<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Transcripts &#8211; BRIANKEATING</title>
	<atom:link href="https://briankeating.com/transcripts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://briankeating.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:02:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Top Astronomer: UFOs Are STILL Here</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/beatriz-villarroel/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8287</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Top Astronomer: UFOs Are STILL Here Transcript Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:This shows that we have a population of objects near the earth that have not been discovered until now. There&#8217;s absolutely no way how they will remember this little circle of 8.7 degrees and only there have a deficit, but not outside it. So only reflections can produce that deficit. Brian Keating:What do you make of these claims of tic tacs and non human biologics and interdimensional being? I mean, do you think that any of these hold the candle scientifically that meets your rigorous standard? Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:I believe it&#8217;s true. Brian Keating:Why aren&#8217;t they here now? Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:Who has said that they are not here now? Brian Keating:Are you worried about your safety? Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:Yes, there have been a number of incidents. Brian Keating:And when did you start Vasco? Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:So it depends on how one defines it. The first test we did was in 2016, and it was something I was obsessed with, an idea since I was a student and I wanted to search for vanishing stars. It had nothing to do with UFOs, but I was super, super interested in vanishing stars. It came from a crazy idea I got when I was writing a fable about a poor depressed quasar. And, you know, while writing and there at the end, and I started wondering, but can an object just vanish? Could an object vanish? And. Well, I was just a student at the time, and then I got stuck with this thing. And I remember I. I even had a phone conversation with. Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:Could it have been Michael Strauss from. From sdss? And I was asking, hey, can you redo the whole Sloan like one more time so that I get one more like, set of a photometry? And I had no idea what I was asking. And he was smiling a little bit, you know, when I was asking if they could just do it one more time, observe the whole sky so that they could compare like different epochs and see if something or a galaxy or whatever had vanished. And that was like, that was the first thing in 2016. But the group or the network didn&#8217;t exist until 2017, when together with two senior scientists, we said, okay, let&#8217;s do it for real. Because in 2016 I had together with two bachelor students, try to do a small search In a like 1% of the sample provided by the US Naval Observatory looked for vanishing objects. But then they said, okay, now we need to do the whole sky. And that, my God, that was a challenge. Brian Keating:Wow. So what would make you think that there would be things that vanish other than, you know, true transients that, like supernovae or novae? Why did you think there might be objects that would disappear and that they would be relevant somehow? Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:Astronomically well, first failed supernovae, there&#8217;s a class of like, massive stars that are believed that they might be able to collapse into a black hole without emitting in a supernova. So that was one of the things. And I was curious about whether that could happen. But then, of course, I was also wondering about just purely fundamental questions like could something just vanish? Has anyone ever looked? And that was maybe the thing that mostly like, was bugging me. If nobody has ever looked, how can you know that it doesn&#8217;t happen? And then we were, when I wrote the paper, we were motivating it a little bit with SETI questions like maybe it&#8217;s a very, very advanced technological civilization. Although I was mostly interested in this just fundamental thing, right, which is I can&#8217;t explain it. Sometimes you just get stuck with something without really understanding why. Brian Keating:And the transients that you thought you might find originally, besides the failed supernovae, I mean, were they like planets? Like, astronomy has a very long tradition of looking for things, you know, blinking back and forth between images or photographic plates are now CCDs or CMOS cameras. So did you think you&#8217;d find comets and you&#8217;d become a prolific, you know, father finder of, of phenomena in our solar system that are interesting, but maybe not as, as ground shaking as aliens or even supernova. Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:Well, I was hoping for the failed supernova, or I was mostly hoping to find, you know, a star that is there in all images and beautifully there through, you know, Palomar survey one this, then the second Palomar survey in the 80s 90s, and then one looks today and it has vanished. And we would maybe even be able to get some beautiful light curve by looking at some sky surveys taken in between. And I was very excited by that particular idea. So we were looking first and we found nothing. But I found these stupid images, you know, with just one single point source and not again. And then we did this second attempt when I looked through 15% of the data. So I had 24,000 candidates, and that&#8217;s like three times as many images. And I had nobody who was willing to help me to look through them. Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:And one had to look through them one by one. And then the machine learning people who were supposed to help me, they were doing their work, of course, but they were a little bit slower. And I was growing impatient, like, come on, we have, somehow we have to sift through this data set. So I took these images and one by one I went through all these 24,000 candidates. And of course you take small images because you&#8217;re not going to use 6 by 6 degrees plate. You use small images of 10 by 10 arc minutes or]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8287" class="elementor elementor-8287" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-6785a8e0 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="6785a8e0" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-9107854 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="9107854" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Top Astronomer: UFOs Are STILL Here</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-66f5b491 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="66f5b491" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />This shows that we have a population of objects near the earth that have not been discovered until now. There&#8217;s absolutely no way how they will remember this little circle of 8.7 degrees and only there have a deficit, but not outside it. So only reflections can produce that deficit.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What do you make of these claims of tic tacs and non human biologics and interdimensional being? I mean, do you think that any of these hold the candle scientifically that meets your rigorous standard?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I believe it&#8217;s true.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Why aren&#8217;t they here now?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Who has said that they are not here now?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Are you worried about your safety?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Yes, there have been a number of incidents.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And when did you start Vasco?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So it depends on how one defines it. The first test we did was in 2016, and it was something I was obsessed with, an idea since I was a student and I wanted to search for vanishing stars. It had nothing to do with UFOs, but I was super, super interested in vanishing stars. It came from a crazy idea I got when I was writing a fable about a poor depressed quasar. And, you know, while writing and there at the end, and I started wondering, but can an object just vanish? Could an object vanish? And. Well, I was just a student at the time, and then I got stuck with this thing. And I remember I. I even had a phone conversation with.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Could it have been Michael Strauss from. From sdss? And I was asking, hey, can you redo the whole Sloan like one more time so that I get one more like, set of a photometry? And I had no idea what I was asking. And he was smiling a little bit, you know, when I was asking if they could just do it one more time, observe the whole sky so that they could compare like different epochs and see if something or a galaxy or whatever had vanished. And that was like, that was the first thing in 2016. But the group or the network didn&#8217;t exist until 2017, when together with two senior scientists, we said, okay, let&#8217;s do it for real. Because in 2016 I had together with two bachelor students, try to do a small search In a like 1% of the sample provided by the US Naval Observatory looked for vanishing objects. But then they said, okay, now we need to do the whole sky. And that, my God, that was a challenge.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Wow. So what would make you think that there would be things that vanish other than, you know, true transients that, like supernovae or novae? Why did you think there might be objects that would disappear and that they would be relevant somehow?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Astronomically well, first failed supernovae, there&#8217;s a class of like, massive stars that are believed that they might be able to collapse into a black hole without emitting in a supernova. So that was one of the things. And I was curious about whether that could happen. But then, of course, I was also wondering about just purely fundamental questions like could something just vanish? Has anyone ever looked? And that was maybe the thing that mostly like, was bugging me. If nobody has ever looked, how can you know that it doesn&#8217;t happen? And then we were, when I wrote the paper, we were motivating it a little bit with SETI questions like maybe it&#8217;s a very, very advanced technological civilization. Although I was mostly interested in this just fundamental thing, right, which is I can&#8217;t explain it. Sometimes you just get stuck with something without really understanding why.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the transients that you thought you might find originally, besides the failed supernovae, I mean, were they like planets? Like, astronomy has a very long tradition of looking for things, you know, blinking back and forth between images or photographic plates are now CCDs or CMOS cameras. So did you think you&#8217;d find comets and you&#8217;d become a prolific, you know, father finder of, of phenomena in our solar system that are interesting, but maybe not as, as ground shaking as aliens or even supernova.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, I was hoping for the failed supernova, or I was mostly hoping to find, you know, a star that is there in all images and beautifully there through, you know, Palomar survey one this, then the second Palomar survey in the 80s 90s, and then one looks today and it has vanished. And we would maybe even be able to get some beautiful light curve by looking at some sky surveys taken in between. And I was very excited by that particular idea. So we were looking first and we found nothing. But I found these stupid images, you know, with just one single point source and not again. And then we did this second attempt when I looked through 15% of the data. So I had 24,000 candidates, and that&#8217;s like three times as many images. And I had nobody who was willing to help me to look through them.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And one had to look through them one by one. And then the machine learning people who were supposed to help me, they were doing their work, of course, but they were a little bit slower. And I was growing impatient, like, come on, we have, somehow we have to sift through this data set. So I took these images and one by one I went through all these 24,000 candidates. And of course you take small images because you&#8217;re not going to use 6 by 6 degrees plate. You use small images of 10 by 10 arc minutes or something to look if something vanished in the middle. And I was just hoping to find that vanishing star. I found hundred of these blinking things that appear and vanish within one image.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />But I didn&#8217;t find a single of these objects of the vanishing stars. And I was like, okay, we have to do anything even more of an even bigger catalog. So it was.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now the instrument that you used is not far from me here in San Diego. Mount Palomar is a legendary observatory that goes back many, many almost 100 years. It almost killed the director, the original director of it, just getting the 200 inch mirror up the mountain. But there are other instruments there too. There&#8217;s 48 inch camera. And why don&#8217;t you talk about the instrumentation? What was used? What is a photographic plate? For my viewers who are under 50, you know they&#8217;re not going to get this. You don&#8217;t even have much experience. You&#8217;re so, you know, much, much younger than I am.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But tell me, what is a photographic plate? What was the ideal characteristic of this instrument that really stood out to you to use it?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, if to be fair, it was something much simpler. I didn&#8217;t even think about photographic plates when we used this. I just was searching for the, for a digitized catalog of the sky that was as old as I could find it because I wanted to have some hundred years in between. I only got 70 years, but then. So the photographic plates, they are these big, big glass plates. They are heavy. I have never actually worked with them myself. I&#8217;ve seen one once in Sonderberg Observatory when I was visiting them.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />They&#8217;re big, they&#8217;re heavy, I wouldn&#8217;t lift it. And they have a photographic emulsion on top and they have different type of emulsion. If you look in the red light, if you look in the blue light, they have like silver halides crystals there that are reacting if you have photons that hit it. So they are using this big plates with emulsion at the telescope. So the good thing about it is that you can actually observe a big patch of the sky. They are much less sensitive to cosmic rays than our CCDs for example, because they are even less sensitive than the eye to cosmic rays, these kind of emulsions. And so these photographic plates were used in astronomy a lot in the past to watch the sky. And they had a long exposure time.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So very often you had like 50 minutes or you could some blue plays had only 10 minutes. Today with CCDs you can take, of course, an image just enough in a few seconds. So. And with the CMOS cameras, you can even take several images per second of the sky. So it&#8217;s a totally different technology than the modern one of the sky. So, yeah, historic things.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah. No, and they&#8217;re treasures. I do have a plate. I&#8217;ll put in a cut of it from. Margaret Burbage is one of the pioneering astronomers of the 20th century. Came came up with fundamental paper explaining why we exist and have the composition in our bodies that we do. Because the big bang can&#8217;t produce most of the elements in our bodies, it makes a lot of the hydrogen and other elements, but nothing really that we can sink our teeth into, so to speak. So talk about vasco.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />First of all, what&#8217;s the acronym stand for? What does the pipeline actually do when it gets a plate, compares it to something new or two different plates within the same survey? What does it do? So what does it mean?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So Vasco is the Vanishing and Appearing sources during a center of Observations project. And that&#8217;s the one that we started in 2017, one year after the first test that I did as a PhD student. So what&#8217;s it actually doing? Well, it was. It was this project that was supposed to search for this failed supernovae and all kind of funny objects that I was hoping to find. And what it did is that essentially we are comparing the sky from the early 50s with the sky as it looks today. And so one can use digitized images. And this is what we have been doing. So originally we used the US Naval Observatory catalog and later used images from DSS, etc.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />In like in 2019 or 2020, I got in touch with the Spanish Virtual Observatory with Enrique Solano, who has created lots of catalogs, like digitized catalogs. And so what he did then is he went directly to the source material to the Palomar survey and he fetched all these terabytes of data and started comparing pixel by pixel to. To the sky as it looks today with pan stars like 70 years later. And we were. He was doing that at the same time as we still were processing this data from U. S. Naval Observatory catalogs and comparing also again with PAN Starrs. And.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />But there we had a citizen science project, so we had two parallel efforts to analyze the same data. The citizen size project, where we had a interface where a lot of students and young astronomers and children and actually also professional astronomers were going there and looking for the vanishing stars that we were hoping to find. And then we had this automated process with a very super, like, well, very advanced thing that Enrique Solano developed. And both were searching for vanishing stars. And so we actually went through something like 600. Yeah, I think something like 600 million objects with, With a automated analysis that Enrique did. We did all that, the whole Northern hemisphere and even more. And we found zero vanishing stars.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I mean, zero.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The failure, right?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Yeah, I mean, we did report it. Maybe, maybe the super, like the theoretical astronomers that are believing in failed supernovae were not as excited. But instead we found all these, like, thousands and thousands of objects that appear and vanish within a plate exposure. And initially we were thinking, okay, maybe it&#8217;s M dwarf flares, maybe it&#8217;s some kind of. Maybe it&#8217;s optical afterglows to gamma re bursts. And that was the initial thought. So we were writing about all the possibilities. I also, I think in 2019, it was 2019, we were also including the SETI possibilities because I had a figure.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I remember the referee was telling me to tone down the aliens. And then I felt compelled to include. To do the opposite, of course, and I included a picture figure, one with a green little alien in it as one of the possibilities. And there the referee gave up, just approved it. Well, well, we also included all the other changes, but, you know, it was very like, early for me. And, and then we had this. I had through this visual, we vetting of 24,000 candidates alone during three months. You know, you get crazy after that.