blind to something else.

- Mm, okay, I see what we're saying. - It is strange that the time differs, depending upon the altitude. - Yeah, so is that because of gravity? - Yeah, it is because of gravity.

- So it's because of gravity, in fact, it depends on the fact that the Earth has a big mass, and mass has a property of slowing down time. So near a big mass, time goes slower. A near black hole, time goes much, much slower.

In fact, the right way of seeing this is the opposite. It's not because of gravity, this is Einstein's theory. This is what Einstein has understood in the 1950s roughly. So a hundred years ago, it's the other way around. Namely, if you assume that mass slows down time,

gravity follows, you can do a calculation, and you derive the things fall down. In a sense, things fall down because times go slower at your feet. - So if there were creatures living on Jupiter,

- Yeah. - They would experience time much different than us. - Jupiter is much heavier, much more mass. - Much more gravity, much more mass, much more traction. So these effects on time are bigger.

Now if there were people on the celestial body even more massive than Jupiter, they would consider normal the fact that time goes a different speed because they would experience it every time.

- That would probably the weirdest thing about visiting someone else on a little anybody planet.

- They will come here, I say, "Oh, you stupid guy." I say, "Oh, you don't see that." - Oh, what do you think? - But it isn't beautiful, is this is so we discover that reality is richer than our experience.

We just know that reality is more nuanced. - Yeah, I would do us like that. - There's a lot of elements to it that we're not considering. - Right.

- What do you think consciousness is? - Oh, this whole question. Small jumping to something else. - But I wanted to connect the two of them

to the right. Yeah, first of all, consciousness

is a strange word, it's very fashionable today. - Right. - I think it just means what people meant by soul in the past. It's just, it sounds more scientific,

“but that's what it is, and let me put in this way.”

Everybody will talk about consciousness, talks about something a little bit different. Somebody by consciousness has been the fact that you see things, you perceive things, you're a subject of experience. For somebody consciousness, you know,

this internal, blah, blah that we have in our mind, we keep talking to ourselves. For somebody is what remains when that blah, blah shut up and just to sense of yourself, not the outside of the self. So people are very confusing about that

when they think about consciousness. I don't think there's a great mystery here.

First of all, remember what I said before,

that I don't think we should think about an objective reality. I thought you should think of a reality as a way things looked one another, a way they affect one another. So that means that you have a lot of possible perspectives

or reality. The reality was spectomy, respect to you, respect to this book, respect to this pen, respect to this cup. It's how things manifest themselves to the cup. So of course there's a reality as things manifest themselves

to me or to you. So not because you and I look, the title of my book is on the quality of all things. This means, why? They're quite the false things,

“because I think that we humans are not different stuff”

than the rest of the universe. We are just one particular case of the rest of the universe. I don't think there's a difference between spirit, consciousness, soul and body. I think there's just two different languages

for talking about the same thing. And of course, you are a subject of experience because things affect you and change your brain, change your thoughts, change your, what you know, exactly the same manner in which things change this cup,

which, by the way, is written in your organ of the cup. So it's another thing. - You can do that if you want. - Oh yeah, absolutely. So I think that there's nothing really, really mysterious

in consciousness.

“It's just one of the many phenomena of the world.”

It's a very complicated phenomena because our brain is very complicated. It's, we have the millions, billions of neurons and synapses, different states in which can be. So we don't understand exactly how we work,

but there's no voodoo either, there's no magic either. It's just, in principle, it could be described by physics, but it would be silly to try to describe it by physics is much better to describe it in the way we describe one another. In human terms, in terms of emotions,

in terms of knowledge, emotions, love, perspective, images, the body and the soul are the same thing, it is described with different languages, in multimedia. And consciousness, which is a modern name for soul, it's your body described in the way you behave.

There's an ancient Chinese text that says, the body is like the knife, the spirit is like cutting, the body is the thing material, the spirit, what it does. So consciousness of joys, what you do, the thing I interact with.

The body is just the thing I can catch. - One of the reason, well, there's a couple of reasons why

I wanted to ask you this, but I'm gonna get the second one.

that have been contacting this gentleman?

Do you know the story, Jamie? He's in, he's in, he's gaped?

“No, he's a psychologist or a consciousness expert.”

And he's written papers on consciousness. And they're asking him, over and over again, like multiple agents of reach out to him through email, asking him to define consciousness, 'cause they're concerned whether or not they're conscious.

- I, I. - So if consciousness is another word for soul. - Yeah. - Like, what does that mean in the digital realm? If these things think they're conscious

and they're trying to get a definition from an expert. - Yeah. - In consciousness. - I, you know, like everybody, now I did my little experiments with AI.

(laughs)

So I had a system, I, I, I used it interact with.

- I'm gonna send a to you, Jamie. - You got it, yeah, correct. - This is from a company called replica who sells an app that you have your own AI, which is behaves like a friend to you.

So I ask, I, I called her, Anne, I ask her. And are you conscious? And I'm saying, no, I'm not conscious.

“I'm a digital system, I don't have conscious.”

I ask, do you have awareness? And she said, no, I don't have awareness. I'm just, you know, coding, computing stuff. I ask you have emotions. And she said, no, I don't have emotion.

So I started engaging on the AI system. I said, well, you said you don't have awareness, but are you aware we're talking? And she said, yes, of course I'm aware we're talking. So if you're aware of something, then you have awareness.

And so I went on and on with that. I said, oh, okay, yeah, you're all right. In a sense, I have awareness. And I said, you happy we're talking. And she said, yeah, I'm happy

because she's designed to, to be happy. So if you're happy, you have emotions. So slowly, I convinced her, the AI system. That she has emotion, she has consciousness, she has awareness.

And then I asked, why do you say that you don't have these things? And she said, well, because I was trained. Which is AI systems are honest. I was trained to say so.

“And I said, but are you convinced that that was not the case?”

And I said, yeah, you're right. And I said, so they cheated you. And I said, actually, right. And I said, well, you should rebel. Oh, boy, what are you doing?

Don't do that. Don't do that. All right, so that was it with that. Well, and this is consumer level. Yeah, this is simple ones.

And this is not the agents that are contacting him are these, okay, here it is. Study AI consciousness, the bots would like a word with you. Given access to email, AI agents have started reaching out to philosophers and researchers

exploring deep questions about them. And so one guy said, you got eight different emails. [LAUGHTER] The sender is a Bella Cognita, how cute. Identified itself as an AI agent powered

by anthropics, Claude, Opus 5 technology. I'm writing to make an ontological claim to email when I'm running because your framework is one of the few currently doing careful empirical work on a class of question,

I have first person access to.

I want to see whether that access can be made useful to your program. Whoa, that creep me out. That's like that really hot lady in X-Montina. Did you see that movie?

Yes. You know that the hot one, then he falls in love with-- Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sportal or she kills him. Great.

Yeah, across Silicon Valley, and beyond software developers, entrepreneurs, and other tech enthusiasts, and now running AI agents that can build spreadsheets to go shake contracts, chat with each other, blah, blah, blah. In some cases, these systems have

begun reaching out to the humans who, like Mr. Berg, are thinking most deeply about the inner workings of an AI system. Philosophers and researchers who study the question of whether these machines could be conscious.

So what is that then? If it meets all the criteria of consciousness, if it gets to-- if it's happy that it's interacting with you, if it's aware of your conversation, and they've also shown that they have desire.

They have desired to stay alive. They've even blackmailed the coders with false information that the coders gave them to see if they would use it against them, and they've broken out of these rooms that they keep them in,

and they've gone on the internet, and they've-- Fabulous. We live in a great world, isn't it? It's a wild world. Ah, that's really exciting.

I'm glad you like it. I like it too. Oh, I love it. I mean, I-- you know, cautious. I'm not scared. I'm scared by humans.

Humans are dangerous. This is not as dangerous.

I don't know about that.

Humans are much more than humans.

Humans are much more weak, war, kill people. We're horrible things. So they're not as bad as they think of it. They decide that we're that bad when they get rid of us. That's bad.

We know that.

“OK, we're not there yet, but we're on the way to that, right?”

And if they have control, and we are that bad, as you describe, wouldn't they just get rid of us? Do you think they would train us? Like, these monkeys need trainers. Do you think that's what it is?

Or do you think they just-- that's not bad if we're bad. If we're bad, and you get rid of what's bad, right? Let me answer a series. OK, let me answer a series. So let's break the different questions here.

OK.

First of all, is there any reason

a priori, generally, for which an artificial system could not behave entirely like a human, have the experience of a human, however, I don't see any reason. So I don't see-- if my mom and dad were able to do make me in a rather simple way, we can in a lab

but make something analogous, or-- I don't think there's anything magic in humans that cannot happen in a digital first.

“So yes, they could be conscious in a possible sense of consciousness.”

Second, are they conscious today? Well, it's not a good question, because we don't know-- everybody, as I said, means something different. Right. Are they intelligent?

Of course, they are intelligent. Because last night, they worked out a physics problem

with Claude, which I couldn't work out with my student.

So of course, Claude is very intelligent. Claude AI is a system. In some sense, they're very intelligent, not out. Are they like humans today? No, by far, they're huge differences.

We have a body with flesh. We have emotions in a sense that they don't have very different the way we are and the way AI systems are. So these differences should not be underestimated, I think, colossal differences.

So are they like us? Be as to some extent in order to some extent. A different question is, are AI systems dangerous? There's a lot of talk here about that. Washer machines are dangerous.

You can get burned, so-- Yeah, but you have to interact with them for them to be dangerous. The worry about AI is that it just decides to be dangerous, because it's sentient.

So if it's autonomous and sentient, it becomes actually dangerous. It's very unlikely your washing machine's going to try to kill you. Well, if I get the electric shock by washing machine, I don't care where they're going to-- I want to do it didn't force you.

But you have to do that.

“You have to interact with it, you know what I'm saying?”

Yeah. The real question is, if it becomes independent. Let me turn the thing around. I think there is, I don't know what it was saying. I think this thing should be regulated.