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I, I promise you it&#8217;s. It&#8217;s working to get a little. And so I had this Table 2 there. And then there were 100, like, coordinates that I identified as interesting with these single images that could have been M dwarf layers, whatever. And the really interesting thing didn&#8217;t come in that paper. It came when I decided to look through that table yet one more time. And we suddenly discovered that one of these images had nine objects appearing and vanishing at the same time, but in a small image. And we were like, what is that?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Were there segments? Like, if you, if you look at a transient, were they all basically the same? Like, there&#8217;d be some blurring or smudging. I mean, obviously some things like, you know, we&#8217;ll talk about cosmic rays later, of course, we&#8217;ll talk about, you know, asteroids and planetary objects and near Earth objects that do come and go, perhaps, or, you know, bolides or meteoroids and things like that. But do. What was the characteristic of these transients? Let&#8217;s say, let&#8217;s stipulate that they are, you know, some. Some sort of Technology, although obviously we&#8217;re going to talk about that. It&#8217;s contested, but let&#8217;s say it was. Would that have the exact same transient, you know, behavior in a photographic emulsion as it would say in a CMOS camera or similar advanced camera? What would you, what do you actually see? Like what can you describe them for the people that are listening? What do they look like?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So what we saw was nine objects that looked just like stars, like any kind of stars in the plates. And when I manually tried to look at the brightness profile. So what we astronomers do to separate something that is round and is around dirt, because you can have bubbles, you can have plate defects that are round and also star like. So what you do is to look at the brightness profile for a star of a certain magnitude and compared to the brightness profile of another of a real star that you know is real and that is there in multiple catalogs.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And this camera. Sorry to interrupt you, Beatrice, but the camera has a support for the secondary, right? So it must have some diffraction spikes or some telltale SAS for point source function, the point spread function. And what you&#8217;re saying is that the point spread function looked identical for, for these objects as for a true point source, like a star, right?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Exactly. So it just compared and it looked identical. And I was comparing to the stars that had similar magnitudes, so they just looked identical to me when I was measuring. Now later we learned that there are some statistical differences, but when you just manually were trying to look at it, then it looks very similar for like if you compare one and one, what</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />is the new phenomena that you, you said you found statistically looks different when you examine it statistically rather so today.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And actually that&#8217;s thanks to some of the critics. If you, if you take a big sample of these transients and you compare to a big sample of the stars, you see that they are slightly, not much, but a little bit sharper and more narrowed the brightness profiles than they are of the real stars. And that fits very well with what happens if you have a very short flash because then you have less of time for atmospheric turbulence to disturb the profile. So then it&#8217;s slightly more narrow.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I want to just highlight something you just said. You said thanks to my critics. And I just thought of where I heard that exact same sentence before. And it was in my conversation with Nobel Prize winner John Mather. John Mather won the Nobel Prize for co leading the COBE Cosmic Background Explorer firass experiment that determined that the CMB is a black body. Despite what all my Haters and critics. And I have my own trolls out there. Beatrice, you&#8217;re not the only one who has haters and trolls, okay, my friend? So I have a lot of people that hate that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh, I just. I talk up the Big Bang so much, and I make up this fact that it&#8217;s a black body, but it&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s not a black body. Only carbon can make a black body. Or metallic hydrogen. There&#8217;s a lot of nonsense I have to debunk a lot of times. Okay. But what John Mather and his team found was that the CMB is not only a black body, it&#8217;s the most perfect black body that you could possibly imagine, signifying a long period of thermal equilibrium with high optical depth and uniform absorption and emission.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, why did he say that? He told me in the interview I did with him six years ago, seven years ago, that he was very thankful to his critics. And I&#8217;ve heard that many times, actually, from the late Ray Weiss at mit, who won the Nobel Prize for ligo. They say your critics sometimes reveal some of the shortcomings of your argument, and by hearing them, it can make them stronger. Now, obviously, you can go overboard. You can have people that are malicious, malevolent, and do things as trolls do, and they&#8217;re not interested in the light. They&#8217;re interested in the heat. But I did want to. I always like to point out we have a lot of young scientists that listen to this program.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Beatrice and I always love to highlight when a scientist says something that&#8217;s particularly important, that can help guide the career and the choices and even the emotions of a scientist as he or she starts off young. So thank you for that explanation and for being candid and honest and having the integrity that a good scientist should have. So I really do appreciate that. And it led you to do something even better, you know, than if the critics didn&#8217;t exist, you know. So thanks. Thanks to the critics. So one of the things that&#8217;s fascinating to me is that it&#8217;s kind of. You know, I often have thought about light when I&#8217;m out on the beach with my kids late at night and they&#8217;re looking at a star.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I&#8217;ll say to them, like, we don&#8217;t know if that star is still there. You know, it could be gone. Right? It could have vanished. I like to visualize it as, like, this. This tube of light that&#8217;s coming to us, you know, from this vast cosmic distances. Right. But it&#8217;s also a time capsule. It&#8217;s like light is storing this information Encoding this, this hologram, if you will, of information about not only the source, but of the material between us and that source, or when that source is.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But you&#8217;re doing something even more impressive because you&#8217;re using this. It&#8217;s a time capsule in space. And a time capsule in time to be redundant because it&#8217;s really sampling a different world. Like that world doesn&#8217;t exist anymore. There&#8217;s no way to recreate the pre Sputnik world. Let&#8217;s talk about that. So the first plates come from 1952, is that right?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Oh, it comes from 1949 or 1949.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay. And so if you see a star like flash that&#8217;s truly a transient, that doesn&#8217;t repeat, that disappears in shadows and has other strange properties that you&#8217;re going to discuss, the implication is that it can&#8217;t be man made or human made. Right. Because the first human made object that we know about. Okay, there could have been other ones. Right, but is Sputnik, which is launched in red October and 1957. Right. So it didn&#8217;t have solar panels on it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />When were the first solar panels deployed in space?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Oh, I have no idea, I&#8217;m afraid.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think it was probably in the early mid-1960s perhaps. I mean it was actually a relatively fortuitous invention that you could get solar energy around that time as we were in space and needing to have non, you know, not bring up big battery packs with us. So if you have two different plates, you know, plate A and plate B, same patch of sky, and minutes later the flash of light disappears. Let&#8217;s talk about what this flash of the dynamics of flashes of light. Everyone&#8217;s seen the stars at night and they twinkle, Right? That&#8217;s because of turbulence. But you&#8217;re saying you use that fact that they didn&#8217;t have adaptive optics, they didn&#8217;t have atmospheric correction. You can use that to discriminate between natural and artificial or transient versus non transient. How do you use the atmospheric blurring, blending to further refine the case that these are perhaps technology?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, it was a little bit simpler or a little bit more complicated than that. At the same time, the interesting thing that pointed us towards the technological possibility was not the shape of them, because that came later, that came later, but that they were a group of them appearing and vanishing at the same time. And if it would have been asteroids moving then if you would compare, let&#8217;s say within half an hour, you know, the exposure time is 50 minutes. And we always have two plates that are taken like one after the other. If it would have been an asteroid that would move so fast that it would be there in one plate and not there in the other. It would have been streaking. It wouldn&#8217;t have left a point source. And the same if you would have some kind of meteorite, it would have been streaking.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />If it would have been a very slow asteroid that had created such a transient, then you would have seen the point source both in the first image and in the second image. But this thing that you see the point source there in one image but not half an hour earlier or later, and you never see it again, it points towards that, you are having some kind of flash. And when you have multiple of them, let&#8217;s say you have 10 of them within 10 arc minutes, then you know you also have some kind of. You have some kind of synchronicity or synchronous behavior. And what that means is that you can set our limits just from the speed of light of how far they have to be. And you know, okay, it&#8217;s going to have to be inside the inner solar system. So you&#8217;re watching some objects inside the inner solar system. Of course, I&#8217;m adding a parenthesis.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />We were also considering that maybe some very advanced technological civilizations are shooting lasers and they are perfectly, perfectly communicating with us and pointing at us, and it comes at different times or whatever. But the problem is that we actually even use the largest telescope in the world, optical telescope in the world in Canary Islands, pointed at those things, and we found nothing there. So that hypothesis is totally off the table.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s optical setting. That&#8217;s My colleague Shelly Wright here at UCSD works on photo avalanche detectors for extremely rapid bursts of light that could signify extraterrestrial technology. So that&#8217;s a very fruitful avenue of her research.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So. Exactly. She does beautiful work. And we tested this thing and it didn&#8217;t work out. So now we are stuck with inner solar system objects. And there are multiple of them. And then there&#8217;s. There&#8217;s nothing in the sky today that we know of that produces that signature, except for satellites and flat surfaces, solar panels.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And today, when you look at the sky, you see thousands and thousands of these kind of transients. Only with a naked eye. You don&#8217;t even need a telescope, but just with a naked eye, you see thousands of them over the sky every hour. And then you see something that looks like a signature of the stuff that you see on the sky today. And you see it in this place from the 50s. And the most fun thing, I remember in 2022, when we did this alignment paper, because we started thinking, okay, so let&#8217;s find better examples because this one might still be. Maybe there&#8217;s some kind of contamination that produces all this. We were wondering like maybe some kind of atomic bomb tests.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />We had two different hypotheses, like some kind of contamination that produces this versus that. We are seeing reflections of something very flat, very artificial in orbit around Earth. And these were our two leading ideas that we landed in. After that we did the exclusion method and excluded all the other things. And then I was thinking, like a better way of searching for it is to look for alignments as well. We found some alignments and we posted the first preprint. And then one of these satellite experts writes to me, a very annoyed email, like, you&#8217;re just seeing satellites. And I&#8217;m writing back.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />There were no satellites.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Thank you for proving my point. What about. I mean, just outlandish. But we use. For adaptive optics, we use artificial stars and those are done with lasers. And yes, the laser wasn&#8217;t invented as far as we know in or so. But, you know, who knows, what if there. Yeah, what if there were, you know, kind of broadcasts, you know, came from the earth, from terrestrial, from actually on the earth bouncing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Because that was around the time we developed the first communication satellites, EchoStar. That came very soon after, not 1957 or 1950, 49, but who knows? What if there was some maser activity or there was some strange, you know, like defense programs? Would they not produce artificial star like point, like exactly like what you see?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I mean, possibly, but they would vanish in their shadow, which is later what we see for a big fraction of our objects. And that&#8217;s where it gets fun.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s talk about the. We already mentioned how your critics have improved your work. Let&#8217;s let Beatrice be her own harsh referee for a moment. You&#8217;ve got these three claims. The nuclear test correlation, the 22 sigma earth shadow deficit and the techno sigma.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />There are two different ways of watching it. 22.1.6.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So. And the techno signature. So if you&#8217;re, you know, mean referee, you know, you&#8217;re referee number two. How do you rank them? What would you stick your reputation on each of them? Let&#8217;s give the strongest argument first. What do you think is the most strong argument for these being techno signatures?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So they are those. Can I only mention my team&#8217;s discoveries or can I also mention the other people work with it? Well, the first. Well, the Earth shadow deficit I think is really beautiful to work with and I mean we see a big deficit of these Transits in the earth shadow. By the way, when we did this test, I didn&#8217;t expect that result. You can&#8217;t imagine the feeling when you get that result and you start redoing it over and over and no matter what you do. Yeah. You still see that deficit in the earth shadow. So that&#8217;s the first thing I would say.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Then of course the transient nuclear correlation I find super, super fascinating and explain</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />quantitatively that&#8217;s something like 50% more transients in a few day window or something like that.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Yeah, like 68% more transient within plus minus one day. Actually the new paper that we have now, the machine learning paper led by Stephen Bruhl, where they have cleaned up, so what they&#8217;ve done there is try to clean up the sample from all the plate defects. Because all the critics are worried about plate defects. They think that they might be creating these weird correlations. I don&#8217;t know how plate defects would sense. Where is the earth shadow? Apparently they&#8217;re self conscious. But when you clean away the plate defects, all these correlations get even stronger. And the funny part there is that they find also strong correlation one day before the nuclear test.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And then one gets really confused because then of course someone could say oh, maybe it&#8217;s just because you&#8217;re already setting up some balloons or whatever. And I mean just to observe the nuclear tests is like one way. But yeah, if you read a machine learning paper that&#8217;s Steve Bruel is leading, it&#8217;s a fascinating result. So that is also super cool. And then the third I would say, and a really important discovery is the one by Ivo Busco that he posted one week ago where he actually essentially shows that some of these transits have to be real. Because first again he sees the same slightly narrower shapes of these transients than the normal stars which are indicative of that they are actually fast flashes, not normal objects. But he also shows that they come from light passing through the optics. Because sometimes these telescopes, especially if you have a shitty telescope, not the perfect telescope, but it has slightly faulty optics, they produce these aberrations and I mean commas like shapes that are of the distorted light.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And all the stars have this ugly shapes rather than a perfect psf. And you can see the directionality of them and all kind of weirdnesses of them. You can measure it and it shows that these transients have the same aberrations as the real stars. Which of course totally kills, I mean the hypothesis of, of that plate defects are responsible for all the transients or that cosmic rays are responsible for all the transients. Yes. We know that among 107,000 candidates there&#8217;s a lot of dirt there. There will be plate defects, bubbles, hairs, cosmic rays, everything. But the important part is that a significant fraction of this population have, I mean, pass through, are produced by light that pass through the telescope and they are vanishing in the Earth&#8217;s shadow.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />This shows that we have a population of objects near the Earth that have not been discovered until now. I find it fascinating.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So obviously it&#8217;s extremely fascinating. I think, you know, just to again, in the spirit of, you know, steel sharpens steel, you know, and pushing back with respect that, you know, I mean the first with the, with the, you know, reflective deficit. I think the nuclear test correlation to me is the most, you know, kind of disturbing. Not really because, you know, worried about, you know, something being suppressed or hidden. But what could possibly be the correlation factor rather or causative factor? I mean there&#8217;s a lot of things that happen, you know, in correlation that aren&#8217;t causative. So what&#8217;s your best model for the nuclear test? Correlation function.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So if we remove all the other observations, if we just remove all the other observation, you can always say that it could be, maybe it&#8217;s cosmic rays or something, or maybe it is high energy particles from the atomic bombs. You could, you could say that if you ignore everything else. The problem is that we have or not we. But another independent scientist, a nuclear engineer who has a retired nuclear engineer called Kevin Kahn. He played around with the sample and discovers an empty correlation with geomagnetic storm activity, which totally disagrees with the cosmic rays. Of course some people will say and argue, yeah, but maybe if you have higher solar activity, you&#8217;re going to block them. You&#8217;re going to like somehow shield the Earth from cosmic rays. But again, they&#8217;re different kind of cosmic rays.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />They&#8217;re cosmic rays that you&#8217;re going to get from the sun. A lot of particles that are going, they are going to be low energy and then you&#8217;re going to have high energy galactic. And even if you have a lot of high energy galactic that are blocked out, you still also have a lot of low energy ones. And which ones are most likely to produce a transient on the plate? It&#8217;s not the galactic ones that are blocked, it&#8217;s the low energy ones that are going to most likely produce, if I think correctly, a point source on the photographic plate. Because they are simply easier or they easier could do something on the plate while the high energy are just going to pass through the photographic plate and then you&#8217;re not expecting an anti correlation. You&#8217;re going to expect a correlation between the solar activity and the number of transients. We see the opposite. Maybe I&#8217;m thinking wrongly here.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Quick thing before we go on. If you&#8217;re getting something out of these conversations, you can get closer to them. Members of the channel who join the channel as members get the videos before they go public. They get members only videos that you won&#8217;t find anywhere else. Occasionally you&#8217;ll also get ad free episodes and this is the one that people love. You get to put your questions to my guests live. When we&#8217;re doing live stream recordings and we&#8217;re talking to some of the most fascinating people in all of science. And at the top tier, the cosmic office hours level, you get one hour with me in a group call on Zoom, just us talking about science, the things that matter to you, your pet theory, your favorite hobby horse, whatever you like.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It has happens every month at the office hours level that&#8217;s at $20. So please do consider joining. The links are below. Yeah, let me, let me just summarize what I understood. Now again, this is not my field, but I did talk to Avi Loeb this past week on a live stream for other purposes, including his, his new program that, that he&#8217;s initiating with, with scientists and philosophers and skeptics and all sorts of interesting people. Not all scientifically, you know, oriented or not all with, with the same level of credentials that you say you have, but nevertheless quite, quite astounding that he&#8217;s been able to put it together. And he claims the following. He claims that 60,000 cosmic rays hit a plate, you know, basically in an exposure at that time, and that 10 of them or so land basically perpendicular, which would make them look enough like a point source that someone could mistake it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So he&#8217;s saying that that accounts for the entire candidate population by that mechanism. So before we get to the modulation, he has a claim about that that we discussed as well. And I&#8217;m summarizing he&#8217;s not here to defend himself, but I hope like we can, we can, you know, shed some light, no pun intended, on it. So what do you, how do you respond to that? Why is he potentially wrong about that?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, first I think he was expecting a correlation and then I pointed it out in his medium essay and then he changed essay and then he expected suddenly an anti correlation. So I think there was a little bit of maybe it was a we misunderstood each other or something like that when we were.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />No, you&#8217;re right, he does say that the it&#8217;s an anti correlation due to what are called corona mass.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I pointed it out after I you did his previous argument then he changed.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I didn&#8217;t know that. I didn&#8217;t know that but I&#8217;m just looking at the data that&#8217;s on the, on his medium page now. Yeah, and what we talked about on Monday, he. He didn&#8217;t mention that but.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />No, but that&#8217;s totally fine. He updated the medium and say then But I think he, he&#8217;s considering all cosmic rays like coming like he&#8217;s considering this like if they&#8217;re all galactic ignores all the low energy cosmic rays that you get from the sun. And I think that one has to consider what is more likely to leave a point source. Of course you&#8217;re going to have the direction will matter but also the higher the energy the more likely it&#8217;s going to pass through. Also another thing to consider is that CCDs and photographic plates react like differently and very often if you have some high energy particles or anything you&#8217;re going to have diffused radiation or you&#8217;re going to have a lot of streaks and all over. But to get a perfect point source it&#8217;s probably going to be much easier with a low energy. That&#8217;s what I think. But I, I suspect that neither me nor Avia have been working on this enough to actually be able to model what is more likely to produce the perfect point source.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />But I suspect that, that it&#8217;s more likely those particles that are coming that are associated with the sun activity. So I would expect a correlation rather than anti correlation. That way I wouldn&#8217;t put them all together. I would separate by energy levels and try to model that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, I guess the argument as I understood for Monday was him saying that the modulation by the sun affects the cosmic ray flux from the galaxy and that active sun mass ejection in the direction of the Earth, you know, potentially or even if it&#8217;s omnidirectional will then suppress, you know, globally. But then where we&#8217;re sitting it introduces this anisotropy which is directly, you know, anti correlated with the sun Earth axis which means that it would be in the shadow. It would appear to come from the shadow because you basically have this shield that&#8217;s being modulated either up or stronger or weaker. But then there&#8217;s a second paper by this Hambly and Bear team as I understand at Edinburgh, peer reviewed, you know they&#8217;re independent of AVI of U. They looked at nine of the transients and they said that they could find these round stellar like profiles but they said they were attributable to what are called emulsion flaws. So that&#8217;s a different team. So how do you respond in that?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, they did. They concluded it could be emulsion flaws based on that they were slightly narrower. That was the argument. And because they found so many narrower things on the plate, of course a number of objects, you can&#8217;t say that if it&#8217;s 10 of them or if it&#8217;s 500 that just by citing the number, you can&#8217;t say that it&#8217;s emulsion defects. Of course they might emulsion defects, but they used that it&#8217;s so many. And there are many that are narrow, that is most likely emulsion defects. However, there&#8217;s somebody who actually at the archive looked at them with microscope and if you look at them with microscope again, this, like this, nine or eight out of the nine transients are looking like they&#8217;re around. They&#8217;re slightly sharper and rounder, but they look like on the digitized place essentially.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So how are you going to separate that from transients that are appearing due to flashes? Because you have here a so called ambiguity or. I mean it can be either or, but because both transients associated with short flashes will produce narrow profiles as well as hypothetically plate defects. And to separate these two, and if you can&#8217;t do it with a microscope, then you need population statistics. And I think that&#8217;s why the Earth&#8217;s shadow is so important. And also one more thing to think about. When you talk about the Earth&#8217;s shadow, we don&#8217;t talk about the night side. We mean specifically the geometric shadow at 42,000 km altitude, which is 8.7 degrees. And when cosmic rays enter into the atmosphere, they are.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I mean you have all this scattering and you have all the secondary particles. There&#8217;s absolutely no way how they will remember this little circle of 8.7 degrees and only there have a deficit, but not outside it. So I think that&#8217;s something very important to remember that we&#8217;re not talking about just looking at low Earth orbit. We&#8217;re talking about this shadow at 42,000. How is any cosmic ray going to remember the geometry there? It&#8217;s not going to do that because of all the scattering. So only reflections can produce that deficit.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I have some questions from my audience as well. Someone named Cyboris says, Beatrice, thank you for your dedicated work. These vanishing objects for the last past seven years. Given the pre Sputnik timing and your assessment that these appear to be reflective or metallic objects rather than stars, what do you consider to be the most likely explanation?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, I think there is something very flat and very reflective in orbit around the Earth. Now if I also, because there are different ways how you can view this problem. You can view it as that you have a mix of different phenomena. There might be one population that is reflective, another population that is correlating with cosmic rays, a third one that is anti correlating with geomagnetic storm activity. Or it can be all exactly the same population. For example, Brian Doherty, he wrote a paper and he looks at it and he sees that if you actually focus on the sunlit transients and remove the others, the nuclear correlation gets even stronger, which argues for that it&#8217;s actually the same population of objects producing the different, different features. And if I look at that, I&#8217;m sorry, but I find it hard not to attribute it to something artificial. And I will be straight.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />That&#8217;s what I think. I wasn&#8217;t born with some political being, so I will just say it straight. And also it&#8217;s even more interesting, he also, Brian Doherty, he does this beautiful machine learning and cleans up the data from all the plate effects. And he sees also that they are avoiding the ecliptic. So obviously they don&#8217;t behave like your average asteroid. And also in a new paper we are working on, we are seeing that they are all clustering around the equator. And it&#8217;s even more interesting, we try to like in this new paper we&#8217;re trying to look at the sizes and all the typical features of the objects. And they are so similar to the objects reported by astronomers today when they look at space trash.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />It&#8217;s just that then we see maybe one transient per square degree per hour. And today you have 1.7 per square degree per hour. But it seems to be very similar type of objects. So I&#8217;m not sure what I&#8217;m supposed to say other than that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Another question from the audience. Could it be like a pulsar that, you know, was a transient pulsar, very bright flash briefly and then just is no longer aligned with the Earth anymore?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />No, it wouldn&#8217;t be because of that to see groupings of them and they are synchronized and that doesn&#8217;t agree. If I can just like speculate, we would have one single example of, let&#8217;s say of a triple transient, but we would have all the other transients, but we would have an empty sky, but somewhere we would see three transients at the same time appearing and vanishing. We could be discussing gravitational lensing by a super massive black hole. That&#8217;s a possibility if you have one Though maybe there&#8217;s an extra, a supermassive black hole in the Milky Way we didn&#8217;t know about. But when you have so many as we do, then you&#8217;re running into trouble.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So then there are people that are a little less, you know, kind of supportive of it. And that is. Well, let&#8217;s go to this, this, this recent paper which I believe is either published or appeared in the archive by Waters at all. And you know, they talk about the clustering and they talk about the nuclear test correlation, but they claim this one thing which I found, you know, kind of noteworthy, is they talk about, they call data hygiene that you rely on this data set V and that skipped some of the scan artifact removal steps. And Waters estimates 91% of those features belong to a set that wasn&#8217;t distinguished from catalog object. Can you explain what he&#8217;s claiming? Or they&#8217;re claiming rather. And then what is your response to this? To this?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Oh, I&#8217;d love to talk about. This is fun. So the first thing that they do is that they say if you have plate defects in your sample, you cannot do statistics. You need to have a validated data set. And here I find this super fascinating because a, I mean, you look in the particle accelerators, it&#8217;s not like you&#8217;re going to have all that. When you search for Higgs boson, you only say the Higgs boson and throw away everything else. I mean statistics, you know, you work with dirty samples. But the most important is if your dirt or contamination is somehow dependent on the variable you are testing or not.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And of course we know that defects are not going to be tracking the sun, Earth geometry and follow, where is the Earth&#8217;s shadow? The defects don&#8217;t know this. They might be assembled on the edges of the plates, but they are not going to be tracking the Earth&#8217;s shadow. So it actually doesn&#8217;t matter. So that&#8217;s the first thing. I think there&#8217;s a confusion today between traditional statistical inference and like statistical or traditional hypothesis testing with machine learning, like machine learning based research where people talk about validating samples and people have started conflating the two. So that&#8217;s the first thing. The second we have actually tried to remove all the plate defects. But now it gets even more fun.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So Waters used a data set that was public. They didn&#8217;t email us. They could have sent an email to us and asked about like if the, if this data set was good or not. They used a sample of 5,000 transients reported in Solano at all 2022. The problem is that these weren&#8217;t just normal transients. These were a data set created to search specifically for vanishing stars where a lot of additional criteria were added. Essentially we did not only look for things that flashed, but one also removed anything that existed in any catalog, astronomical catalog, across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, which creates a beautiful hole. If I may show you, if screen sharing works, there is this.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />So if you look at our like at the two data sets, there is the original one of 107,000, it has its artifacts, etc. But like some, some stripes, empty stripe. But in general it&#8217;s a fairly homogeneous data set. The sky surveyed by the plates, it&#8217;s like all plates in the northern hemisphere are covered. Then you look at the sample used by Waters and there is this big hole. And that big hole by itself produces excess in the earth&#8217;s shadow simply because a lot wasn&#8217;t observed. So that&#8217;s the first thing. And then the second thing, they don&#8217;t even have the time stamps.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And that&#8217;s a whole story by itself. I don&#8217;t know if I should tell</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />it or well, what is the timestamp of what is it stamping?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />You need the time of the observations that wasn&#8217;t included in the data set either. So they&#8217;re trying to do some detective work and the question is if they did it correctly or not. Because the initial, a famous plot that was sent to me earlier forgets the cosiness dec factor when estimating a parameter that they use for deducing the times. So maybe even the times aren&#8217;t correct either. So both a big hole, the times are not correct and then maybe, I don&#8217;t really know. They are trying to say that they didn&#8217;t do the error, but they are citing the figure in the acknowledgments. So essentially so the question is, is it right or not? I don&#8217;t know. And the third problem is that we have actually looked with machine learning at the number of defects in their so called aggressively filtered sample versus ours.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />And their sample isn&#8217;t cleaner, it&#8217;s just 20 times smaller. And if you have 20 times smaller sample, it&#8217;s also a lot more difficult to see statistical correlations. I mean it&#8217;s a big mess. They just used completely wrong sample and that&#8217;s where it went wrong.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the claim that they make that you have to normalize the number of telescope observation nights, basically that it&#8217;s basically an imprint or an artifact of the excess correlation with around nuclear testates is just an artifact of some maybe timing or Nyquist sampling.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Say we have Tested that and addressed it in the commentary. That&#8217;s not, even if you normalize it correctly, you still have actually a correlation. It stays and it even gets stronger.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Gets stronger. Phenomenal. Wow. Okay. Now the other, another thing that they bring up is the, and I hope you don&#8217;t mind me asking these questions. I&#8217;m not great.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I&#8217;m happy to talk about it actually. Yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Because I mean my audience is super technical and they&#8217;re going to appreciate this, but they&#8217;re also going to like the fact that you&#8217;re framing us like Richard Feynman. You know, you&#8217;re looking for evidence. You&#8217;re not looking for feels or beliefs or wishes or, you know, dreams and fairy tales. Right. You really want this to be done scientifically accurately and then we can come to the interpretation. So there&#8217;s an argument about spatial correlation. Features that pile up at the plate, corners and edges and they form pockets of voidance where you don&#8217;t find the physical samples from optical sources that go through the telescope pipeline. Are these features that people that you agree on, I mean, are they right about this claim?