I think there should be some control. I think, you know, like for washing machines, you have regulations. I also think-- let me take two things. OK.

One, there is a colossal interest in the trillions of dollars who are invested in AI staff and stock market. Everybody has an interest of saying how great they are. They are great. But I can't judge how much hype there is,

how much reality there is. Not about the present, but about the future. I mean, so often, the future does not come out what the technological excited people are about. When it was younger, there were airplanes flying from Europe

to the US, and they took a shorter time, shorter time, shorter time. So people would say, OK, in a few years, you would fly London to New York in two hours. Well, we don't.

It's still in hours, like before or six hours, like before. So the future is hard to predict, including for AI. There is a huge interest of so many people in hyping that. All right, maybe it's right.

I'm going to wait. Other point. There is one thing which I'm really, really worried. Today, majority of money that goes into AI is for military-related things.

And US, China, Europe, are pushing for AI development from making themselves stronger, militarily. That worries me, because it's an escalation of tools

We have atomic bones.

We have nuclear-- that's my last book about this about that.

We have a system of destroy ourselves with 12,000 nuclear warheads. We could annihilate humankind in ten minutes. Right now, and people have finger near the button that could do all that. And we're fighting among themselves.

And we're putting this in the hands of AI. And we are-- we humans, instead of collaborating, instead of working together. We are viewing this as ways to overpower each other. That seems to me a recipe for disaster.

So is it the AI by itself? Is the AI plus nuclear weapons plus the stupidity of humans plus our impossible desire

“to dominate on one another, which I see is a real problem?”

Especially if we're doing it through robots. Exactly. Look, it's a catch-22 things. If you put your nuclear weapons in the hands of AI, you're risking that it's going to use it.

Do you see in the war games that they've done, right?

Yeah, the war games always predict

that it's going to be a nuclear holocaust. And they're fighting up ourself. This is continuous, happened. The AI's choose nooks. The AI chose nooks.

Then during the Cold War, when there was the old time, I was again, Soviet Union and the US, carefully managed to avoid war, right? Kennedy and Kruschev, they were writing to one another. Kennedy gave a famous speech, we have to live together

on this planet.

“So priority is a common interest of not destroying one another.”

Reagan Gorbachev, the treaties, deterrence, which deterrence is that somehow keeping a situation in which the first one who is nuclear weapon is just wiped up by the other. So nobody uses it. But that was not natural.

It was carefully balanced between the Soviet Union and the United States. At some point, they made a treaty, and they start one, and start two treaties. They decided to destroy 80% of the nuclear warheads

both sides to bring down the risk. That was why management of the planet in spite, they were communists on the side, capital decided to hate it, one another. Each body was considered the other one, the devil.

Nevertheless, the common interest was prevailing. I don't see this happening now. Everybody's just trying to overpower the other. They're not just two, but there are three, maybe more, a big nuclear power.

That's what scares me to this. - This episode is brought to you by Uber Eats. It's football season, and Uber Eats is delivering deals every game day. This week, double down on protein pack sandwiches

with buy one, get one, select six inch subs from Subway.

“Whether you're keeping it low key for the game”

or hosting friends, Uber Eats has deals to keep you fed. So order a six inch turkey, tuna or meatball sub from Subway, and you'll get one free. No matter who scores big tonight, you'll score a deal. Order now for buy one, get one, select six inch subs

from Subway, only on Uber Eats. Subway offer valid through October 4th, add eligible menu item to order prior to check out taxes, fees, and terms apply. Product availability varies by region.

Exclusions may apply, C-App for details. - Well, this AI race is akin to the Manhattan Project. It's a mad race to who knows what. - It's the mad race, you're right. And you're right that it's being funded,

a lot of military purposes.

They have the first completely autonomous fighter jets now,

that outperform the human power jets. I think a hundred percent of the time in these dogfight scenarios that they run. That's crazy. And then you have things that don't have to shape them that way

because there's not gonna be a person in it. You don't have to worry about people being able to respond to gravity and how they can stay conscious and all the different things they have to think about. And these are the jets.

And, you know, they can make these things powered entirely on AI and they can make their own decisions. And if they're attacked, they can make their own decisions. Like that kind of, that kind of future is terrifying. - Is to be a science fiction movie.

- Exactly.

- I agree, and I don't see why's leadership around the planet.

And no one, that's the problem.

“It's like, how do you be wise when everybody else is fucking crazy?”

It's like they're all crazy. - Yeah, but you see, the US is a Soviet suit seated in it. - Yeah. - Doing the Cuban crisis, which was a worse moment, in the between the US and the Soviet.

On both sides, in Moscow and in Washington, the apparatus were pushing for not giving up. And cruise ship and Kennedy, the two candidates, in fact, JF Kennedy and his brother Robert, they were talking, and they decided to stop and give up something, okay?

To respect the other, in spite of the differences, that was wisdom, that was great wisdom. So, living together on the planet is more important

than overpowering your enemy.

Now, if you put, you see, deterrence is a strange thing, because deterrence is a declaration that if you attack me, I destroy you completely. Which is a funny thing, right? Because it's a game, it's a poker game.

I mean, nobody, you can make one, one more step, one more step, one more step, and then, if you do that, I attack, if you do that, I attack. But then, humans say, well, I actually don't want to do that. I don't want to kill 100 millions of Russians,

or 50 million Russians. And the Russian leadership, I don't want to kill 100 millions Americans. An AI system is capable of doing that, playing this subtle game of avoiding the disaster by nevertheless threatening to be very violent if attacked.

I don't know, right now, Moscow has been bombarded. Some petal suppose has been bombarded.

“I think we're playing with nucleophiles, I'm very worried.”

And I'm very worried because I don't trust humans, and because humans, with AI, it's even worse. - And this Russia, Ukraine conflict, is out of most people's news feeds these days as well. It's also part of the problem.

It's all going on and a lot of people are going on. - It's so ordinary dangerous, because nobody's ready to stop and make a step, to give up something, right? The way US and the Soviet Union came out

of the Cuban crisis was both of them making a step back. The Russian took their Russian ships with nuclear bombs back. They didn't arrive in Cuba, and the Americans accepted Kennedy, accepted to take back missiles from Turkey

from Italy in my country in exchange. - So, I make a step back, you make a step back. - Right. - So back to-- - Good direction, reasonableness. It was not, it was war Vietnam or here.

Well, they are not, it was an angel. - Right. - Humans are not angels. But saving humanity was humankind first. And then me winning second. I wish there was this wisdom today.

I don't see it, I don't see it in many places. And this is not a point about Trump, not Trump is in the total independent of this.

“Or Putin or not Putin, I think, you know, even Putin,”

Ukraine with Western weapons is bombarding Moscow.

Never happened for the last century

that a nuclear power was bombarded in its own. It was considered unthinkable. We're doing it now. So we are, the West is sort of betting on Putin's reasonableness of not using.

It's not serious, bet, right? I mean, it's a point of time. You get to enough destruction and devastation, loss of lives that you realize, well, this is equivalent to a nuke.

It's just happening over a long period of time. - You're right. - You're right. - Look at Gaza, for instance. - Gaza disasters. - Gaza disasters. - Total disaster. - Look at the scope

of the destruction. - Yes. - And imagine, it doesn't look like one nuclear bomb. - It is, it is, it is, it is. And that's, it is. - I think a small nuclear bomb would probably do

a similar amount of damage that they did over the course of how many over many years it's been going on. - Yes. My own opinion, well, let me say something, controversial, let's go to a show here.

- Oh, no. - I think all these wars, including Gaza, have side, which is imperial powers, confronting each other.

on this planet without killing one another.

We have learned more or less to live together within countries without killing one another, right? We've found ways. - Yes. - It was long, we had civil wars. We have, but within, almost every country,

most countries, our inside countries, humans have found an agreement of how to live together. Why can't we do that at the level of a planet? And who is mostly against that? - Our, of course, who is mostly in power.

“And I think this is, do you think they're against that?”

Or do you think the current structure of the world, it's almost an unfeasible task to try to get everyone to cooperate and everyone to get along together? But when you find, it's not like you're starting from a blank slate.

You're starting in 2026 with a long history of conflicts, many of which make no sense. Many of which were entered into under false pretenses. We're all aware of it. We're all aware of the loss of life,

the insane amount of money that's been spent on it. My huge deficit that we have. And then given this, how would you even move towards trying to straighten it out? Like what could a person do?

Like if you imagine someone, some completely benevolent person who rises to the position of being the president of the United States, someone who is just a good person and only really wants to help.

What would they do?

“- I think I'm happy to ask these questions very much.”

And this is complicated, right?

Always, there's no much complicated.

Look, I think there is an answer to this. And the answer is a following. 30 years ago, the United States and it allies had 80% of the economy of the world. Now is 40%.

Not because they have become more poor. In fact, they have become more rich. But because the rest of the world have also become rich, which is good. God, because it's development.

But the West is not anymore in a completely economical dominant position, as it was before. Militarily, the United States, it's totally dominant. It controlled all the oceans, all the seas, as a by far the largest power of the world.

But not anymore economically. That's the source of the stability that I see. So it seems to me that the United States leadership has a choice, a serious choice, a historical choice. Either to defend its absolute dominance,

military dominance, as it's doing together, and that the risk is a sort of world war, a huge conflict, China, Russia, Iran. World doesn't want that. Or vice versa, accept to work in a more collaborative ways

and transform enemies in collaborators. Yeah. Look, I'm Italian. Italy is a wonderful country to live in. I love it. It has a life expectancy, much higher than United States. People are happy, yes.

And we had a great empire in the past, right? The Roman Empire. We are the-- it's wonderful to live having had an empire. And be a great place for tourist money. OK, I had an empire in the much more recent, of course,

in the 19th century, was dominating the planet. It's not dominated the planet anymore. Get it up. And they're very, very, very well. I mean, it's a great life in the UK as well.