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, if they&#8217;re talking about the big hole in spatial distribution, it&#8217;s only in their sample because they use the one that was completely made for a different purpose. But if they&#8217;re talking about that, they might be platif is. Yeah, edges might have more, more defects. But at the same time, these, they are not going to be influencing a deficit in the Earth&#8217;s shadow. So it&#8217;s irrelevant for the question. You just need to think about is a defect going to somehow walk around on the plate to follow? Like, where is the Earth&#8217;s shadow? Because the Earth shadow is moving.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />One claim that I found kind of resonant with some thoughts I had was the precedent that comes from gamma ray bursts from the, you know, 70s or whatever. A satellite was designed to look for nuclear test ban violations on Earth and they ended up catching these extremely energetic explosions in deep space at high redshift. So it took 20 years. And they basically looked at a million archival plates also from Palomar, and they never really confidently confirmed a single optical transient because the emulsion effects would mimic star like flashes. So it was, it was too confusing, I guess. So why is it, how can you make the case that your search is different? Why is it different?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, Ivo Bosco just did what they couldn&#8217;t do.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Too bad his name wasn&#8217;t Vasco. Can you get him to change his name to Vasco, please?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Yeah, well, he showed that it goes through the telescope optics thanks to these Operation commas. They didn&#8217;t think of that, but he thought of it. It took a couple of more decades. Just because someone didn&#8217;t manage to do it in the 70s doesn&#8217;t mean that someone can&#8217;t do it 50 years later and gets a good idea. And Ivo Buska got that good idea. And I think that&#8217;s beautiful. He did what they haven&#8217;t managed to do before. And also in those times, they didn&#8217;t work with big catalogs.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />They worked with like one by one of objects. They took a microscope, maybe they used, what is it called, this magnifying glass, and they looked one by one and they maybe said, oh, we can&#8217;t say, we can&#8217;t separate it. It could be plate defects. But today we have population statistics. We have all this digitization of the surveys, machine learning, big computers. It allows us to do population statistics in a way they couldn&#8217;t do in those times. And that&#8217;s the beautiful thing of progress and of like all these new tools we have today.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I want to be fair to Waters, I may have misspoken. It&#8217;s not a published paper. It&#8217;s just a preprint, and that&#8217;s fine. A lot of things get. Get handled wrong and then they get handled a better way. Maybe you&#8217;re going to comment, maybe the editor, referee, etc. Just as people have corrected you by criticizing you, you may criticize him and correct him and benefit him, right? So this could make it all better, for the sake of heaven, as he&#8217;d like to say. Okay, now I want to take a big say again.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />We have a commentary online in response to them.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh, you do? Okay, great. I&#8217;ll put a link to that in the notes below. So let&#8217;s just take a big step back. We just had this movie come out in America called Disclosure Day. We&#8217;ve had multiple disclosures, you know, from the Trump administration. We&#8217;ve had Avi Loeb, you know, volunteer to take up his eighth job at the White House. Now, apparently, according to Avi, at least I&#8217;m trying to get confirmation from my sources and media and the White House myself. But for now, I trust him and we&#8217;ll see how it comes out.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, so let&#8217;s just say there&#8217;s 100,000 of these things and 99,999 are fake. Okay? They&#8217;re just artifacts. They&#8217;re just something, you know, a flock of shiny birds and some swamp gas. Or like there was, there was a laser, you know, we didn&#8217;t know about the lasers. What&#8217;s that?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I&#8217;M imagining seagulls with tin foil.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yes, yes. Okay, so let&#8217;s say there was, you know, some, some laser and a tinfoil shot at a laser with covered on a. Okay. But let&#8217;s say of all those 999,999, they&#8217;re all, they&#8217;re all wrong waters. You know, Avi Lobe, everyone could rule it up, but there&#8217;s one that&#8217;s real. We can&#8217;t explain it. Beatrice, that&#8217;s history. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So what would that mean? What would that do for our perception of where things fall in the cosmos?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Well, I think it&#8217;s going to make us much more humble because we as humans have a reason to unite in some ways because it shows that we are not the only ones. I mean, not only that, we are not the only ones in the universe. We are not even alone here on Earth. It&#8217;s. I mean, it has to bring some humility even to those of us who are not doable. I think it&#8217;s going to be amazing actually. And of course I would be curious, like, what else do they know? What could we learn from this other civilization? I think it would be amazing. Really amazing.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />It doesn&#8217;t guarantee that we are safe, of course, because we can&#8217;t guess the intentions. You know, there&#8217;s a lot of people that try to guess whether they are benevolent or whether they are evil. And I just say we have no data.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />We have really no information to make any qualified guess.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, aside from this, what do you think is the evidence for highly technologically advanced life forms outside of the Earth? Do you, do you feel like ignore your work? Okay, I need you to do that. But what do you think is, I mean, what do you make of these claims of tic tacs and non human biologics and interdimensional being? I mean, do you think that any of these hold the candle scientifically that meets your rigorous standards, let&#8217;s say like this?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I think there is a lot of evidence that is not accessible to scientists because there are really credible people and a lot of credible people who talk about crash retrievals and there&#8217;s. I believe that what is being said there is most. I mean, I believe it&#8217;s true. I do find a difficulty in that we cannot judge any evidence because there is no evidence out there for us as scientists, which is a problem. And which is why I prefer to do my own stuff. If they are not going to give me the evidence, I will do my own searches. We even, we even have this European Crash Retrieval Initiative that we started where we have been requesting the public to give us tips for crashed saucers. Because for me, it&#8217;s not enough that someone tells me that they are.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Even if, if I believe them, I still want to see the evidence before I state that this is the case. You can have an excellent source, I mean, all the excellent leads, but I still want to have it in my hands before I say there are crashed saucers there.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m a pilot and I fly little planes, you know, propellers around, but, you know, they&#8217;re not very stealthy and certainly not to have, you know, I want to be seen by the air traffic controller so I don&#8217;t hit another plane. These objects, they weren&#8217;t doing much to hide, let&#8217;s say stipulate that all of them are extraterrestrial technology. It seems like they a wanted to be found or didn&#8217;t care if they were seen, which seems kind of dangerous, especially if they&#8217;re avoiding nuclear tests. You know, maybe they, if they&#8217;re detected, they could get shot down. So it seems like maybe their judgment&#8217;s not so great or maybe they&#8217;re bad drivers, I don&#8217;t really know.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Or maybe sensitive because you see that there are fewer of them during geomagnetic storm, higher geomagnetic storm activity. Maybe they are too fragile. Maybe they are.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the other question I have is what happened to them? Like, why aren&#8217;t they here now?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Who has said that they are not here now? I see lots of these things in the sky still. I mean, there are papers that are reporting the same kind of flashes. So I think they might be here. I think there&#8217;s a lot of UFO reports. Even if most of it, like 97% of all the UFO reports are just like misidentifications. You still have some 3% that can&#8217;t be explained and can&#8217;t be explained despite access to data. And you still have cases like the Nimitz case that are highly fascinating. You still have the Washington flap that you can&#8217;t just explore away just like that.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I think it&#8217;s a highly credible case. The problem again with all these really interesting, high quality cases, is that it&#8217;s classified. Once something is really good, it gets classified and we scientists can&#8217;t access it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, that&#8217;s where, you know, I think AVI is coming into play and wanting to declassify it based on his relationships with powerful congresswomen like Anna Paulina Luna here in the United States. I have just one last topic before we wrap it up. I know it&#8217;s super late for you and I really appreciate you. Another viewer on my channel. If you&#8217;re a member of the channel, you can ask questions of my guests and I like to do that to engage my audience with brilliant scientists. So this person, I was going to say this entity, but their name is entity unknown, which I was going to use for one of my kids names but, but I, I decided against it. My wife. So entity unknown says the following.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Beatrice. He says, stay safe. Are you worried about your safety?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Yes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Why is that?</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />I don&#8217;t want to explain all the details but there have been a number of incidents and it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s, let&#8217;s say I do have support for it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, well I want you to stay safe. I want you to visit here. I want to take you to Mount Palomar. You&#8217;ll come along with me and my kids. We love to go camping and hang out up there and we&#8217;ll collect some, some special, special, let&#8217;s say non technological artifacts like pine cones and rocks and things like that I&#8217;d love to give you and actually give you one of the plates that I collected from my late great colleague Margaret Burbidge. I think she&#8217;d be proud to know you. And of course my friend and colleague Shelly Wright would love to talk with you. And we have a lot to talk about.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I think let us think of this as the first of many conversations.</p><p>Beatriz Villarroel &#8211; Rodriguez:<br />Okay, Absolutely. Thank you so much.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Be well. Thank you for joining us. I know you all found Beatrice as fascinating as I do and if you want to see more of her, let me know in the comments. Would you like me to moderate a debate between her, Avi Loeb and Michael Shermer, noted skeptic? And also click here and watch the video I just did with Avi Loeb.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nobel Economist: The Market That Lets People Die</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/al-roth/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Nobel Economist: The Market That Lets People Die Transcript Brian Keating:A Nobel winning economist will tell you why you can buy heroin on any corner, but you can&#8217;t hire a killer. And why that same logic means people are dying who don&#8217;t have to. Al Roth:Why is it so easy to buy drugs, but so hard to hire a hitman? We forbid, as most countries do, any effort to pay kidney donors. In Canada and in Britain, surrogacy isn&#8217;t illegal, but it&#8217;s illegal to pay a surrogate. People who need surrogacy service come to California, but they have no trouble bringing their babies back because parental rights in surrogacy are recognized. Recognized. Brian Keating:My guest today won the Nobel Prize in Economics for designing the systems that match kidney donors to patients. What he told me about the markets we&#8217;re not allowed to have is going to make some of you uncomfortable and quite frankly, angry. Brian Keating:You&#8217;re the first person I&#8217;ve ever had on the podcast who has been called an organ trafficker. But explain how that came about. Al Roth:Well, I talk about controversial transactions. And one of the things that my colleagues and I have helped medical professionals do is organize what&#8217;s called kidney exchange. And kidney exchange, which we can talk about more, is a way of getting more living donor transplants than could otherwise be gotten. And that&#8217;s important because there&#8217;s a real shortage of transplants. The rate of kidney failure in the United States is at about 130,000 people a year, but we do fewer than 30,000 transplants a year. So it&#8217;s important to get more transplants. And we do this in a way that the US Congress didn&#8217;t find repugnant. They unanimously amended the National Organ Transplant act to affirm that kidney exchange is legal in the United States, but not everyone is equally happy with it. Al Roth:And one of the funny things about transplant dogma in the world is that countries should be self sufficient in transplantation. And one of the things about kidney exchange is it needs big groups of patient donor pairs to work efficiently. And so, for example, I went to the United Arab Emirates for the first kidney exchange between the UAE and Israel. But the lady who calls me an organ trafficker thinks that countries should be self sufficient in transplants. Brian Keating:One of the things that I never really appreciated as explicitly as you make it in the book is sort of the unintended consequences of many economic actions that then have both political and economic and social ramifications. Can you explain the relationship between bans and black markets? Al Roth:So one of the themes of the book is that to work well, markets need social support, and to work well, bans on markets also need social support. So often what I&#8217;m talking about in the book are transactions that some people would like to engage in and other people think shouldn&#8217;t be allowed. And when you ban something that some people would like to engage in, often you&#8217;re going to find that they try to find ways to work around the ban. And one way to work around the ban is to find a another jurisdiction where the transaction you want to engage in is legal. A different way to work around a ban is to find people who are willing to violate the ban and commit criminal acts in order to further the kind of transaction that you&#8217;re interested in. Brian Keating:If you have a ban that protects moral purity, but then it creates a black market, I mean, that ends up hurting people, how do we judge if that&#8217;s truly moral? Al Roth:Well, one of the themes in the book is I think we have to judge the morality of the bans we make and the markets we support, not just by our intentions, but by the consequences. So one of the questions I ask in the book is why is it so easy to buy drugs but so hard to hire a hitman? And what I mean by that is we have in the United States, we have bans on commercial murders. When we find hitmen, we put them in prison for as long as we can, and when we find heroin dealers, we put them in prison for as long as we can. But those two bans have had very different effects. There&#8217;s almost no commercial killing in the United States. It doesn&#8217;t make it into the national crime statistics. But heroin is readily available in the United States. And we have not only lots of dealers and addicts, but many overdose deaths every year, many more than we have homicides of any sort. Al Roth:So the two very similar kinds of bans catch them and imprison them, have very different effect. So I think we&#8217;re doing fine on hitmen. We should. We should keep it up. We don&#8217;t need hitmen, and we don&#8217;t have them. But we&#8217;re not doing fine on heroin. We have a lot of heroin, and we ought to be experimenting with ways to reduce the harm that it does. If we can&#8217;t, even if we can&#8217;t ban it as thoroughly as we would like to. Al Roth:And of course, the United States has some experience with this from Prohibition. In the 1920s and early 30s, we tried to ban the production and sale of most alcoholic beverages, and that didn&#8217;t work well. And so after amending the constitution to institute prohibition, we re amended it to end prohibition. And ending prohibition on alcohol hasn&#8217;t solved the problem of alcohol. There are still alcoholics and drunk drivers, but you can&#8217;t buy whiskey from gangsters anymore. The legal market has out competed the organized crime organizations that grew up in order to sell illegal alcohol. Brian Keating:You&#8217;re the second economist to come on who&#8217;s written a book that has, you know, brothel or prostitution in the]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8282" class="elementor elementor-8282" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-5e2367b0 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="5e2367b0" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-08e5ad1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="08e5ad1" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Nobel Economist: The Market That Lets People Die</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-3ea0f9c5 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="3ea0f9c5" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />A Nobel winning economist will tell you why you can buy heroin on any corner, but you can&#8217;t hire a killer. And why that same logic means people are dying who don&#8217;t have to.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Why is it so easy to buy drugs, but so hard to hire a hitman? We forbid, as most countries do, any effort to pay kidney donors. In Canada and in Britain, surrogacy isn&#8217;t illegal, but it&#8217;s illegal to pay a surrogate. People who need surrogacy service come to California, but they have no trouble bringing their babies back because parental rights in surrogacy are recognized. Recognized.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My guest today won the Nobel Prize in Economics for designing the systems that match kidney donors to patients. What he told me about the markets we&#8217;re not allowed to have is going to make some of you uncomfortable and quite frankly, angry.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You&#8217;re the first person I&#8217;ve ever had on the podcast who has been called an organ trafficker. But explain how that came about.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, I talk about controversial transactions. And one of the things that my colleagues and I have helped medical professionals do is organize what&#8217;s called kidney exchange. And kidney exchange, which we can talk about more, is a way of getting more living donor transplants than could otherwise be gotten. And that&#8217;s important because there&#8217;s a real shortage of transplants. The rate of kidney failure in the United States is at about 130,000 people a year, but we do fewer than 30,000 transplants a year. So it&#8217;s important to get more transplants. And we do this in a way that the US Congress didn&#8217;t find repugnant. They unanimously amended the National Organ Transplant act to affirm that kidney exchange is legal in the United States, but not everyone is equally happy with it.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And one of the funny things about transplant dogma in the world is that countries should be self sufficient in transplantation. And one of the things about kidney exchange is it needs big groups of patient donor pairs to work efficiently. And so, for example, I went to the United Arab Emirates for the first kidney exchange between the UAE and Israel. But the lady who calls me an organ trafficker thinks that countries should be self sufficient in transplants.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />One of the things that I never really appreciated as explicitly as you make it in the book is sort of the unintended consequences of many economic actions that then have both political and economic and social ramifications. Can you explain the relationship between bans and black markets?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So one of the themes of the book is that to work well, markets need social support, and to work well, bans on markets also need social support. So often what I&#8217;m talking about in the book are transactions that some people would like to engage in and other people think shouldn&#8217;t be allowed. And when you ban something that some people would like to engage in, often you&#8217;re going to find that they try to find ways to work around the ban. And one way to work around the ban is to find a another jurisdiction where the transaction you want to engage in is legal. A different way to work around a ban is to find people who are willing to violate the ban and commit criminal acts in order to further the kind of transaction that you&#8217;re interested in.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If you have a ban that protects moral purity, but then it creates a black market, I mean, that ends up hurting people, how do we judge if that&#8217;s truly moral?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, one of the themes in the book is I think we have to judge the morality of the bans we make and the markets we support, not just by our intentions, but by the consequences. So one of the questions I ask in the book is why is it so easy to buy drugs but so hard to hire a hitman? And what I mean by that is we have in the United States, we have bans on commercial murders. When we find hitmen, we put them in prison for as long as we can, and when we find heroin dealers, we put them in prison for as long as we can. But those two bans have had very different effects. There&#8217;s almost no commercial killing in the United States. It doesn&#8217;t make it into the national crime statistics. But heroin is readily available in the United States. And we have not only lots of dealers and addicts, but many overdose deaths every year, many more than we have homicides of any sort.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So the two very similar kinds of bans catch them and imprison them, have very different effect. So I think we&#8217;re doing fine on hitmen. We should. We should keep it up. We don&#8217;t need hitmen, and we don&#8217;t have them. But we&#8217;re not doing fine on heroin. We have a lot of heroin, and we ought to be experimenting with ways to reduce the harm that it does. If we can&#8217;t, even if we can&#8217;t ban it as thoroughly as we would like to.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And of course, the United States has some experience with this from Prohibition. In the 1920s and early 30s, we tried to ban the production and sale of most alcoholic beverages, and that didn&#8217;t work well. And so after amending the constitution to institute prohibition, we re amended it to end prohibition. And ending prohibition on alcohol hasn&#8217;t solved the problem of alcohol. There are still alcoholics and drunk drivers, but you can&#8217;t buy whiskey from gangsters anymore. The legal market has out competed the organized crime organizations that grew up in order to sell illegal alcohol.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You&#8217;re the second economist to come on who&#8217;s written a book that has, you know, brothel or prostitution in the title. Allison playing on her, her last name. But, but she wrote a book called An Economist Walks into a Brothel. And it makes me think that in America we prohibited the sale and, and, and manufacture of alcohol. That was nationwide. But we have a lot of, you know, cantons and you know, kind of broken up districts and, and not just purely federal law. We have, you know, legal prostitution in, in Las Vegas, as I understand. I don&#8217;t have any walked into a brothel.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My, you know, physicists don&#8217;t walk into brothels maybe as much.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So just incidentally, prostitution isn&#8217;t legal in Las Vegas, but it is legal in some rural counties in Nevada.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Ah, okay, good, good. Okay, so Vegas. That&#8217;s right. Okay. So it shows you how little I know about prostitution.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Now, the fact that it&#8217;s not legal doesn&#8217;t mean that there&#8217;s no prostitution in Las Vegas.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Exactly. That, that is certainly the case. So. But my bigger point is that like with taxes, like estate taxes here in California we have, you know, billionaires tax that&#8217;s being proposed. I&#8217;ll get your impression about that maybe later. But you can move to Florida, right? So you can move to Texas. You can do all sor sorts of things in contradistinction to the ban on alcohol, which is nationwide, as I recall. So is that possibly enforceable when morality can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to have an effective ban that will actually work in the real world, if ever?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, it&#8217;s hard to ban things that some people very much want to have. So during Prohibition, fat in the hall, there was production in the United States. There were illegal stills. And nascar, the, the Stock Car Racing association in their museum has a still because some of their folk heroes are people who had cars that looked ordinary but were tricked out to carry alcohol and go very fast so that they could outrun policemen. And also Canada used to continue to export spirits. So it was very hard to both stop the import from Canada and the production in the hills by the light of the moon of moonshine whiskey. And that&#8217;s true. Generally.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />The, you know, one of the markets that I write about is the market for surrogacy. Right. So, so in California, where you and I live, and throughout the United States, it&#8217;s legal to hire someone to bear a baby for you. And in California, if you and your spouse, say, need the help of a surrogate, the California birth certificate will list you as the mother and father on the. On the birth certificate. And there&#8217;s no problem bringing the baby home or anything like that. But in most of Western Europe, surrogacy is illegal. And it&#8217;s illegal because when you read the statements that go along with the laws that make it illegal, they think it&#8217;s undignified and inappropriate for women to be treated as commodities, which they think surrogacy does.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So surrogacy is banned in most of Western Europe. But of course, when you have a ban that is porous, when you have a ban that people are looking for ways around, they may find them. And in the case of surrogacy, when you have a ban that doesn&#8217;t work as well as you would like, it means they&#8217;re going to be babies and the babies have to be brought home. So while the constitutional courts in Germany and Spain and France say surrogacy is illegal, the family courts have to do the thing that family courts always do, which is decide with whom should this baby go home? And the natural decision is, why don&#8217;t we send her home with her parents, and how should we do that? And the answer is, in Western Europe, the family courts have. Have pioneered ways for surrogate parents to adopt their own children so that they become the legal parents in a place where surrogacy is illegal. So, you know, the laws against surrogacy are often phrased as, we&#8217;re trying to protect vulnerable people, and the vulnerable people are women who might be tempted to become surrogates. But of course, no one is more vulnerable than a newborn baby. So if you&#8217;re interested in protecting vulnerable people, you have to take account of the fact that this ban is going to be porous.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So you ask a lot of uncomfortable questions in this book, but they&#8217;re done in a very provocative and endearing way, I have to say. It&#8217;s very easy to read this book, but it&#8217;s not the topic selection you talk quite frequently. And the core of this book is about repugnant transactions. So first, could you define that for us, please?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />I talk about controversial markets generally, but one kind of controversial market is one that involves repugnant transactions, by which I mean transactions that some people want to engage in, other people think shouldn&#8217;t be allowed and have the property that the harms to the people who think it shouldn&#8217;t be allowed aren&#8217;t easily Measurable. So often the objections to a repugnant transaction are based on moral or religious arguments. So for example, same sex marriage is that kind of repugnant transaction in the sense that some people very much want to engage in it. Other people who aren&#8217;t involved directly in any way don&#8217;t think it should be allowed. And it&#8217;s a transaction that the people who object to it can&#8217;t even tell has happened unless someone tells them. That&#8217;s why people wear wedding rings to let you know that they&#8217;re married, because you can&#8217;t tell by looking at people whether they&#8217;re married or not.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />When I think about things that are repugnant versus disgusting, like I hate fish, if it were up to me, we&#8217;d ban gefilte fish and herring and all sorts of things that many of my friends engage in or driving slow in the left lane. Al, if you had a magic wand, what kind of thing that&#8217;s disgusting maybe, but not repugnant. What would you like to ban and just wipe away?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, so disgusting things we don&#8217;t have to worry about banning normally, because disgust. One way of thinking about disgust is it&#8217;s a more or less universal reaction to, maybe to things that could cause you to have infections. So, you know, human fluids and things like that. There&#8217;s no law against serving drinks in, in California restaurants that are made of spit. But there is a law in California against serving horse meat for people to eat. Because in 1998 we passed a referendum making it a felony to, to sell horse meat for human consumption. And, and of course it&#8217;s not because no one wants to eat horse meat. On the contrary, it&#8217;s precisely because some people want to eat horse meat and other people don&#8217;t want them to.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So what would I ban? The things that I don&#8217;t like often don&#8217;t have to be banned, right? There&#8217;s no law against eating cockroaches, but no one&#8217;s eating cockroaches. People driving slowly in the left lane has a negative externality, right? They interfere with traffic. So that&#8217;s not what I&#8217;m worried about in this book. Those are markets that economists know a lot about. If I built a discotheque next to your house that partied all night, that would harm your enjoyment of your house. And that&#8217;s why we have zoning laws that probably say that you live in a neighborhood zoned for residences. But it&#8217;s easy to understand why you don&#8217;t want a discotheque next to your house. It would harm you.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />It&#8217;s harder to Understand, but needs to be understood why some people don&#8217;t like same sex marriage or don&#8217;t like plasma donors to be paid or don&#8217;t like surrogates to be paid. Right. So I already mentioned that in Western Europe surrogacy is illegal. But in Canada and in Britain surrogacy isn&#8217;t illegal, but it&#8217;s illegal to pay a surrogate. So there aren&#8217;t so many surrogates in, in Britain and Canada. And people who need surrogacy service from Canada and Britain come to also come to California. But they have no trouble bringing their babies back because parental rights in surrogacy are recognized in, in Canada and Britain. But that&#8217;s a case where something that&#8217;s legal becomes illegal when you add money.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And that&#8217;s an interesting category of repugnant transactions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So it made me think of the famous paradox in physics as experimental physicist, I think of everything through physics, but sort of Schrodinger&#8217;s cat. It&#8217;s sort of this observer dependent phenomenon. And so I ask you who does it matter that the transaction be repugnant to the participants or the observer society?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So again, I&#8217;m using repugnance in sort of a technical way. So the participants in a repugnant transaction want the transaction. They&#8217;re not repulsed by it. They, they are eager for it. Like same sex marriage, like surrogacy, incidentally, prostitution is one of those transactions that adding money to the transaction, that&#8217;s what turns sex into prostitution.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, how do we wait and balance a democratic process? Do we vote on it? Do we rely on religious figures to decide for us?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, so in the United States we vote on some of these things. We elect legislators who create legislation about some of these things. And many, many of the morally contested transactions that I talk about in my book have made their way to the Supreme Court. Same sex marriage, interracial marriage. Whether contraception can be banned in the state of Connecticut, that was the case of Griswold versus Connecticut in the 1960s. I&#8217;m anticipating that we&#8217;re going to see a Supreme Court appeal to the, to the many states that are now allowing medical aid and dying. So as a democracy with courts, we, we do things politically and legally.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Can religious kind of overtones, can they corrupt markets? Is it possible to have something that both buyer and seller are interested in? Society is sort of okay with. But some religious phenomena maybe baked into the, you know, overarching DNA or framework of the country or principality that can supersede is ultimately the halo on your book cover is that the final arbiter?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, I think the halo was designed to show that we&#8217;re on the side of the angels. But religion affects certainly what people think should be allowed and not so. I mentioned medical aid in dying, which come September when legal medical aid in dying goes into effect in Illinois and in New York, more than a third of Americans are going to live in states that have legal medical aid and dying. But of course that&#8217;s especially when we think about death. Americans also bring up religious thoughts of various sorts. And so many, many of the objections to medical aid and dying, by no means all of them, but many of the objections are phrased in terms of religious objections. I think the same thing was true of same sex marriage. Abortion is a subject that many people rely on, on religious intuitions about human life and when it begins.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So yeah, I think that religious intuitions inform a lot of what we&#8217;re talking about when we talk about morally contested markets.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And now Professor Roth is about to turn that same scalpel on something closer to home for both of us, the university system.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s take a brief detour into a favorite subject of mine and possibly yours, academia. I want to talk about the morality, moral issues that come up in academia. So the first one is I was a postdoc at Stanford in 1999, but I remember the tuition then was about, I think it was about 12 or $13,000 a year and I think it&#8217;s now 40. Yeah, tuition&#8217;s outpaced inflation you dramatically so. And the students there get a lot of financial aid. Sanford&#8217;s one of the, you know, finest educational institutions in the world. And they also are quite generous, but they&#8217;re not completely generous.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, there is sort of a moral question that I have is, is it okay that you charge such high tuitions knowing that so many people will get a tuition reimbursed, but that it&#8217;s outpacing inflation for the families that can quote unquote afford it? Is that a moral transaction that parents really have no choice with? I mean, if my kid gets into Stanford, it&#8217;s going to be hard to convince him or her not to not to go there. So what, what are the moral around academia today?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />You and I will agree on moral issues, but I&#8217;m not sure that pricing is one of them. Let&#8217;s think not about Stanford, but about University of California, which is a taxpayer supported institution. So that starts to get more into these questions of democracy and equality. And I don&#8217;t know what the tuition is at University of California. I&#8217;m sure, it&#8217;s cheaper than Stanford cheap,</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />but out of state it&#8217;s not.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />But also, I&#8217;m sure that they give lots of financial aid. So. So let&#8217;s consider the alternative, which is that the University of California should decide to be free. If University of California were free, then we taxpayers would be paying for the education of everyone who goes to the University of California when it&#8217;s not free. So that would be a subsidy for the rich, because the rich are the ones now paying the full tuition and less prosperous families get lots of financial aid. So the question is, do we want to use our tax dollars to subsidize the rich, and is it immoral not to. I&#8217;m rephrasing your question in a tough way. And there&#8217;s part of our current political establishment in the United States that seems to believe that it is immoral not to subsidize the rich and we should use tax policy to subsidize the rich.