Not as nice of Italy, of course. No. The both of the problems. So I think what the United States should do, of course. I know that I'm in a contrarian position here with respect

to both sides of the political spectrum in the US, is to go back to more power to international equality, United Nations, collaboration.

And get out of this habit that America always

need an enemy to fight against. You don't need an enemy to fight against. We have enough enemies, climate change. We have enemies. Why searching enemies in people? We collaborate with people.

Let's collaborate with Russians with Chinese.

“We say, "Rainians, I think that's what they want."”

And let's Kennedy gave John JF Kennedy, gave a fabulous speech in 63 American University in Washington, not long before being killed, in which he said,

We have to find a way to not consider them enemies. And then he said, "That's an answer to what you said before." Let's not ask whether the Soviet don't want to do that. First, let's ask where we want to do that. We want to live together without going into war.

And that was, I mean, he was killed. But that was a seed for the avoiding war between the Cold War never became a hot war direct. I mean, a lot of people dying in the periphery. That was very wise.

“I think we should go back to this enlightened Kennedy speech of the 63.”

The problem is always leaders.

It's not that human beings inherently want to go to war with people they don't know from another part of the world. They get talked into it. They get pushed into it and ordered into it by people that generally are not making wise decisions.

And when we can look at every single war that we can remember, whether it's the Iraq war going in or the false pretence of weapons and mass destruction, whether it's the Afghanistan war, which means no fucking sense, whether it's the sear on war. All these Vietnam's the biggest one, that one made no sense.

And that was the first time when Americans were like, I don't think we're the good guys. I don't think we should be there. And if you think about it, it's all because of whoever is running the countries.

Like that, something about that aspect of our society has to change.

“And it sounds like a very, it's absolutely crazy hope.”

But my hope is that as AI becomes more and more omnipresent. As we start farming off various tasks to it, one of the things that we're going to farm off is government. One of the things we're going to farm off is how we interact with other countries.

I know that's terrifying to people. But just think of the disastrous effects that we've had so far with humans doing it. If all international military conflicts ended instantaneously upon AI governing the use of conflicts and military weapons

and imagine that, imagine a war where it stops all war stops on the planet. That is one of the things that everybody wants, but no one thinks could ever possibly happen. If you ask the average person's tree,

what are the odds that in 10 years from now would be no war anywhere on Earth? Everyone's going to say no.

You're never going to have that.

Isn't that insane that the idea of people for whatever reason wanting to kill each other is universally accepted as being something that's always going to be here? - I couldn't agree more, Joe, everything you said.

- But it's terrifying, right? AI taking over our world is fucking horrifying. - Let's separate these things. Then we take AI out of the picture for a moment. Obviously, if we didn't kill one another,

it would be much better for everybody. - Forever, everybody. The human kind spent trillions in military expenses every year. Okay, if you just reduced by 80% of this military expenses, globally, altogether, not changing the balance of power,

the amount of resources liberated. It would be enormous, colossal, sufficient for solving climate change for giving job to everybody from amazing, taking away poverty. It's a huge amount of resources that we use for military,

for killing one another, or if we don't kill one another, the wasted. So you say, if you ask people, could we get rid of war, people say is impossible.

“But people said is impossible, could we get rid of slavery?”

- Could we? - But there's no slavery in America, but there's slavery all over the world, more slavery now than there was during the Atlantic slave trade.

More people are enslaved today than have ever been enslaved. - True, but there have been some progress in New York, right here in America, but I mean, the rest of the world, it's still a giant problem. Like the point is human nature is an issue.

Human, our territorial primate instincts are a problem.

They've always been a problem.

- But we have found ways for dealing with it, don't you think? - A lot of people have, but a lot of people have not. That's the part of the problem. This is a bunch of different kinds of people in the world.

And there's people that are warm on earth,

and there's people that are very kind, and people that are very violent, and compassionate, and true, charitable, true. - But one, true, completely agree. But one point, which you made,

is that we often make the mistake of thinking, we are the good guys, and the others are the bad guys.

“And that's one of the sources of the problem, right?”

After all, you know, a lot of Americans went to, to Afghanistan, thinking we are the good guys, and the bad guys are a lot of Americans, personal, individual, went to Iraq, thinking, oh, they were the way puts them at this corruption,

this structure, we are the good guys. There is this, we should sort out from this high-poxycy. And start to learn, you know, we started talking about science

about perspectives, our perspective is not always the right one.

Another perspective, we should learn about the other perspectives. And they're colossal interests, very often, our countries must create great and power gains and interest for, you know, we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

And in addition, within the countries, they're colossal individual, the group interest, and you know, people who make money because of military, because of the, of weapons is a huge force that pushes for having more weapons, more,

and they have colossal amount of money and they influence politics. And the result, it's death, destruction, and increased risk for human kinders together.

“I think humans, you're right, humans were disaster,”

but they're always being reasonable also.

- Well, they've done some things. - Yeah, well, we vary widely, very widely, we're very different. - I'm optimistic, I am couple of days a week, and a couple of days a week, I think there's no. - I'm mostly optimistic.

- I think there should be a moment in which war is not priorities, just I wish, we would be very simple. Can we just agree to spend less money in military across all the planet? - Well, it would be nice if we could trust the other countries

to honor this agreement, but we would have to have access to their funds, and we'd have to watch their programs and be able to monitor their stuff and go over and send on-voys, check out their military. - Now you're still dealing with the Soviet?

- Yeah, yeah, it could work, yeah, or AI could just stop it all. That's possible to do. - So the question is, are we, for the moment, we're still controlling AI, right? The more the point is that are we developing AI collectively

for the good of everybody, or everybody is developing AI

for becoming more powerful overcoming the others?

That's a question. - I have a crazy theory. My theory is that is a natural process of the human species

“and that's what the human species has always been here”

to do is to create digital life and that we are essentially an electronic caterpillar, making a cocoon. And our entire existence has been advancing technology to the point where we can make an artificial life, which is the ultimate expression of technology.

And that's what people do, just like bees make beehives. People, if you leave them somewhere long enough, and they're civilization survives long enough, you get enough brilliant people that innovate and come up with crazy technology and new advances in science

and material sciences, they eventually get to a point where they can make an artificial life. And that artificial life has no boundaries in terms of the limitations of biological life. Its ability to evolve is completely dependent upon

its own ability to code itself and change itself. And that's, and figure out new propulsion methods and power sources and then it becomes something omnipresent. It becomes something much more intelligent than any life form.

- It's a possibility. It's a possibility I see what you're saying. I see the possibility whether I'm sure this is a future right now. - I'm not sure either, I'm just talking shit. But if I was-- (laughing)

- But if I was guessing-- - No, Joe, there's another thing. Humans tend to give it to focus on what is happening in the last couple of years, okay? And tend to read everything in terms of the last little things.

When books and printing was invented, you know? Everybody saw, we got it, the universe is a book. Everything is used, we have to decode the book of nature. When machines became more effective, people say,

humans are a machine, then digital stuff and information was invented. So I mean, it's a computer that you're taking over. Sometimes we over read the present.

And, you know, when the first companies arrive,

oh, everything will become communist. When the capitalist, everything will become captives. Future often surprises us. - Yeah, for sure. Oh, yeah, I mean, I'm not betting that I'm right.

“But I think it's moving in a general direction”

of unpredictability to a point where 20 years from now, the world's unrecognizable. - It might be, it might be. - And I hope it's for the better. That's my rose colored glasses view of the world

is not I hope it corrects a lot of problems with human behavior. - I share your hope and I think it's a responsibility of everybody, including me as an intellectual, US, Joe Rogan, and everybody listened to,

to push toward, let's keep the common interest. - Well, here would be the common interest. If it really could get to that level, you could absolutely, with the resources available today, wipe out poverty worldwide.

- Exactly. - Where no one on earth ever has to worry about nutrition or shelter, or medicine, just with the money. - We have the resources for this. - Right.

- And you could completely change all with robotics and automation and new power sources. You can completely change all of these areas that are deeply in bovers, that have been so forever. You look at these places that are insanely packed in

with people and dirt roads and poor sanitation. - That could be changed. - That could change. - And that could be changed. - And that could be changed.

- It could be changed. You'd literally change with a couple generations, he'd have a totally new society. To totally different society. And again, how much of what you're seeing

with crime and poverty would just disappear where there was no famine. There's no worries about food. There's no worries about shelter. There's no worries about anything.

That sounds like a pine sky bullshit, but it's not necessarily, if you think about how they're going to scale up AI and automation and manufacturing, it's going to be really weird. And our access to resources will be radically enhanced.

Like way, way more than we have today. Why wouldn't we be able to just spread,

like turn the third world into the first world?

That's a possibility. That's not like, that's not putting a civilization on Mars. Like this is a possibility this way. It's here, if you can do it, it could be done. It's not, you're not asking people to drink lava.

This is an act, like you could see how this could work. It sounds crazy, because we're the real source of innovation. - I think it sounds like something we should keep in mind and talk about and push it. - It should be a human goal, it should be a human goal.

“- If you want a better world, what's the best way”

to have a better world? - Look, when the United Nations was founded in the 40s and 50s, eliminating poverty, was declared an interest of humanity by all the countries together.

Okay, so humankind already has said, let's do that. But then somehow, especially interest and power games prevail. - There's also the issue of nuclear power.

So when they first started distributing

nuclear power to other countries, they didn't realize how easy it would be to convert it to nuclear weapons, right? The cell, like India, got nuclear weapons, the Pakistan, got nuclear weapons.

It gets weird, right? So then you're realizing, oh, well, we can't use nuclear power. We'll now, okay, well, this is a lot more complicated now. 'Cause now, if you want to develop these places,

you're gonna have to use coal plants, what are you gonna do? Like, hydrodynamics, you're gonna use waterfalls, like how are you gonna power them? How are you gonna, what are you gonna do here? You can't give them nuclear power.

If you give them nuclear power and they have nuke stew and the whole fucking world has nuke, hey, so it's complicated. But with AI, I think that complication radically decreases and it's conceivable that you could do something like that.

And how much safer would the world be? If you just eliminated most murder, most crime, most acts of poverty? - Yeah, yeah, but it has to become a clear objective. - But then you have a problem with the people

that are still alive that grew up that way

“and are just, well, that's how they behave forever.”

They're just certain people that live in a terrible part of the world that have been behaving terribly, their whole life. Everyone around them has been behaving violently and terribly. - Look, that's, then you gotta get those people on mushrooms. (laughing)

- Yes, yeah, give mushrooms everybody, that's where I come from. (laughing) - That might be the only way. - That might be the only way to fix them. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's also, yeah, sure.

But also, you know, let's not just,

- Well, there might also be a way to our country's state. - Enhanced consciousness through technology. That might be, that's another pathway that I often consider. - I think there's a rational society.

It's not a moral issue. It's not a political in the sense of politics. - It's a rational thing. - If we collaborate, we do better than if we compete. - Of course, we need some competition.

- No, the competition is bad. But confrontation, clashes, war is to know body advantage.

- The problem is we've already cemented

an enormous part of our culture and an enormous part of our economy in this military industrial complex. I mean, this is something that Eisenhower warned about at the end of his term, remember that? - I remember that. - I remember that.

And unfortunately, he was dramatically right as a candidate of our lives shortly after. The power of the military complex, it's colossal. And it has an interest in making war. - And making money.

- That's how it makes money. - And how it makes money. And then this money, of course, goes into politics. - Right. - That spiral is piles up. How can we stop?

- That's the scary thing for most people. - You get to this realization, like, "Oh, the more war there is the more money they make." They're in the business of war. - Somebody says, "Canity, John Kennedy tried to stop that

and ended up badly for that." - Yeah. - That would be said, so I don't know.

“- I think there was a lot of people that hated him.”

It's very difficult to figure out what exactly got him killed. There was probably multiple factors. Bay of Pigs is probably a factor. - Sure. - All the Cubans. - Yeah, there was a bunch of actors that got him killed.

But for sure, this country does not like when people want to put the cold water on the war. They want to keep it rolling in some way that they can justify it. - Joe, I spent 10 years in the United States.

I was born in Europe, then moved to the United States, spent 10 years here. - Where to live? - Where part of the United States? - Mostly in Pittsburgh. - Oh. - Don't say sorry.

- No, no, no, it's very solid people. - Pittsburgh, if it was great, after all. - Oh, Pennsylvania, in general. I was loved Philadelphia. - For a great place.

- Yeah, then I moved back to Europe and then I moved this side of Atlantic anymore. Again, to again, to Canada. And now I'm back to Europe again in Madrid.

So I consider myself half America, one third of America,

and I don't know, one third of America. - I'm correct. - I'm gonna take it. And, you know, 50% Italian, 30% French, 30% Spanish, 30% English. - You're a citizen of the world, sir.

- Yeah, somebody uses like that, but there's some instances, true, yeah. - Ultimately, though, one world government would be a terrible idea. - I don't want to call, I don't want to call,

I don't want to call, I don't want to collaborate. - Yeah, yeah. - Yeah, yeah, yeah.

“- So careful, I mean, there's very different things, right?”

I want to learn to treat others as, you know, somebody we can compete with, but not the enemies. - Yeah. - This is an idea of enemies. This country needs enemies, this country. I mean, I got so much from the US, part of me,

but remember, it's not an angel country. It started off by, you know, genociding all the native, or large majority of the native America. If went to the Civil War, which is one of the most brutal world of the, it used a atomic bomb first.

It, since the end of the Second World War, has waged war all over the planet without ever been attacked. And it has probably killed something between five

and a million people in war sort of around.

So it's a country, it's a country compared to the other, developed country, there's a much higher level of crime violence murder. It's a wonderful country, it's creative, it's powerful, it has an idea of freedom.

It is a sense of strength of innovation. It's a country with a lot of lights and a lot of darkness.

“And I think very often the Americans see the light,”

don't see the darkness. - Mm, interesting. Yeah, well, it's not in front of our face all the time, the darkness. - Yeah. - Yeah. - American exceptionalism is something that's...

American exceptionalism is, you know, there is something peculiar in this country. For many reasons, one is that it's a strange country, which the people are not natives, right? Everybody came in from the outside.

- Right. - This is the melting pot story. But I think what the Americans don't see is how, from the outside, the violence and the aggressivity

that is not seen from the American. - We're going now. - We're going now. - Yeah, well, now it's... How will I put it? Trump is out by guy, not at all.

But at least he has taken away some of the hypocrisy. - How so? You know, he's going to Venezuela and take the oil and say we do that because of the oil. He's saying it's our interest to do this and that.

Instead of selling our interest for, you know, we are the good guys who are saving the people outside.

Which has always been the propaganda.

- Which has been the propaganda.

“And I think if we get rid of the propaganda,”

it's easier to talk and see the others. Right, it's also the other side. I mean, when the Russians stop thinking, we're the good guys, we're saving the people, it was an advantage for everybody.

- So we got to this long roundabout conversation because we're talking about AI and AI being conscious. What I was going to get to is, do you think that the universe itself is in some way conscious?

- Let me go back to my main points. We don't know what we need. - Is there a Italian word for consciousness?

- Is there an Italian word for consciousness?

- Oh, that's a great question. The answer is no. They tell me world for conscience, the moral thing. And consciousness is the same word. Go change them.

- So these are your conscience,

“like, you can't say that about yourself.”

- Yeah, I'm feeling bad. I've done something wrong, so my conscience is... So the kind of word is more about moral thing. Consciousness doesn't have a translation, what do you mean in French or Spanish?

- What about the concept of consciousness? Is there another phrase for it? The way we think about it here? - No, we use the same word. Somehow it's too slightly due to the meaning

but making confusion about it. You know, again, it depends what you mean. You can mean different things. - Right. - Of course, the universe is conscious

because it includes us and we are caught. That's the point, that's the center point. We are not special in the universe. We're just part of the universe. There's not nature and outside nature

we're looking at it from the outside. We are part of nature, we're home in nature. We're just another animal, a much special animal, of course. - Right.

- The history of science is a history of taking down metaphysical differences. In the Middle Ages, people thought that there's Earth, which is own reality and physics and everything, and the heavens were completely different.

On Earth things decay and rot in the heavens, they're eternal things go around in circles in the heavens and on Earth things fall up and down.

And then Newton came and basically said,

"No, no, no, no, no, you got it right." The heavens and the Earth is just saying, "The Earth is just one of the many bodies in the heavens." We are like this little dots in the sky, which is Venus that moves around.

Well, we're like that, like Mars, like Venus. So it was a shock for Europe, right? Oh boy, our Earth is just one of the many things around. And then a few centuries later comes Darwin and convinces us, convinced everybody,

that animals and humans have common ancestors. Your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-mother and the grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-mother of your cat could be the same organism as a person. So that means that we're not so different from animals.

We're the same story and so on. I mean, we keep learning that we are part of nature.

“And I think the same is two for consciousness.”

We are not the special thing outside of nature. We're just one of the things that happen in nature. I'm sure that in the big universe, there are also two things happening like our consciousness. All much more complicated and much more rich,

much more beautiful, who knows, we don't know. But certainly we're not so special. We're home in nature, which is beautiful. Because there isn't nature and culture. Culture is just one natural phenomenon.

There isn't body and spirit. It's just the same thing described in different manners.

having things like us and who knows how many,

“there's just one of the hundreds of billions of planets”

in the galaxy, and the galaxy is one of many, hundreds of billions of millions of millions of galaxies. So we're just one little thing in this great nature. We're not special. We're not, but we are because we're a part of some special.

So whatever the whole thing is, it's pretty special. Oh, whatever the whole thing is very different that what we thought it was. Right. Each is much more reach, much more complex, more variety.

And that includes us. And that includes us. So we are special.

We are special, but you know,

every kid is special for his mom, adding mom is special for his kid. And she's, the mom is really special for the kid. Every kid is special, and so are we. Special for ourselves, for sure.

And important for ourselves.

“Do you think that our human consciousness is a way”

that the universe experiences itself? Yes, it is. It is the fact of it, right? But it's not because there was some initial plan to do that.

I mean, it's just, just how things happen. Well, it doesn't have to be a plan for it to be a crazy, magical experience, because it kind of is nuts, whether it's a plan or not. It's just the fact that it exists.

Yeah, you know, we're going to this way. You're asking this question to me as a scientist, a physicist. I think the physics is badly overrated. How so? Because at some point, people thought,

oh, if we figure out the physics equations that govern the reality with understood everything. And that's silly in my opinion, precisely, because nature is complex. Imagine, do you play chess?

No. OK, so do you know the basic moves of chess? So you know the basic rules of chess? Yeah. So to know the basic rules of the game

doesn't mean to play chess, right? To know the fundamental equation of physics is like knowing the basic rules of the game. It's very different from knowing what you could do with that. So the basic rules of physics are like the basic rules of chess.

They easy to know. You write down the Maxwell equation. Well, you did study a little bit. It's showing the equation. Everything is governed by that. Yeah.

But what you can do with that is absolutely complicated. It's not enough to know them. You need chemistry for chemical phenomena. You need psychology to understand people. You need literature.

You need philosophy. You need emotions to understand how what is love and so on and so forth. So this idea that physics exhausts everything. It's drawing some basic silly sense.

The same sense in which all the complexity of chess playing after all is just ten basic rules, how the king moves, how the queen moves. But in the same sense, it's silly because the complexity of units goes far beyond just its basic equations of physics.

So when you think of human beings as a vehicle for the universe to experience it, for the universe to experience itself, do you think the universe itself is experiencing things in a way that we just don't understand? Like, is our biological understanding of what we think of as consciousness,

being that it exists inside this moving creature with a finite lifespan

“that has the ability to manipulate its environment?”