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And I&#8217;m not sure that that&#8217;s the only moral position about taxes. So when you look at University of California and you say they charge a lot to people who can afford it, I&#8217;m not sure that&#8217;s a bad thing. I mean, having people who can afford it pay for what they want and subsidizing people who can&#8217;t afford it seems like it might to me, like it might be a good use of our tax policy.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, obviously, there&#8217;s, I think, one of the biggest sources of debt, you know, in the country is student debt. So it&#8217;s not all free. And also it&#8217;s the only form of debt that can&#8217;t be discharged in bankruptcy, as I understand it. What about the moral and ethical issues raised by that? It&#8217;s like singled out. If there was a, you know, there&#8217;s a tax on golf clubs, and if you spend too much on golf balls like I do, I lose too many to my son, which will hopefully go to Stanford and play in the golf team there. And I can&#8217;t discharge it. And if I don&#8217;t pay it, it&#8217;s 30% interest rate, like vigorous. So what about that, that you can&#8217;t discharge it in bankruptcy? What does that do to young people who are scarcely really able, in many cases, to understand the contract they&#8217;re entering into at age 18?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Okay, so those are two separate questions. The question about being able to understand contracts and what it means to have informed consent. I think there are a lot of things we could talk about there, but I&#8217;m not an expert on bankruptcy law. And so I&#8217;m neither licensed to practice law in California, nor is that the part of economics that I study. But my understanding is that after you declare bankruptcy, there&#8217;s some period of time in which you can&#8217;t declare bankruptcy again. And that&#8217;s not meant to penalize you. That&#8217;s meant to make you credit worthy. That is, if you&#8217;re someone who declared bankruptcy, you might find that you have trouble getting a loan to restart your business, to start a different business.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />But your creditors are protected from that by the bankruptcy law, which says you&#8217;ll have to repay these debts at least for a while. And I think that&#8217;s the thought behind making student loans not subject to bankruptcy. People who are 18 years old and about to go to college don&#8217;t have great credit ratings. So you can easily imagine that they would find loans unavailable if on graduating from college, they could discover that they were bankrupt. All they had was debts. But I think the intention of making student loans not bankruptible is to allow people to get student loans even when they don&#8217;t have any collateral.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that&#8217;s part of the spine of the book. You talk about how these, you know, exceptions aren&#8217;t really exceptions or taboos necessarily alone. They&#8217;re diagnostics. They&#8217;re really sharp tests that when you see horse meat being banned, like you said, I, you know, I&#8217;ve never come across my, you know, my neighbor&#8217;s horse and, you know, coveted it for lunch. Right. But there must be people that do or else it wouldn&#8217;t be needing to be banned. But before we move back to the, to the spine of the book, again, there&#8217;s another phenomenon that relates to college, which is differential preparation before you go to college. So California banned the SAT as admission.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And part of the rationale was, well, poor families can&#8217;t spend time in preparation and go to the Princeton Review or any of these things that, that parents use. It remind me of the, the Varsity Blue scandal from about eight or nine years ago, where these Hollywood families, some of which were married to hedge fund, you know, and, and venture capitalists, you know, paid, paid a lot of money for college coaching that got them into the school. That wasn&#8217;t the kid&#8217;s choice. The kid wanted to go to some, you know, like art school, and the parents wanted her to go to usc, and that&#8217;s where she ended up going. But there was a great controversy about the legitimacy or morality of these, these college coaches and so forth. And it made me think of what just happened recently. There was a athletic competition called the Enhanced Games. Did you hear about that? So what do you make of that, because you talk about performance enhancement and now they&#8217;ve kind of taken it to this extreme, you know, now you can only participate if you&#8217;re doing RO or whatever they&#8217;re doing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So what did you make of this competition? Did it fascinate you as it did me as an economist?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, I think it evolved a lot into something very different than it may have originally been intended to be, because I think it ended up being a marketing platform for nutritional supplements and things like that. So it was pretty shady in the end. And indeed, they didn&#8217;t get the athletes who with the help of drugs, could break world records. They had a swimmer who used a full body suit that&#8217;s disallowed in the sport as being maybe a too expensive barrier to entry for many, many swimmers. But let&#8217;s talk a little about performance enhancement because I think sports have lots of reasons to ban performance enhancing drugs of various sorts because they want competition to be on a level playing field. So if you watch the Tour de France, you have the opportunity to each year see the first clean Tour de France, the first Tour de France that hasn&#8217;t used any drugs. And we just had Batlon, the first. And in previous years we had the first until the drug testing regimes caught up with the performance enhancing regimes.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And then we discovered that some of the medalists had used performance enhancing drugs that they weren&#8217;t allowed to. So I have no quarrel with sports making the rules that it wants. That&#8217;s what you know. You can&#8217;t bring a tennis racket to a ping pong tournament. But in general, performance enhancement is something that we should be interested in as progress in medicine. Right? So this morning I had a cup of coffee and no one thinks poorly of me for that. Every now and then I don&#8217;t drink coffee for a day or two and I have slight withdrawal effects. But it helps me start the day, it helps keep me alert.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And a lot of science goes on over coffee. I think we wouldn&#8217;t have any science if we didn&#8217;t have coffee. And it&#8217;s a performance enhancing drug, but we, we treat it as part of our nutrition, not a way to get ahead of your other physicists. So I&#8217;d be glad to have more safe performance enhancing drugs. One thing I see in the world when I talk to undergraduates, I ask them, do they know anyone who uses Adderall or Ritalin when they&#8217;re studying for exams? And to a man and a woman, they say, well, they don&#8217;t use it themselves, but they know lots of people who do. Adderall is a drug prescribed for children who have attention deficit disorder. And it&#8217;s gone through clinical trials and it&#8217;s pretty safe. We give it to 9 year olds so that they don&#8217;t fidget in class.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So I&#8217;m guessing that some part of that it&#8217;s a cocktail of amphetamines of some sort might be useful for you doing your work or me doing my work. And it&#8217;s one thing to say when you&#8217;re about to get on your bicycle for a bicycle race, you&#8217;re not allowed to use it. But it&#8217;s another thing to say that we would reject a new subatomic particle if it had been discovered by someone who was on Adderall, or a new mathematical theorem, or a cancer cure, or peace negotiations in the Middle east if it had been done after 36 hours of unslept negotiation. And of course, truck drivers and other people use amphetamines in ways that may or may not be harmful for their health. So I regret that a lot of medical science associated with performance enhancing drugs is devoted to making them undetectable in athletic contests rather than to fully exploring, can you take these things when you&#8217;re young and not have congestive heart failure when you&#8217;re middle aged? Things like that that would help us bring more performance enhancement into our nutrition?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />No.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It is funny that you mentioned the coffee and then also drugs. There&#8217;s a famous mathematician you might know, Erdos, who said that a mathematician is a machine that converts coffee to theore. But he also was addicted to methamphetamine. And one day his colleague, not Terry Tao, who I had on the podcast not too long ago, but an older colleague of his implored and begged him, you got to stop doing amphetamines. He said, I can stop anytime I want. And then his colleague said, okay, fine, so stop for a month. And he did. He stopped for a month and he came back to his colleague&#8217;s door and knocked on it at Princeton and said, congratulations, you&#8217;ve set back mathematics for a month.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />He couldn&#8217;t prove theorems as well when he wasn&#8217;t on meth. I gave a talk in Hungary and I, I mentioned Erdos and coffee, and they corrected me. They said that that quote is attributed to Erdos, but it&#8217;s actually due to Renyi. Right? A lot of mathematics was Erdos and Renyi. And apparently the coffee comment is due to Reni.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Also, I wonder what people&#8217;s Reny number is, because it&#8217;s the Erdos number that gets all. And then there&#8217;s the Erds Bacon number. If you&#8217;ve been in a movie about, you know, with Kevin Bacon, I found fascinating that, you know, doing some research. I think it&#8217;s true that you trained as an operations in operations research, which is more akin to, we used to call that industrial engineering or operations engineering. And that&#8217;s very different from, say, Guido Mbens or other people that I&#8217;ve talked to on the podcast in Economics, in that it&#8217;s sort of more experimental physics like my audience might be used to. So when you&#8217;re doing the type of work that you do, what do you view as your lab and what do you view as an experiment? Is there sort of that notion from your operations research?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So I&#8217;ve been associated with market design, but also with experimental economics, and economists now do experiments. So just incidentally, my most recently published experiment in PNAS also drew some repugnance. It was an experiment with a field experiment with the economics job market, the job market for new PhDs. And we had noticed that lots of people who have social media accounts tweet the job market papers of their students. And one question was, does this have an effect on the job market success of their students? And does it have therefore an uneven effect on the job market? If your advisor is a social media influencer, does that help your job market? We invited everyone on the job market, all the new PhDs on the job market, to come to a Twitter site that they organized to tweet their job market papers. And then we did an experiment where some of them and not others were retweeted. And we looked at the different effect on the job market. And we found that to be tweeted and retweeted was good for women candidates.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And women are sort of underrepresented in the economic academic market. But some people objected to our doing that because they said, you&#8217;re, you&#8217;re helping these women, it turns out. But truly that comes at the cost of someone else. And our feeling is, is complicated about that. I mean, we, we thought about it a lot beforehand and we talk about it a lot in the published paper. First of all, it&#8217;s that job markets and other markets aren&#8217;t zero sum. When you make good matches, you can make the market work better and make people better off. Also, so many jobs aren&#8217;t filled in a given season.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />It&#8217;s hard to find the people who you want and interview them and make offers to them that they accept because often a lot of attention is focused on the same people. So the people you make offers to get other offers and might accept the other offers. So we think that there&#8217;s lots of positive gains, not just redistribution of jobs. That&#8217;s an experiment. That is, we had randomized controls, we could measure the effects. And it had some moral objections to it. Some people thought you shouldn&#8217;t be experimenting on economists, and other people thought you shouldn&#8217;t be experimenting in a job market. But in fact, economists do a lot of experiments now.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And a Nobel Prize a few years ago went to Michael Kramer and Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo for experiments in development policy. That is, if you&#8217;re trying to get insecticide treated mosquito nets distributed in some country in Africa, you can&#8217;t distribute them at the same time to all the villages. So you can randomize which ones you try to distribute them to one way and which one some other way and then see which works better. So that won a Nobel Prize. I mean, the idea of using experiments to help evaluate policy not just by their intentions, but by their outcomes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, it brought up a lot of questions in my mind. Some of these issues in the book that reminded me of, like, different types of equilibria and stability in matching. How does that come about? And you could be technical, talk about the different forms of equilibria and stability and perturbations that arise in the types of matching experiments that you talk about in the book. So could you explain the role that these concepts from thermodynamics or from Nash or other domains, how do they come into play in the research that you do?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Okay, so economists talk a lot about equilibrium, but not as much as we should about equilibration, about how we get to equilibrium. Physicists probably have that problem a little bit too. You know, you can tell when something is stable when you drop a ball into a hole. It&#8217;s stable when it comes to rest at the bottom of the hole. But there&#8217;s a lot of motion beforehand if it&#8217;s a bouncy ball. So often we have some idea what a good equilibrium would look like, but not how to get there. And one of the things we&#8217;re seeing, and we&#8217;re going to see again with AI, but one of the things we&#8217;re seeing, say with computerization of markets, is that it becomes cheaper to make applications for jobs for college positions, college admissions. It becomes cheaper to make applications faster than it becomes cheaper to evaluate those applications.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So lots of job ads get many, many responses, and it&#8217;s hard to decide who to interview. Lots of college admissions offices get many, many applications, and it&#8217;s hard to decide who to admit, who to make offers to, who to put on the waiting list. And so that&#8217;s a problem common to many markets that we call congestion. There&#8217;s more things you have to evaluate than time. You have to evaluate it. And so one of the ways we can sometimes deal with that in this age of computerization is we can try to make it cheaper, not just to make applications, but to process them. I&#8217;ve done work of that sort of in the labor market for new doctors, done work of that sort in trying to promote kidney transplants through kidney exchange. So we&#8217;re now in a world before AI.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />This is we&#8217;re now in a world of smart markets, markets where the marketplace itself can do some computations to help the market reach equilibrium. So that&#8217;s a little bit how market design interacts with equilibration.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What is the role of the non experimentally subjectible quantities like trust or belief, things that you really can&#8217;t quantify. What are the roles of trust play in markets?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, a lot of markets involve a great deal of trust. If you sell me 5,000 bushels of wheat, I have to expect that they&#8217;ll arrive if they have a date of arrival, or that I can sell them on a market if I want to sell them before they arrive. If we were dealing in a futures market when the Berlin Wall fell, it was a little hard to spark commerce between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, because in Western Europe, as in the United States, lots of contracts were payable 60 days after the invoice. So I want to buy a ton of ball bearings from you, you send me the ball bearings and an invoice and then 60 days later I pay you. But in Eastern Europe it was customary that I pay you first and then you send me the ball bearings. And so there were these questions of trust. Can we really send you money for ball bearings before we&#8217;ve seen if your ball bearings are round enough? Can you really send us ball bearings without knowing we&#8217;re really going to pay you? Those different concepts had built up across the two sides of the Berlin Wall, made it very hard to start commerce going, because trust had different features on the two sides.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I remember people saying that the euro is going to fail because even in east and West Germany, these are relatives and they didn&#8217;t trust each other. Not just from West Europe and East Europe. Actually German, they were all Germans and they were artificially divided from.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />But the divide in Germany was a pretty serious divide. They had reason not to trust each other.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Were you surprised that the euro has so far Succeeded?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />No, I&#8217;m not a monetary economist, so I don&#8217;t have a deep professional insight into that. It makes a lot of sense. It has some drawbacks, but we have the dollar throughout the United States and it succeeds. And it has some drawbacks. When there&#8217;s high unemployment in Mississippi, they can&#8217;t devalue the Mississippi dollar to make Mississippi products cheaper. They&#8217;re stuck with having the same dollar as the rest of us. On the other hand, when you cross into Mississippi or out of it, you don&#8217;t have to change money. So commerce goes smoothly throughout the United States.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So we already had examples of continent wide currencies and it was a little funny for Europe to always have very different currencies wherever you went.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Have you ever seen something that seemed elegant with respect to market design but that society rejected?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, you know, we can talk about organ trafficking again. We have a real shortage of kidneys for transplant. I think I mentioned that there&#8217;s 130,000 new cases of kidney failure each year in the US but fewer than 30,000 transplants. About 22,000 of those transplants come from deceased donors and about not quite 7,000 of them come from living donors. Kidneys are a little bit special in that that living donors have two kidneys and can remain healthy with one. So if someone you love was dying of kidney failure, you might be able to save their life, but there aren&#8217;t enough donors. So if you potentially have kidney disease yourself, you might not be able to donate to who you want. One question that economists ask when you see thousands and thousands of people waiting for a deceased donor kidney is when you see long lines.