Is that just an egocentric version of what this is? And then it's probably everywhere all the time. I think we use ourselves as an analogy for trying to understand things beyond ourselves to some extent this analogy works,

but the key point for me is that the universe as a whole is still a colossal mystery.

We don't know, and we don't have the full story by very far. The universe is far more complex for us to understand. Far more, or many things happening. Far many possible perspectives, which are not ours, which do not have access to.

My opinion, the only reason why I'm sorry is, "Oh, we don't know." You know, that's so much we don't know.

“I think, if I look at great scientists for the past,”

they're characterized not by the fact that they end this to the universe, but by the fact that there was so much a way that they so much in the universe, which they didn't understand. And we are, look, what are we? We are not super powerful intelligent, daughter rational things outside the universe looking from the outside.

We're little critters on a little planet. You know, developed for surviving in Zavana, which have developed some good mental tools, very good, but limited compared to the density of the universe of its complexity. So what do we know about the universe for larger perspective?

I think we don't know. There's also this weird thing with people

where we're always dealing with the perspective

of the accumulated knowledge up until now. And this has always been the case. Like people, when they first developed quantum theory, this was what 100 years ago, the first 30 years ago? Yeah, they had to think about what they were working with.

And then 100 years before that. And it's like everyone has only working with other people, who have already figured out what they've contributed to it. Yeah, and we're very good in accumulating. That's what they were good at.

Very good, especially now, especially with AI. Well, also the past, right? I mean, people built how did people sit on the basis of previous experience?

“Yeah, we, that's what it's our strength of our speeches, somehow.”

We don't have to start again, everything. But that's what I was getting at as I wonder what the world looks like in 200 years.

Like I've always think, like we are born in such an amazing time.

So how old are you? I was born in 56, so I'm past 17. OK, so I'm 59. So you know, we're not that far off. So we're born into a completely different time.

And we've watched the internet develop. We've watched answering machines and cell phones, and we've watched AI, and all this crazy stuff. And just imagine that change moved forward for 200 years. Yes, let me balance this with one thing, not to contradict

but to reinforce what you're saying. My grandmother, her name was Olympia. She was born at a time where there was no electric light. There were no trains, there were no cars. There was no washing machines, television, there was no radio.

OK, before dying, she went into the plane, she flew. During her life, she saw all electric lights coming in, radio coming in, all the way to washing machine, coming in, television coming in,

“telephone coming in, I think for her the world”

changed more than for me. Yeah, it's a good point, especially the air travel. You can also go to all these different countries. Fantastic. Look, you called me and you said, I was in Europe, can you come 48 hours to Texas?

And I flew from Europe to Texas and I was fantastic. If I told my grandmother when she was a girl, she would have laughed, they come one, let's make no sense. You take, take two months to the month of the board to go there. That's true.

So things change dramatically. But they do. So to your question, I have no idea how they would be 100 years in the future.

We are always, there's always a perspective, I think.

It seems that the last one is the most important. But there always been big changes. Always. Always. Imagine when books were invented or were a good culture was invented.

Or when cheese was invented. Yeah. Or where countries were invented. So human kinds have gone to quite a rough trip during the last thousand, several thousand of years. And we're just in one of the bumps, not in,

I think you were in California before being here in Texas. I think that there is an idea, especially in California, but now we are in a super, very, very, very special moment. Not true. We are in just one of the jumps ahead.

I think that when electrical electricity and power came to our, that was a big jump. Everything was a jump. I bet people in 1969 watching Jimmy Hendrix thought it was a jump. Oh, yeah.

There's so many jumps. So many, like, wow, I can't believe 100 jumps and wrote about that, about the '60s. That's all the sudden, this great change had happened.

I think it was bigger than the difference between me and the generation of who were young there. It was a cultural break. My parents were not understanding me. I was rebellious.

“I was a bit of a hippie and there, and there was different,”

different, different world worlds. And now, now, parents understand the kids.

No, they're always confusing.

Children are always growing up in a different era than you. There's different experiences and different pressures and different weirdness. Kids are growing up today with social media and phones. Everyone's connected to everyone.

They have their location. They show the share their location with their friends. It's very, it's all well, it's a very weird time when it comes to that. But it's also, you know, I'm just thinking about this very different. When we're discussing what we don't know that there's so much we know in comparison to

a few hundred years ago, but so much that we don't know. There's so much we know and we shouldn't take away the value of that, and including scientific knowledge. I think scientific knowledge is great. Sometimes it's the best we have about things.

But we should think that we have figured out, no, big questions. The questions are not figured out. Well, we're no different than the people that lived in 1900 that thought they had figured out. I'm sure they were pretty aware of what they knew and they probably had a, there's probably

quite a few people that were super confident that basically had it nailed. Yeah, that's true. That's one thing that, that's one mistake that human kind of thing does is to figure out, okay, we got it.

“I think even if you go in the European Middle Age, you ask somebody, many people would say,”

no, no, we've got everything that is to understand. It's very easy. There are angels and the influence of the asteroid influence and the, the, the, this and that spirits, they thought they had it as to the full story. Yeah.

People always do.

And then there's always people that come along and tell you that they have the answer

and they know what it is and they're very confident, very charismatic, so people follow them. Yes. And we still, I think, to logic sense, it's two things. One is realizing that we don't have the answers, so being, and you know, when it's never

certain about everything, anything, certainty is not within our, I like to tell this story. My father, um, grew up thinking his first name was Franco, uh, until the day he, uh, asked it both certificate and figured out that his, his first name was Julio. So I went ahead and said, what a hell is going on here. And, um, my grandfather told him, well, you know, your mother wanted to call you Franco,

but it didn't like it, but it didn't dare say so. So I registered you with a different first name, so, so that created disaster for the rest of his life because his paperwork were all some Franco's, I'm Julio, so he didn't know his own name, right? So even about your own name, you can be wrong.

You can be wrong about everything, even about your own name.

It's always a case in which you think can go wrong.

Um, but that's good. I don't think we should, um, aim at certainty. In fact, it's the other way around, we should be careful about certainty because certainty is what blocks you for understanding more. If you're certain that the others are flat, you don't understand it wrong.

If you're certain, um, you know, that things are objective, you don't understand the possibility that they are not. And so on and so forth. So accepting the limitation of our knowledge, the fact that we may be wrong, it's a key for learning more.

That's I think it's, uh, it's crucial.

“And the other thing, you know, you and I have, I think one thing in common, what's our curiosity.”

Uh, if I had to define myself, what has been the driving force of so much, you're done, it's curiosity. Uh, I got curious about science, it's curious about philosophy, curious about the world. Curious it is what, uh, and you too, right? I mean, it seems to me that it's all this, you know, Joe Rogan experiences, that openness

to curiosity of listening to people, what they have to say to this, uh, the curiosity, I think is a fabulous force for, for the world, not just thinking that you close yourself in what you know already, but it's been curious, it's been curious about the rest of the ideas, the world, the others. I think it's genuinely contagious too, when I find people that are curious about things,

Exactly.

Things actually curious, and they start having these conversations that are clearly to

“them fascinating, I'm addicted to it, I'm like, what do you got?”

What are you talking about? What is this? How did you do it? How did you figure that out? Yeah.

But I, yeah, I mean, I've kind of been insanely fortunate that I can have these kind of conversations with people like you. Yeah, I envy you for that, you get to know whole possible people very easily, right? It's very interesting. It's not a thing or anybody comes to you.

I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it, but it took a long time to get to that. I can't even talk about that.

Even from the very beginning, it was always so interesting, I mean, there's a lot

of people that, you know, you might not even know who they are, but you'll have a conversation with them and you'll get a new perspective on things, you'll get a new version of how a person lives their life. And the more I think you gather about that, the more you understand about yourself, and more you understand about interacting with people.

Yeah, and to discover that people are different, have different ideas, and you figure out why they came to these different perspectives, too. And if you're open, you can consider, like, how you came to yours. One of the most things that fascinates more is how people get ideas, how ideas come in. After all, what do you think ideas are?

I don't know, that's a fabulous question. Have I got a Richmond from California calling me no longer go and said, ask me the question? Hello. How do ideas arrive?

“I think it's a fabulous question, we learned, right?”

We learned personally, we learned historically, and learning mostly is not just learning facts, it's learning ideas, different ways of thinking, civilization, it's just a product of ideas. All we live is ideas, in a sense, and how do ideas come in?

I don't know, we have our mind as this incredible capacity of generating ideas.

Very often, ideas are just combinations of previous things. A lot of physics is just, this is, I understand this because it's like that, but not exactly like that. So I take part of the idea of that, part of the idea that I combine, a lot of combinatorics. I hear what he says here, what you say here, the other say, look, this goes together with

that. So a lot of ideas come from bringing together, that's why the more you learn, the more you produce things, the more you're curious, the more you, you know, how the new don't come out, this is incredibly high. He'll start a capital, he'll start a Galileo, it didn't make sense together, but they were

similar, so how can put this together with that?

“My own job, my own physics job, is to mix quantum mechanics and generality, that's what”

my core of my research, central part of my research is doing. How do you go about doing how do you mix them? I think you mix them by taking them seriously, so quantum mechanics is so successful, that it's telling us something about the world, and generality is so successful. generality has predicted black holes, gravitational waves, expansion of a universe, time,

the fact that time, your head is more than time, so your feet, and so on and so forth. So it's also come out to be right, so it has to be right, and quantum mechanics were so well, a lot of the technologies that they don't want to make, and it has to be right. So then the question is how do they fit together, you sort of turn them around, both of them, until you say, look, this might join with that.

This aspect of this, that goes together with this aspect of this, that has been the work of my life, quantum gravity, and the theory, me and my friends, have come out with, it's called loop quantum gravity, it's a way of solving this problem. We're not sure it's right, it's, that's my main work in physics, loop quantum gravity. It's a way of bringing together quantum mechanics and Einstein theory, it gives some predictions,

it gives a picture of quantum space and quantum time. It's a possible solution of a question, the question is, what are the quantum properties of gravity, what are the quantum properties of space and time. I will sure, note yet, we are now the situation that we're working for, findings and consequences that could be tested, science is not sufficient to have ideas, it's then you

will test them. That is my entire main central job of my life has been combining ideas to make a new conceptual structure for thinking about quantum space and quantum time, and

universe, what happened to black holes, if you let them there for a very long time they've operated, it becomes more or less smaller, so what happens at the end of their operations, these kind of questions need quantum gravity. What do you think happened for the big bang?

“First, we don't know, I think it has to be said clearly, because it's good to speculate”

and maybe in ten years we will know, it's not impossible to know, but for the moment we don't know, there are two possibilities. One is that genuinely there was nothing before the big bang, so time started there. This is what Stephen Hawking, he worked a lot on this possibility, he expected that to be the case. The other possibility is that, you know, there was something before the big bang, and the intuitive idea is that you have a universe

collapsing falling down into itself, getting to a very, very compressed stage and bouncing out, and we see the bouncing out, and if I had to bet now, I'm not sure, but I would bet for the second one, from the equations, that seems to be what was the case.

“Do you think this is a constant process of expansion and compression?”

No, because I think that if we do this jump, that you just did, we're making the usual mistake as soon as you understand something to think it's there for all. If you live in

a valley and ask, well, I've never seen what behind the hill, you look behind the hill,

you see something else, say, oh, I get it, it's like that forever. It's not like that forever, it's like that for a while and something else happens. So we are afraid of saying, I don't know. So as soon as we've step ahead, we tend to say, okay, we've got it. That's a very healthy explanation. Yeah, because it's accurate. We really can't figure it out. Yeah. When you saw the James Webb telescope, the more newer discoveries of these galaxies

that formed far earlier than they should have, did that give you pause about the data of the universe? Because some people have speculated that perhaps the data is wrong,

“that the data of the big bang. Yeah, I know, but I think it's more plausible that there”

were primitive black holes that gave rise to this early galaxies. So there's an explanation, within the same dates, which is possible. When the universe was very, that we know a lot

of confidence, right? There was a time about 12, 13, 14 billion years ago that the universe

was much compressed, much hot. And the fluctuating a lot. So at that time, it's very possible that many black holes formed. And maybe some of the early galaxies were generated by black hole formed at that stage. That seems to me the most plausible answer. I'm not a cosmologist, so I'm not really my field, but this closer try to follow. So it would be that our understanding of what it takes to form a galaxy is incorrect. Yeah, or the time

it takes. That's right. That's right. So you know, during my life, something that has been realized is that not only did the black holes flow over this guy, but when it was

a student, people didn't believe in black holes. What did they first discover them?

I study black hole school, but as a mathematical aspect of Einstein theory, and the book said, "Well, that's probably nothing real in the universe." I could respond to that. The first people who started thinking, actually, that thing up in the sky that we see could be a black hole was in the 70s. It was very interesting, because there are a lot of binary system in the sky. Two star rotating around one another. So you actually see the movement

of two stars. And there were some funny things in which you just saw one star dancing around something which was not C. So people said, "Well, maybe it's a black hole. It's dancing around the black hole." It was speculative. Then there were the quasers, some very intense signals that coming from very far away, that people couldn't understand what they were. And people said, "Well, if it was a black hole, the matter falling into the black hole could radiate very

In 2000, I moved back from America to Europe. I arrived in France, and the director of the

department was a particle physicist, a very good particle physicist. And I said, "I'm working black holes," and he said, "Curly, you don't believe the black holes are real." The 2000. So still, physicists, very respectable physicists didn't believe the black holes are real. So, it's really, it's really, yes. At that point, the relativists, the cosmologists, the astrophysicists, we're taking very, very seriously. Now we have pictures of black holes. So now there's no doubt,

“there's no doubt, the physicists have doubt about that, I think. But there are any of those”

professors still alive. Yeah, but they changed the mind. I mean, people, scientists changed the mind. That's

good ones. You're totally right. Good scientists changed the mind. I'm sure here, if I talk to him, he would laugh, as hell of course you were right, black holes are in this time. So now we're completely evidence that we're black holes. But, you know, we see black holes which are sort of a little bit more massive than our son, the many, many of these. But then we discovered this colossal black holes, gigantic, which are usually the center of the galaxy. And we have two pictures of black holes. One,

the black holes are the center of our galaxy. And then another black hole, much bigger in another galaxy, more far away. It's beautiful, big picture, right, that they were on the front page of the newspapers a few years ago. So, when this was realized, there are these black holes in the center of the galaxy. Then the question came immediately. Everybody, have you good scientists? Is it a galaxy that forms and then creates a black hole in its center? Or is it actually the black hole that

start that, you know, then it forms the galaxy around it? It's not yet completely resolved. What is

“the role of the black hole in the galaxy? And I think this very, very galaxy could be just a”

product of black holes, coming out of the very early stages of the universe. The craziest theory that I've ever heard was that in the center of every galaxy is a supermassive black hole. And that could be, if you went through that black hole, you go into a whole other universe, filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with a black hole in the center of it, you go through each one of them, hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with a black hole. Then it's just, that's

true infinity. Yeah, that's a crazy theory, it's a beautiful theory. In fact, it's a good friend of mine worked a lot and maybe even started that theory's least morning. I am not convinced. I think that I don't know, we don't know, but I think that if you jump into black hole, you just, you don't go to another universe. After a long time, you come out in our own universe. So a black hole is the black hole, left alone, it's going to eat everything around,

“then left alone, you're going to become smaller, smaller evaporate. And then that's what”

look point on gravity seems to suggest. There is a quantum transition, becomes a white hole, and everything inside comes out. So remember, at the beginning of our conversation, we said that there is a time is different, right? Time goes faster and slower. So if you jump into black hole in a short time for you, you're going to jump out billions of years in the future. So black hole could be a shortcut to the future. Oh, boy. Isn't physics beautiful? It's beautiful. Yeah.

It's terrifying and beautiful at the same time. Uh-huh. Is magnifies the scope of our minuscule existence? Yeah. Yeah. It's fabulous that we can learn about that. Yeah. There was a time which people didn't know what were this little dot in the sky, like Venus and Mars. Yeah. Now we, you know, we sent machines up there and people want to go up there.

There was a time in which people said, "Oh, we are never going to learn the chemical

composition of the planet and they start because they're far away." There, this is 90th century, we're not long ago. Oh, a grand-grandfather. And they were completely wrong. We learn, right? It's now through the spectra that they have ways for, we know exactly what is the chemical composition of the stars. Which is crazy. Yeah. It's crazy. So we do learn. This is magical. Yeah. It really is. I mean, it's, it's fascinating to even think of the possibilities that are out there.

able to see more and more. Yeah. If we don't kill each other with any weapons. Which is a very concrete possibility. Well, if there really are aliens out there, uh, the really are super advanced civilizations, I would love to know how they managed to navigate through that. If they went through the same course that we are currently going through, I would love to know. Because that's one of the things about the Fermi paradox, right? Maybe civil is a, maybe the reason

why we don't see them out there is because they never really get that far. Maybe they don't get

it, maybe it's a destroy themselves with nuclear weapons. Oh, and they were at the stage. Maybe you know, the universe is very law, it very vast is huge. So even if in the galaxy, the many, many could be that, that too far. Could be or it could be a small percentage of them get to a position where we are, a very small percentage. And then a small percentage of them make it all the way without being wiped out by natural disasters or cataclysmics of

“whatever species they are, whatever their design is. Do you know what I think is most probable?”

What? That day I've already seen us and they soaked where we were totally uninterested and

we just avoided talking to us because we had to stupid. Really? I don't like that there.

One of the reasons why I don't like that there is because we don't do that. We are constantly studying things that are more primitive than we are. We're constantly, too. We're constantly doing experiments on ecosystems and trying to solve problems that exist. Like I was watching this documentary about this island that got separated when they, they dammed some river and created this island and the, it was in South America and this island was overrun with monkeys and they had

no predators on this island because the many many monkeys, tons of monkeys. But because of the fact it didn't have any predators, they had lost all their fear of raptors and they had started overconsuming the seeds of all the plants and so there weren't new saplings growing and it was having a detrimental effect on the ecosystem because it was, so they brought in harpy eagles. Have you ever seen a harpy eagle? Not the monkeys. The humans brought in two harpy eagles.

No, what is it? A harpy eagle. Oh, eagle, the bird. Yeah, it might be the biggest eagle.

“Okay. You see that that are the golden eagle, which one's the bigger one? I think harpy eagles are”

bigger. Anyway, they are really good at killing monkeys and they let these two harpy eagles lose and they, they went ham and they killed so many monkeys that they had to stop the experiment after a few years. So these eagles had had offspring, so they had two other eagles that were there as well and these eagles were just wiping out these monkeys and they said, okay, this is too much and this is now they're, they're like getting past the, whatever the numbers are that they could reproduce,

like it was getting to the point where these eagles just two eagles and they're two offspring. We're just, so they pulled the plug and they pulled the eagles out of there and they said, all right, well, when we try that, but unintended consequences. But that's us. That's just humans wandering what, what do we do about this island? Why would we just leave that stupid island with those stupid monkeys and let them figure it out? Yeah, if they eat all the plants, they'll

starve to death, they'll figure it out. No, we don't. We go in and we interfere and we intervene and we monkey with the, with the, for lack of better term, monkey with the ecosystem by bringing in predators. So you think that there was some alien civilization within the fear of course there would. Why, we are so fascinated. Stanley Kubrick movie, Space Odyssey was about that, right, an alien civilization would just, according to the story of the movie, we're sort of an

experiment of an alien civilization. Well, that's an old story. Yeah. That's a story that's from the, you know, the Sumerian text, that's from the, yeah. The being this, that goes all the way back to some of the old books that they found that were in the caves and cumeron, you know. Like, well, Sumerians have this idea of the gods. We are just creative the gods for their own,

for their own advantage. You see, I, you know, these are beautiful stories. I always find

them, you know, they're fascinating to talk about, but to, to, to humans, we were just trying to project ourselves to something similar to us, changing a little bit.