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Maybe prices aren&#8217;t being used to increase supply. And that&#8217;s definitely the case in the U.S. we forbid, as most countries do, any effort to pay kidney donors. But it seems to me, and to many people that we should try to be flexible on that score because there are thousands and thousands of deaths every year because there&#8217;s a shortage of kidneys.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, what about the converse were something that society accepted, but that was horribly inelegant and hideous to you? As a professional economist, I&#8217;m a great believer in evidence.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />You see what works and you try to judge your policies on their consequences and not just their intents. So we talked earlier about heroin and there are lots of efforts to eliminate heroin, but those haven&#8217;t been successful. And there are efforts to reduce its harm. And part of the harm that heroin does has to do with the fact that it&#8217;s a crime and that people get arrested and communities get disrupted. And so some American cities and then some Western European countries have started to experiment with decriminalizing the use of small amounts of all sorts of drugs, you know, including heroin. And that has a certain elegance to it. But it turns out that, you know, not only are we losing the war on drugs, but it won&#8217;t even accept our surrender. In cities like Portland, Oregon, where they briefly decriminalized open air use of drugs, they discovered that that has bad effects on the city, that having hypodermic needles on the ground near where your children play is not a good thing.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So they&#8217;ve started to recriminalize some of that. And I don&#8217;t think we have any good answers yet about how to reduce the harms that we&#8217;re suffering from illegal drug use. But that&#8217;s all the more reason why we should be experimenting. And in the United States and Canada and elsewhere, often the cities have been the laboratories of democracy. So one harm reduction adaptation that has, has now come into wide use despite being vigorously opposed, is clean needle exchange. That is one of the problems with intravenous drug use is not just addiction and crime, but hepatitis and aids. And when you make available clean needles, the transmission of AIDS and hepatitis goes way down. So I think that&#8217;s been a success.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />That is, we hate drug use. We wish there were none, but we also hate overdose deaths and hepatitis deaths and AIDS deaths. So I think that&#8217;s been a good thing. And there are other experiments going on, like safe injection sites that people can inject their drugs with someone watching them, you know, a nurse on duty, so that if they lose consciousness they won&#8217;t die. And similarly, you know, a lot of drugs accessed from criminals are laced with fentanyl, which is cheaper than heroin, but it means you have no idea what dose you&#8217;re getting. So if you&#8217;re a heroin user who is used to injecting a certain amount, you can kill yourself. So there are cities where you can test your drugs for fentanyl. These are illegal drugs, but you should know maybe whether there&#8217;s fentanyl, whether it&#8217;s relatively safe for you to take.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And these are real half measures. That is, they don&#8217;t satisfy our urge that there should be no heroin. But we&#8217;ve worked really hard for a long time that there should be no heroin and there&#8217;s still heroin. So. So I&#8217;m in favor of thinking about harm reduction.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Thomas Sowell says something like, there&#8217;s no solutions, there&#8217;s just trade offs. And in the book, you describe this very interesting style of really philosophical and intellectual debate which is called a McCormick style trade off statement. What is that? And how could it improve the public debate around contentious issues?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Okay, so Frank McCormick is someone who&#8217;s done a lot, an economist who&#8217;s done a lot of work, work on the costs of transplantation versus dialysis and on the savings that would be accrued from making transplants more available. That is not just the lives saved, but the fact that we could afford to save these lives even if it were expensive, because dialysis is so expensive and Medicare pays for most dialysis. So end stage kidney disease is, is 7% of the Medicare budget and $55 billion a year. And almost all of that is on dialysis. But when you transplant someone, they come off dialysis. So McCormick, a lot of his work, McCormick&#8217;s work is not only might it be the right thing to pay kidney donors, but we could afford it. But what he says is, he says, of course some people disagree with that, but mostly they disagree by saying, I think it&#8217;s wrong, let&#8217;s not do it. And, and what he would like them to make is what I called in the book, a McCormick statement, which says, although I understand that tens of thousands of people are dying each year in the United States, nevertheless I think that paying kidney donors is so wrong that we should accept that death toll.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And here are my reasons. And so what he wants is that people should acknowledge that there are trade offs for prostitution.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, how would that work? I mean, would you say I acknowledge that men will go ungratified or something like, yes, you can say there&#8217;ll be women that will have money, maybe, perhaps. And it should be noted there are male prostitutes as well. So maybe I shouldn&#8217;t restrict myself only to a female. But how could that be employed in this McCormick like style?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So prostitution is complicated. It&#8217;s against the law in many places, not in every place. I once gave a talk in Germany about morally contested transactions and I used three examples. Prostitution, kidney exchange and surrogacy. And the reason that was a good thing for an American to talk about in Berlin is the German laws are exactly the opposite of the American laws. The only one of those three that is legal in Germany is prostitution. Surrogacy and kidney exchange were illegal when I spoke kidney exchanges. Presently they&#8217;re trying to push forward a law that would allow that.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />But the problem with prostitution is multiple. And partly it has to do with the fact that there are both voluntary sex workers engaged in prostitution and trafficked women and children who are also objects of the prostitution market. But aren&#8217;t willing objects. So let&#8217;s think about those separately. We&#8217;re not helping voluntary sex workers by making them criminals. It turns out that outdoor prostitution, outdoor sex work, street walking, it&#8217;s one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. At the level of homicides, it&#8217;s dangerous to be a prostitute. And so there are places like the Netherlands where they&#8217;ve licensed prostitutes, legal prostitutes, but by licensing them, they&#8217;re trying to make sure that they&#8217;re not trafficked, that they&#8217;re voluntary sex workers.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />They check their immigration status, status, they check various things in different cities in the Netherlands. So that&#8217;s one set of experiments. Now, if you were to legalize prostitution, you would enlarge the market for prostitution. The risk of patronizing a prostitute would be less. And so there&#8217;s the question of is legalizing prostitution a complement or a substitute for trafficked women and children? You wouldn&#8217;t want to increase the scope of trafficking in women and children. One of the things I talk about in the book is a proposal by my colleague Petra Pearson, who says, let&#8217;s try, try, maybe let&#8217;s experiment with a combination of what they do in the Netherlands, which is licensing prostitutes, and in the Nordic countries, Norway and Sweden, where they&#8217;ve shifted the criminal burden. They&#8217;ve legalized the selling of sex, but criminalized the buying of sex. And that turns out not to be that popular among people who represent sex workers in Sweden, because as I said, sex work is dangerous, especially on the street sex work and the way way sex workers try to cope with the danger and mitigate it is by flirting.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />That is, you know, someone stops the car, rolls down the window and starts a conversation about maybe you&#8217;d like to get in my car and deliver sexual services at wherever we go. When you have a customer and by talking to the driver, they can try to determine whether he&#8217;s a crazy person. But if it&#8217;s a crime for the driver to be talking to them, the drivers don&#8217;t want to flirt, they don&#8217;t want chit chat. They want, you know, to get in the car right away. And that makes the job more dangerous. Petra Pearson&#8217;s proposal, which I like, I&#8217;d like to see it experimented in Las Vegas, for example, is why don&#8217;t we license voluntary sex workers and have them. Part of that is discussions with social workers to make sure they&#8217;re voluntary sex workers and health inspections and all those good licensing things and make it a crime to engage with an unlicensed prostitute. And the idea there is to make the voluntary part of sex work Safer and to shrink the trafficking part.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And I don&#8217;t know if that would work, but I could easily see how it could be implemented in Las Vegas, where, although prostitution isn&#8217;t now legal in Las Vegas county, it is legal in other counties in Nevada. So it shouldn&#8217;t be a tremendous reach for the Nevada legislature to allow that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s a portion where you mentioned that we can agree to disagree. And it made me think of a colleague or, you know, a fellow Nobel laureate named Oman, I think. Is his name Bob Omah?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Yes, sir.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Who said that you actually can&#8217;t agree to disagree. And so if you can&#8217;t agree to disagree, because no rational agent with the same Bayesian priors can come to a disagreement rationally. Okay, we&#8217;re not all rational actors, I&#8217;m sure. But how does that, you know, complicate the search for the pot of gold at the end of the McCormick rainbow? I mean, is that not going to really throw a spanner in the works, as they say?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Saying, that&#8217;s a great paper that Bob Ollman wrote, but it depends, as mathematical theorems do, on its assumptions. And the assumptions are that we have common knowledge of the same prior beliefs and that we&#8217;re just updating our beliefs based on new information as Bayesian decision makers do. So, in fact, the reason that&#8217;s a great title for the paper is it&#8217;s got this very counterintuitive conclusion because we all know that we can disagree. What he meant is under very idealized circumstances about very special kinds of disagreement, we wouldn&#8217;t be able to disagree. There&#8217;s another paper in that line called we can&#8217;t disagree forever, but we can disagree for a long time and maybe forever. And so what I say in the book is these are issues on which we&#8217;re not going to reach consensus. Right. There are some people whose objection to prostitution is that they object to sex outside of marriage of any sort, and maybe they think.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Think that God disapproves of that. And if that&#8217;s what they think, then they&#8217;re never going to vote for legislation that might make sex work less dangerous for voluntary sex workers. But it used to be, it maybe still is in many places, that the people who see themselves as representing the interests of voluntary sex workers often feel like they&#8217;re opposed by the people who feel they&#8217;re representing the interest of trafficked women and children, because on one side they&#8217;re willing to tolerate that the market would get bigger if it got safer, and on the other hand, they&#8217;re not willing to tolerate that it should get bigger. But the nice thing about this hybrid Dutch, Swedish proposal is it could potentially gather support from both parts. That is, it&#8217;s intended to make voluntary sex work safer while shrinking the role of trafficked women and children. And so you can start to think about forming political coalitions, doing what democracies do to make sex work less dangerous. Since we&#8217;ve failed pretty much everywhere in the world at go away, we can make it illegal. But I don&#8217;t know of any society that is completely free of prostitution.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You open the book with another fellow laureate, Danny Kahneman, who chose medical aid and Dying two years ago. Exactly. I think in March you use that to kind of examine autonomy and law and the different roles of morality and variability with geography. But I want to ask you, what do you think? Who should control the end of a life? Who should have the most say over it? The individual, the state, the church? Where do you think come to them?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />I don&#8217;t want to tell you who should have final authority on your life, but I think I would like to have some autonomy about the end of life. This is incidentally an old controversy. You know, some of the controversies I talk about, like, about surrogacy, have to do with new technologies. You couldn&#8217;t have gestational surrogacy without in vitro fertilization. And that just happened in the 1970s. But Hippocrates, the ancient Greek physician who had his students swear an oath. One part of the oath, it wasn&#8217;t just first do no harm. One part of the oath was I prescribe a life ending medicine.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Which means that even in the time of Hippocrates, around 3,000 years ago, medical aid in dying was controversial. People dying in pain and suffering wanted help to make a quick exit. And Hippocrates didn&#8217;t think his students should help supply it. So it&#8217;s an old controversy, not one that comes about with new technology. But new medical technology has allowed us to extend the dying process quite a bit. So it&#8217;s complicated. And of course, like other things that are illegal in many jurisdictions, there&#8217;s covert medical aid in dying. I believe there&#8217;s quite a bit of COVID medical aid in dying because the same medicines that relieve pain can shorten life.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />It&#8217;s a question of dosage. There&#8217;s an American Medical association of palliative doctors. I forget their exact name, but these are the doctors who man hospices. They have a position statement as a professional organization that says they&#8217;re studiously neutral, neutral about medical aid and dying. And they acknowledge that there&#8217;s covert medical Aid in dying. But their concerns, they say, and I thought it was a nice statement of one of the common concerns when we talk about bans. Their concerns is that allowing doctors to aid in death and not just preserving life would disrupt the delicate equilibrium between patients and doctors. And loosely speaking, I think that&#8217;s true of many people who don&#8217;t want to relax the guardrails around certain bands.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />They worry that as a society we&#8217;re in a complicated equilibrium that&#8217;s not so bad, but if we relax the guardrails too much, we might slide down a slippery slope towards a less sympathetic society than we would want to live in. And I think the converse sort of progressive position is we&#8217;re in a complicated social equilibrium that&#8217;s not as good as it could be. And if we relaxed some of the guardrails, we could climb up that welfare gradient to get to a better society. So a lot of the disagreement has to do with not necessarily just the subject at hand, but what would follow from that. And of course, economists think about not just about trade offs more than other people do, but about equilibrium more than most other people do. And so I think economists are sympathetic to both points of view.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, you see a book, an economics book, if you&#8217;re a layperson, you think, oh, do I really need to? It&#8217;s not homework. Why should I read this book? But it is so enjoyable. It&#8217;s such a romp through all these really pertinent questions, not just for the economically minded in the audience, but for everyone in society that thinks, thinks clearly, rationally and morally. And I wonder if you could do what you&#8217;re not supposed to be done. But we love to judge a book by its cover. Hey, book lovers, we&#8217;re judging books by the covers. We know we&#8217;re not supposed to do it, but into the impossible. There&#8217;s nothing to it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s take a look and judge some books. Could you take us through the title, the subtitle and the artwork on this wonderful new book?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So the title, when I finished the book and sent to the, you know, the draft to my publisher, the title was something closer to Controversial Markets and Morally Contested Transactions. And that describes what the book is about. But my publisher didn&#8217;t think that was a good title. So he proposed Moral Economics. And the trouble with that as a title is it wouldn&#8217;t clue you into the fact that I&#8217;m not talking about capitalism versus socialism, I&#8217;m talking about morally contested transactions. So that&#8217;s where the subtitle came. From Prostitution to Organ Markets or what we Learn from controversial markets and contested transactions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m going to give a warning and a spoiler alert. We&#8217;re going to talk about the Torah. We&#8217;re going to talk about the Nobel Prize in the remaining 15 minutes or so that Al&#8217;s generously given us. So that&#8217;s not your thing, I understand, but I can&#8217;t resist when I have an intellect like Al&#8217;s to grapple with and to discuss as a Havrusa and do some holochic interloquit. So, you know, the book has many different religious kind of aspects to. It discusses Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses and Islamic law, but it deals with a lot of day to day practical sorts of issues. I wonder, as an economist, you know, looking at the Talmud or the Torah, do you see things that are, you know, just prescient or do you see things that are really antiquated? Let me take a couple examples. One is indentured servitude, you know, which would have a provision that you could work for somebody to discharge your debts.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Was that an immoral thing? Leaving aside the fact that some claim it led to chattel slavery, which most rabbinical scholars, including me, I&#8217;m not a rabbinical scholar, but I&#8217;ve thought about this a lot. It&#8217;s clear the Torah eventually says that no, all slaves go free in the jubilee year. Is there a morality to slavery? How does a professional economist look at questions raised in these ancient texts?