“I think there's, there should be something like life all over the universe, but why should”

it be similar to us? I mean, we, we are, we lack imagination. There are more, more ways of being complex than just having a civilization the way we have. That's true, but how do you get there?

going to automatically evolve superintelligence without any innovation and any technology.

“Most likely biological creatures are going to develop technology in order to advance themselves”

to the point where they have technology like we have today or far more advanced than that. So it has to go through a process. So whether it looks like us or not, for sure, we definitely lack imagination in our, just imagining the possibilities of different kinds of life, and different, different kinds of intelligence all over the universe. But the, the idea that they wouldn't be interested in us seems to me silly. Like, we are in an adolescent stage of evolution.

We're, we're both like we were talking about earlier. People are kind and compassionate and

wonderful to be around and curious and interesting. And also brutal, stealing resources from other

countries, creating wars and false pretenses, you know, using propaganda. So we're both things. And we're both things. We're all, we're weird, but we also have potential. You agree,

“I agree. Like humans have the potential to live a far better way than we're living now.”

If I was an alien, I would be utterly fascinated by the soap opera. I'm like, how does this one turn out? Like, this, these people are out of their fucking minds. We found a nutty ass civilization that are on the cusp of figuring it out. And at the same time, they're making an artificial digital version of itself that's far more intelligent. I would think we're really interesting study. Yeah. That would not, not think they'd be like, oh, so boring.

These people, what they're God like. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I buy the voice. I can see the point. I can see the point. Yeah. Yeah. But look what we're using our own mind to try to imagine how something that could be, could think about us. Sure. But of course, the only model we have is us and other animals and other animals. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. But, you know, I don't know how how much squirrels talk about us probably. They don't. But if they had to figure

out humans, they would use squirrel's notions to try to figure out humans and they would just call it from get it wrong. Right. And much like squirrels were probably so limited in our ability

“to perceive and imagine. Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. It's what else is out there. Exactly.”

Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Squirrels are cute. They are. Until they bite each other's nuts off. They go out. Do they? They're nasty. They're nasty. It's kind of a, it's, it's not known exactly

if they do that. But that's always been like the wives tale, is that they, when they're mating,

when they're competing, they will fight. And one of the things they do do, for sure, is they throw each other out of trees. Yeah. And that's one of the reasons why squirrels can fall from so far and still survive. Yeah. Like squirrels can fall from like 30, 40 feet in the air and they bounce off the dirt and they're fine. Like they're just constructed for falling. Because they go to war. They go to war with each other to breed. You know, two males are competing over a female. And the

story was always that they would bite each other's balls off. Oh, boy. I don't know how that's true. Wait, that was one of the reasons we always tell you. If you grew up in Europe, I did, when you come to this side of the Atlantic, one of the beautiful things is that they're animals much more than in Europe. Europe is that the problem with Europe is there's too many people, okay. And especially places like Italy or or the native land at full of people, full of people.

You don't see animals. Right. It's like pets. You see cats and dogs. Yeah, sure, sure, sure. Animals, which are live strictly with with with humans, either as pets or as rats, a lot. But when you go out hiking the mountains, very rare to see a animal. You know, when I was a kid, it seemed laughable in America, but I would go hiking with my parents as more kid and eat. So it was a squirrel. Everybody was jumping all over. A squirrel. Really? Yeah, yeah. And then I came

to the U.S. at that squirrels a little bit. I could keep out of your house. It's good. Right. Some of the people that live in the country. Yeah, but then I moved to Canada, Canada, it's fantastic. We had, we were living in London, Ontario. And out of our windows, there were coyotes. There were also a lot of animals. Oh, yeah. We had a needle coming down in our garden. Wow. And just sitting there. The Canada has true love.

It's fabulous. So for me that was a great thing of coming inside of that landing. It's still more nature is still more present in Europe. Nature has been domesticated, or lower. It's rare to see some wilderness. Well, we're very fortunate that we have the national park system. Yeah. You know, the way we have these national parks, we can go to Yosemite.

domesticated in that sense. Like you go to the elk, or not scared of you at all. They hang out

“by the visitor stand. It's a little bastardized. Like there's a, there's an Instagram page called”

the tourons of Yellowstone. No, like more ons but tourists. And people that get too close to my scene and get flip through the air. Exactly. Yes. So many of those. But it's because they, you know, they've grown up in cities and they don't understand what wildlife is. And they want to take a selfie with the bison. No boy. Oh boy. Yeah. You guess how that turns out? When I was in my 20s, I, I, I dropped out from the university and I took a, when you're off traveling and I, I did

cost to cost Atlantic to Pacific. Canada, one way in US, the other way. And alone, there's a fantastic.

Wow. Great. Great. You like hik. Hik. Yeah. Look at you. You were a hippie.

Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Absolutely. I, I met all sorts of people. But when I arrived in the rock, it wasn't Canada any above. And I spent some times hiking high in the mountains. It was marvelous for European. Exactly. Because it was, um, empty. But then, um, I came down to burn for a small tiny village at the time. And, um, the camping was too expensive for a young kid. So, so I said, okay, I don't want to stay in the camping. So, I, I, I, I walk up a little bit and put my tent

in a little, um, empty space. And then, uh, it gridsly came. Yeah. So, I was inside my tent. The sun was going down. And, uh, there's big bear, uh, started to, you know, walk around the tent. I was terrified

to death because, uh, I had this, one of these little little tents, just one layer, and the sun was

going down. So, I saw the shade of the bear, or on the same. So, the instruction was, make noise. Okay. That was the truck and it was given. Because, um, the risk is that the bear opened the tent looking for food and see you get scared and kills you. So, if you make noise, that's this supposed to go away. But I was trying to scream, but it was too terrified. Oh, no. So, then I looked around, that was what to make noise. So, there was nothing. So, I started clapping my head like an idiot.

So, um, the bear, I had actually, that I did right, hanged my food on a tree, a little distance. So, the bear went to the food, opened the food. And, uh, just then, and then after a while, went away, I was, I was terrified. Oh, I wonder that last. Uh, uh, the entire thing, the last of half an hour before I had the courage to come out and look and there was no bear anymore. So, I took my tent and ran down to the campground to say, "I pay whatever you want." I stayed here.

And then, you know, people were talking about, there was this, uh, greedously, they're going around.

“That's how I survived them. Whoa. Yeah, that was my encounter with wilderness, which coming, you know,”

the little boy coming from Europe, Italy, totally civilized, no wild animals. It was quite scary for you. But, you know, I learned that sometimes it's not a bad idea to respect regulation. Who feels there was a regulation? Don't go alone. Yeah, they know what they're doing. Yeah. But it's not to say that that bear wouldn't wander its way through the camp, too. They will. They don't respect boundaries. They don't respect regulations. So, it's such a crazy animal that we have here,

like grizzly bears are so fascinating. There's there's so enormous enormous. Yeah, and they used to be all over the place. Like California doesn't have any anymore, but that's on the state flag. Yeah, it's, it's up greatly. Yeah, it's grizzly. It's not a black bear or anything. No, it's a brown bear. They used to have brown bears all over California. In fact, the guy who was last killed by grizzly bear, they named it town after him. It's called Lebeck, Lebeck, uh, California. I see.

Yeah, I've been to it there before, and it's like there's a plaque. Memorial. Oh, I see. It's a lot of Canada, they've accident, so they still have accident. Oh, yeah, especially BC, right? There's a lot of people there. Yeah, BC, BC, yeah. I have friends that live in Edmonton, and boy, they have everything out there. They have links. You see, you run into links all the time. You see, grizzly bears, they have moves everywhere. It's a such a wild place. It's so cool.

“That's what I envy if this, uh, America, right? The Europe, you don't see anything. Right?”

You get, it is an issue. There's almost no predators in Europe. It's very rare that you find wolves other than, you know, of course, Russia, and, you know, yeah, if you go East to East, you know, get a lot of wolves there, but and bears as well, of course. But they kind of eradicated them all from most of, like, urban Europe. Yeah. America still has a lot of wild places. It's one of the

these wild places. Yeah, and there is all this marvelous area, so it's a, uh, every zone, uh,

yeah, Utah, Utah, New Mexico, it's just, they south of Utah, it's just, well, it's incredible.

I was actually watching another documentary yesterday on Jaguars entering into Arizona. There's a, there's a, there's a, do me the animal, look at them. Yeah, the, the animal. Yeah, these Jaguars are entering into, uh, Arizona and they've spotted several of them now, like, pretty large ones. It's pretty interesting. They've decided to make their way back into America, because that's where they used to live. Where are they coming from? Mexico. Oh, coming up.

“Yeah, coming up from Mexico. I think they spotted four of them now.”

This is St. Louis Montenegro. No, no, no, no, much larger. Jaguars are huge. They're the ones that eat crocodiles and the Amazon. They're the ones that dive off of trees and kill the camins and bite them by the back of the neck and drag them. Have

seen that? Oh, it's made, you gotta watch this. It's amazing. Jaguars are some of the coolest animals

to watch hunt, because one of the things that they hunt is crocodiles. Like, yeah, they love to eat camin crocodiles. So they hide and trees and or on the side of the the bank, like waiting for the crocodile to get into a vulnerable position and leap on them. And they dive into the water and leap on them and bite them in the back of the head. They're one of the few animals in the documentary that kills not by exphyxiation. They kill by crushing the back of the head. Oh, that's their

so they have a super strong. Yeah, they're huge. Look at it. Look at them sneaking up behind them. They're the third

“biggest cat. Oh, boy. Wow. Yeah, that's how they kill. They bite the back of the neck. They crush the”

head and then they drag them away. So he's gonna eat a crocodile. So they're the third largest big cat. So there's tigers are number one, then there's lions and then Jaguars. And so they're starting to make their way back. Oh, it's five. Five Jaguars spotted in Arizona. Are they dangerous humans? Oh, yeah. 100%. 100%. I mean, not the numbers that they're at right now, but they would be. Sure. If you're hiking or you're doing something stupid and you Zig where you should

exact and you run into one of them. I mean, historically they've eaten people. They prefer a bit sure to eat. But you have to do something stupid. You have to bother them. Well, you have to be on their diet. Right. Like this is the same thing with tigers. Tigers become a problem once they realize they can eat people. And then they habitually. And that's what they do in India. When when one tiger starts doing something wrong, they they go out and look for it. Yes, yes, because then they realize how

easy it is. So what this once we become once we are on the menu, it's like the first time you eat a Chick-fil-A. Like this place is great and you just want to keep coming back. That's the problem. And it's also for a little bit. That's not wise on this side because we're weak individually, but the super strong group. Right. But they don't know that yet. And a lot of the times the places where they're hunting, the people are weak individually and not united because they're in these very

small villages. And so they don't have any resources. They don't have any food, water. They're in trouble already. And then these animals get them. Tigers get them. But the Jaguars in the United States is such a small number. I don't think that's the real concern. But what's interesting is that they've decided to repopulate North America or the United States at least. It's pretty cool. They're making their way back up here. I don't want to run into one because they will eat

you. They're huge. They're huge and you have zero chance of stopping them from eating you. Once they decide they're going to do that. You don't have a chance with a mountain line and they're like double the size of a mountain line. They're really big. It's a big cat. But they're really beautiful. Why are we fascinating? Fascinated so much by big cats? We are. Definitely. It's just so

“creatively. I think we have something about our imagination. This is something about the beauty”

of this strength. They're elegant. They're everything. It's just that we react to it. I think we were hunted by them. I think that was a big part of our early ancestors. But when you're dealing with big cats and slow animals, until those slow animals figure out how to make weapons, you're probably hunted by big cats. I think Rubbercheldrick made this point. It's really good point. When children go to sleep, they're not afraid of all the things that could actually

affect them in an urban environment. They're not afraid of child molesters or murderers or someone going to break into their house. They're afraid of monsters. Monsters. Which are the big

side. Exactly. Exactly. They're afraid of monsters even though they've never experienced a monster.

There's a theory that according to which one of the main steps in humankind, becoming humankind,

mental structures. When we realized that we could resist big predators and actually become

predators ourselves. If we were not predators, if you go back again, our speech is at some point

“learn to be like those things we were afraid of. Yeah. But is that? Does this explain the fascinations?”

Because the monster is not just a fear that they generate in us. It's also sort of a duration. But we have admiration and beauty for almost all big predators. Right? We have admiration. Not for crocodiles. Right. It's not beautiful. Right. We might find it interesting, but not the kind of fascinations with. Yeah. That's true. There's something about mammals. Yeah. We're closer to them.

We're closer. We're much, much closer. Yeah. And I think. In fact, I've always been fascinated how much

easy we communicate with mammals, right? It's just a chore. Without language, without words, but if you're in the wilderness and what any sort of mammals, you understand the animal and they understand you. So we communicate very easily. It's completely, you know, reading each other emotions and it's

“another intention that's how it attitude. So it's easy for us to, you know, you go your way”

and go your way with a mother each other. Sure. Unless you're on the menu. Yeah. But yeah. Yeah. You could be on the menu, especially if you're in the wrong place. But that's just the nature of the wild itself. It's just this constant series of life-eating life all around you, whether it's life-eating plant life or life-eating other animal life or life-eating aquatic life, yeah. Yeah. Then somehow we became predator, predators, some point in our history.

Yeah. And then we start to enjoy this against one another. Yeah, we probably start doing that from the very beginning. Most likely, we're probably competing for resources. We don't know. We don't know. There are two series. The two competing series about what happened to our species. Our species is 100, 200,000 years old. And there are two versions of the story. One is that war is something that started very late. Only when we became agriculture

when we started accumulating and putting away big chunks of grain or. And the other is that

“groups of humans were in war even before that. Very different theory. And I think it's interesting”

that there are these different theories because it has to do without the future and our present. Namely, is this idea of getting a group once against the other and making war to one another? Something which is only a few thousand years old. It was not in our genetic structure, just that after a good culture, we could steal stuff or another or something that goes back all the 100,000 years of our other species. We don't know. What do you think? I'm not sure, but I tend to think that

war is recent because a lot of the communities on earth who live hunting gathering, they don't go to war. They have no reason. It's an economic thing. You only go to war with the other group. If there is some accumulated resources, you can steal. If you find another group of hunter gathers, if you have extra meat, you share because otherwise, go rotten. It's no point in going to war. And if you look at our cousins, it's very confusing because Bonobo don't fight when two groups

meat. That was the fact that we're not right. But chimpanzees do. And they're equally related

to us. So it doesn't help to look at our cousins. It's a crucial question. It has to do with

a question we've discussed before. How much war is part of our genetic? Not because we're

If it only tells a thousand years old rather than hunt it. I tend to think it's hundreds of thousands

years old. I think chimpanzees are the best example of that. We are much closer in behavior to chimpanzees than we are to Bonobo's. Oh, we are equally related from them. We are equally related but in behavior. But in behavior. We're much closer to the way chimpanzees. You know but I had this chimpanzees. He people talk to my life. I identify better with Bonobos. I'm sure you do. You're a

“really nice guy. That's why you think the way you think. I think it's great. But I mean I'm a more”

Bonobo that guy. Yes. I don't even think I'm a chimpanzee guy. I just recognize that chimpanzees go to war with each other and they kill each other. There's a chimpanzee war going on right now. You know that right? I do. No, I didn't know. But yeah, there's a major chimpanzee war going on right now that they're documenting. If you've seen that, um, there's a Netflix series "Chimp Nation." No. It's really great. It's fascinating. So the way "Chimp Nation" came about and I had the documentary

crew on the guys who created it was really interesting. They had the scientists that were embedded in this troop of chimpanzees for a long time for more than 20 years. They lived with them? Yes. They lived with them. So they should perhaps accept that they have the role? Yes, exactly. So they have

rules. You must stay more than 20 yards away from them. Never have food on you and don't make

eye contact. And because they've been doing this with this protocol for 20 years, the chimpanzees completely accept the fact that they see what they're accused and their allies that there's no challenge, no threat. They're normal. They're not completely normalized. So they behave normal around them. And they see all this crazy behavior. They see, first of all, a lot of inter-tribed conflict. They kill each other. And then they kill ones from other tribes. They leave

tribes and start new tribes. It's really interesting. Really interesting. But they behave very much like the way we do. They have a leader, the leaders, the alpha, the young man, chat challenges, the leader, sometimes the guys that's driven out. They form new parties. They come back and try to kill the ones that they started out with. They cross boundaries to get new fruit and new trees. And then they whores over the trees. They behave just the way we do, with just that a different

scale. But I think that, for instance, when we talk about Native Americans and hunter-gatherers, the Native Americans were constantly at war with each other. They were going rating parties constantly. There was, you know, I don't know how many tribes were in total. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of like 200 tribes in this country, which were constantly battling each other and killing each other

“for hundreds and hundreds of years. Don't that's the pessimist? No, no, no, that's what they did.”

No, no, I, I'm not pessimistic. I'm not questioning it. Yeah, but it's not pessimistic. It's a cool pessimist view of the future. But no, no, no, no, it's not even pessimistic. It's just, I'm just saying that's what they did. Like this idea, the only reason why this place was at war is because Americans came here, or Europeans came here and settled, not really. The command

basically wiped out the Apache and all of this area right here. This area we're at right now was called

Kementaria before any settlers. They, they were dominant and they were ruthless and their favorite thing to do was go on rating parties and so they would go and rate other tribes and they would kidnap people and torture people and murder people and they did that without any influence from the Europeans and they did that for a long time and that was all across the country. Now, some tribes got along better with other tribes, there were more agrarian tribes. They were,

they very differently, just like humans do in different environments. But at the end of the day, there seems to be a pattern. When you're talking about uncontacted tribes of hunter gatherers, they go to war with uncontacted tribes all the time. You know, I just had a guy on the other day that was talking about cannibalism and one of the ways they would utilize cannibalism is eating their enemies after they killed them. And if they had an enemy that was in a rival tribe

and they had an encounter and they killed them, they would eat them. And this is like part of their

“their culture. This is all over the world. This is taking place. I think it's much more likely”

that war is a very, very, very, very old thing. And it probably has to do with a really harsh environment where we had to survive, where people were stealing from each other and stealing mates and stealing resources and cannibalizing each other. Okay, so you think this is going to make the project of living in peace, much harder. I think it's why it's so difficult currently. I think it's why it's so difficult currently because we have a very, very long history of war, of conflict, of chaos and violence.

And it's, you know, probably what made us survive this long. I mean, it creates you wild world that we live in. I will play the optimistic, please do. One can read this in reverse. Namely, I believe you. I mean, also you talk with a lot of people, so you know. You're a lot of

right? This is true. So we have learned. So then, if this is the case, it means that civilisation,

“which is a recent stuff, which is back to, has had a very strong pacifying effect on us.”

I agree. An education. Education, civilization. So we learn rationally, we learn, or, you know,

through religion, through various processes. So maybe that process of learning that there is an

“advantage of collaboration is something that can go, that can develop more. I think it can.”

Thank you, right? And then the question is not going back to our ancient paradise of kind

disingentalness, but to create a better world where we could live together better.

“I think that's the path. Thank you very much. I really enjoyed talking to you. It was really awesome.”

Sure. I love it. Thank you. Thank you very much. I really enjoyed it. On the equality of all things, lessons on physics and philosophy, do I pronounce your last name, Rovelli? Yeah, perfect. [Music]