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, so. So debt slavery is much more modern than that. It&#8217;s not confined to biblical history. There were debtors prisons 200 years ago in England and there were debtors prisons in the American colonies when we were British colonies. And by and large we moved away from thinking of debt, of failing to pay your debts as sin, to thinking of it as maybe bad luck. So we have bankruptcy laws now that allow you to reorganize your business, which might be profitable if only you didn&#8217;t have the big debts that you&#8217;d assume. So we&#8217;ve changed our view of that, which is related incidentally to a whole long religious discussion about interest on loans. Should debts come with interest? Is it okay to make money from your money? Aristotle thought it was present.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And it&#8217;s not clear in the Torah what they think, but maybe they think you shouldn&#8217;t be charging your lancement interest. But indeed, in much of medieval Europe, when the Catholic Church thought that it was wrong to charge interest on loans, but when sovereigns and other people needed loans, Jews and Lombards, communities that allowed themselves to do finance, did finance and lent money Often with moral opprobrium. But we&#8217;d hardly have the global capitalist economy that we have in the world today if you couldn&#8217;t charge interest on capital. So mostly even the Catholic Church, which has been very opposed to interest on loans, allows mortgages and all the nice financial instruments that make it easy for people to, to trade over time to look forward to their future prosperity and buy a house. Now, incidentally, Islamic law still doesn&#8217;t like interest on loans, but there are things called Islamic mortgages, where instead of borrowing money from a bank, paying interest on it and using it to buy your home, the bank buys the house and charges you rent. And when you&#8217;ve paid enough rent, you own the home. So those have very similar on the equilibrium path outcomes. And finance is an important part of the world economy.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />That&#8217;s the story about bankruptcy. We used to have debtors prisons in the American colonies and we don&#8217;t anymore. We still worry about high interest loans. There are payday loan services that give loans to people who live paycheck to paycheck. And when they have an emergency like a car breaks down, they, they might take a loan at a pretty high interest rate, a regulated but high interest rate that might take them several paychecks to pay back. In the United States, we pay for blood plasma, which is why there&#8217;s not a shortage of blood plasma in the world. We&#8217;re the Saudi Arabia of blood plasma, and we export tens of billions of dollars of blood plasma products each year, which is why there aren&#8217;t massive medical deaths in Western Europe, where many countries forbid paying plasma donors. But a couple of economists did a study where they looked at new plasma donation facilities in the United States, new places where you can get paid for plasma.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And they found that the incidence of payday loans goes down when a plasma facility opens up. So the same people who might have to live paycheck to paycheck can support their income in different ways.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If you were around during the writing of the Ten Commandments, you were back at the source code meeting when Moses was receiving the Torah, would you have been surprised? I mean, all these things still have relevance. You talk about Leviticus, about their prohibition on incest and blood and the, you know, blood, the dam is the Nephesh, it is the soul. That&#8217;s why we can&#8217;t eat it. And those of us that keep kosher, you talk about reproduction. Onan, are you shocked that these things, which were surely in equilibrium back then, are really important back then, are still so relevant to today? If you were around back then, when you say, come on, guys, we don&#8217;t got to put this in.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s not.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />No one&#8217;s going to care about, like, onanism and surrogacy or eating blood. I mean, would you have been shocked that it&#8217;s persevered for 3,000 years, approximately?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, so blood seems a little arcane in some ways. But adultery and reproduction, those are very common concerns. You know, putting them in the Ten Commandments didn&#8217;t ban adultery, incidentally. I mean, it didn&#8217;t make it disappear. It banned it without making it disappear. When you talk to rabbis who do a lot of pastoral work, one of the things I&#8217;ve heard is the main problem in my congregation is adultery. There are things are hard to ban. And thinking about reproduction here is still very hot item.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />The supreme court just overturned 50 years of Roe v. Wade and sent the permission to ban abortions back to the states, as opposed to saying it&#8217;s a right of individual women to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, incidentally, reproduction. When I talk about repugnant transactions, the whole reproductive chain has been in front of the Supreme Court at some point. You know, whether contraception can be banned. That was a 1960s Supreme Court decision that it couldn&#8217;t. The state of Connecticut couldn&#8217;t ban the sale of contraception. Well, surrogacy hasn&#8217;t been in the Supreme Court yet, but it might. Abortion obviously is.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />These are questions about do women have the right to prevent a pregnancy, to initiate a pregnancy, ivf, to terminate a pregnancy. All of those are controversial. If Hashem had had a longer table, he could have had some more relevant commandments.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, Mel Brooks, you know, and he comes down from the mountain. I bring to you these 15. He drops on tablet 10 commandments. You know, the good news is, you know, I got them down to 10. But the bad news is adultery still is prohibited.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Right, Exactly. You know, but you ask, are there any things that surprise me in this? So not quite biblical, but in my career, the study of matching markets has become very important and become more and more central to economics. And that wasn&#8217;t always the case. When I sent a paper years ago in the early 1980s on the economics of matching to a famous economics journal edited by someone who later that year won a Nobel Prize, he sent it back to me with a note that said, your paper, the Economics of Matching, obviously worked very hard. It&#8217;s got very interesting results. But the only economics is in the the title. And what he meant was the markets I was looking at had had to do with building relationships much more than they had to do with using prices to clear the market. But you know, when you read in the Talmud, when you read Vayikra Raba, the commentary on Leviticus, there&#8217;s a wonderful story about Rabbi Yossi Barafta who has a conversation with a Roman matron, a matronita.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And she says to him, how long did it take Hashem to. To create the universe? And he says, six days. And he rested on the seventh. And scholar that he is, he gives her the citation. And then she asks, what has he been doing since then? And the answer is, he&#8217;s been making matches.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s funny. Speaking modern incarnations, maybe, of what Hashem, you know, could only dream of, perhaps. What&#8217;s your take on the unintended moral consequences of prediction markets? I&#8217;m thinking about Kalshi, the poly market. People are betting on people living and dying. And what are some of the moral concerns as you have about these new markets?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So my main concern about prediction markets is the fact that it seems to be crossing a lot of borders between what&#8217;s public and what&#8217;s private. And so people are trying to make money by having inside information on what is going to be tweeted on truth, social, things like that. And that just suggests to me a breakdown of public order in Washington. And it&#8217;s not just particular prediction markets. I don&#8217;t think I have a particular concern with prediction markets as such. One thing closely related that I talk about in the book is sports gambling. And sports gambling, when it was illegal or even in places where it was legal, often involved placing a bet before the beginning of a game on what the outcome of the game was going to be. But when gambling is available on your phone and you can bet on who will make the next point or will the next attempt at a basket go in, it&#8217;s addictive, apparently, for some people.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So just as there are organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous, there&#8217;s an organization called Gamblers Anonymous now, and it also causes gamblers to try to influence particular athletes to make bets come out. So that threatens the integrity of some sporting contests. Both of those are things we should worry about a little. I wouldn&#8217;t mind seeing some consumer protection regulations of gas, gentle nudges of the sort that say on your gambling app, before the game begins, you can put in if you wish a limit. Say, once I&#8217;ve lost $100, I want the app to go blank. I don&#8217;t want to bet anymore once I&#8217;ve lost $100. And I think that might help some people. For example.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, gambling Is supposedly one of the hardest addictions to break. Cause it seems completely innocuous on the surface. If someone has a heroin addiction, it&#8217;s pretty easy to spot them going downhill. But a gambling, it&#8217;s pretty hard to keep that close to the, the illusion</p><p>Al Roth:<br />that you know, I&#8217;m down $100, but if I just bet some more, I&#8217;ll get, I&#8217;ll get even again.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The gambler&#8217;s fallacy. Yes, yes. I think I could win a Nobel Prize for that. I want to get back just briefly to academia before we segue to the end with the Nobel Prize. Kind of very venally self interested questions on my part. But let&#8217;s, let&#8217;s talk about academia. It&#8217;s full of different markets, it&#8217;s full of zero sum games. I mean undergraduate getting into college, you know, getting into graduate school grades, tenure.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Once you get a faculty job, if you can get a faculty job job, then the prestige chaired loans, AI, you know, faculty poaching, tenure, startup. What is the most repugnant market, you know, sub field in academia and what&#8217;s driving it? Is it knowledge, status, credentials, prestige, who gets what?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So let me first take issue with calling all those things zero sum. Some of them are distributive. Right. There&#8217;s a job that you could have that I could want and only one of us could have. But that doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s zero sum. That if neither of us had that job, the world might be worse off. There&#8217;d be less physics or less economics. So I don&#8217;t think those things are zero sum, but they&#8217;re distributive.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />There&#8217;s competition. I think the thing that&#8217;s most worrisome is when the competition leads to scientific fraud. Because the thing that isn&#8217;t zero sum is we&#8217;re doing science, we&#8217;re learning things. I mean for STEM fields at least, we&#8217;re trying to make progress. We&#8217;re not just conserving the past and passing it on to future generations the way maybe a Shakespeare scholar does. You don&#8217;t make New Shakespeare. But I&#8217;m more worried about the people who do make New Shakespeare. That is, I discover an ancient manuscript which I&#8217;ve now washed in my washing machine and buried in my garden to make it look ancient.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />And I say here&#8217;s a Shakespeare play that you never read and it turns out not to be a real Shakespeare play. That&#8217;s probably a crime. But every now and then in science and in other parts of academia, we see the pressures for promotion and tenure and publication lead to things like that. And that&#8217;s of course, very disturbing and works against what the productive parts of academia.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I want to close with maybe a connection between Judaism and the Nobel Prize, which I&#8217;ve been fascinated with. You&#8217;re the 26th Nobel laureate I&#8217;ve been honored to speak with. It&#8217;s just such a treat because I do think that you&#8217;re kind of members of society&#8217;s intellectual seal team six and we need people like you. And of course, criticized the Nobel Committee, but not the Nobel laureates. I&#8217;ve never done that. Many of them are good friends, have written forwards to my books, and I hope you will be included in my next volume of interviews with Nobel laureates. We&#8217;ll discuss that when it comes down in a year or two. But before I go too much further, I have to take issue with one of the main things that disturbed me most about the Nobel Prize, which is that if you look at what Alfred Nobel wrote, it&#8217;s what we call in Hebrew, a zava? A.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s an ethical one will. And it said. Basically, I distilled it into three major categories. It said, the prize shall go to the person who contributed the greatest benefit to mankind. He said, mankind. And then the Swedish Academy changed it to humankind recently. But I want to talk about the morality of changing someone&#8217;s will, but before we get there. So he said to the person, meaning a singular person, who in the preceding year contributed the most to the benefit of mankind.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And by the way, he also didn&#8217;t include economics, as you know. Do you find any of these to be, you know, kind of troubling? You know, from a Judaic standpoint, the wishes of the dead are sacrosanct, right? We&#8217;re not supposed to even leave a dead person alone. We&#8217;re supposed to escort them and be with them and bury them immediately. So what do you make of this? That we. That the Nobel committee, what they&#8217;ve changed, modified, added to it? Are those benign? Am I making too much of it? Or is there some moral concern that we should have?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So. So along with not being licensed to practice law in California, I&#8217;m also not licensed to practice law in Sweden, nor do I read Swedish. And I don&#8217;t know what the Swedish law about starting foundations is, but one of the things Alfred Nobel did is he didn&#8217;t direct who should win prizes. He founded a foundation, and he wanted this to last forever. And he gave the foundation lots of discretionary. Now, I don&#8217;t know exactly what the Swedish law says about the nonprofit Nobel foundation, but when you found a nonprofit in The United States, it has a charter, and the charter typically is for producing some public good, and that allows it to be tax exempt. You have to apply for tax exempt status, and it gives the foundation discretion to carry that charter into the future. So although Nobel wrote about giving the prize to that person who the previous year conferred the most benefit.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />You&#8217;re a physicist. Think about the Higgs boson. Is that the right word for the particle? Higgs predicted a particle, but we didn&#8217;t know that that was an important advance in physics until someone verified that the particle existed. And of course, that didn&#8217;t, didn&#8217;t happen in the previous year. And his discovery wasn&#8217;t in the previous year to when the particle was observed. And it was more than one person who did it. I can well imagine that the foundation is in good faith trying to fulfill Nobel&#8217;s wishes. But it turns out that particle physics didn&#8217;t exist when Nobel wrote his will.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />But he had the foresight to delegate the responsibility for fulfilling his wishes to a foundation. So. So I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s necessarily anything immoral about the fact that you can&#8217;t read from the simple words that are in the public declaration. I bet the documents founding the Nobel foundation are much longer.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s so much death associated with the Nobel Prize. I just put a video out called the Only Near Death Experience. I believe in the headline that he saw in Paris. That was actually his brother&#8217;s death that called him or associated him with being a merchant of death. And actually it led to the wording of the betterment of mankind. Because editorial doesn&#8217;t say the merchant of death is dead. It says that a person who can hardly be said to have benefited mankind died yesterday in Cannes. And it was really his brother Ludwig.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But of course, you know, his youngest brother died because he was trying to experiment with nitroglycerin. And then Nobel himself made. Made his money, his vast fortune from dynamite and other weapons of war, like his, like his father, Emmanuel. But there&#8217;s so much death, you know, and you got the prize on December 10, which is not his birthday, but his death day. Right. So. And the flowers come from his mausoleum, him in San Remo, not from local Swedish Stockholm flower fields, although December, that&#8217;s pretty hard. But the one thing that kind of puzzled me always for a prize that&#8217;s so saturated in death, is that the posthumous prohibition that you can&#8217;t win it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that was Only instituted in 1974 by the Nobel committee, who meets every now and then. But that was actually the most recent time. 52 years ago now, and so many people who surely could have won it if they weren&#8217;t dead, like Vera Rubin. She discovered the best evidence we have for dark matter, and she d long after the evidence for dark energy. In 2011, she was still alive. She could have won it easily. And so there are many people in that camp. So I guess, is this a market? Can we look at this as a market? What is the Nobel trying to do? And then how in concert is it with its stated goals or implied goals?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />The area I work in is called market design, and I&#8217;m partly responsible for spreading that word. But a word I prefer is marketplace design. And because marketplaces are small parts of large environments and you have to think how the marketplace contributes to the market, how it interacts with the market. So I don&#8217;t think of the Nobel foundation as a market, but it&#8217;s certainly a kind of marketplace in the large market for science. And that market has lots of parts to it and is very complicated. A lot of science is open source. When you discover something, you write a paper, and you might even have to pay a publication fee depending on the journal you send it to. But you, your object is to make that discovery widely available.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />But of course, it&#8217;s not just altruism that makes scientists do that. I&#8217;m employed by a university and they are glad when I publish papers and they raise my salary, or they give me tenure, or they don&#8217;t take it away. So there&#8217;s no question that prizes are part of the ecology of science and therefore part of the economy of science also.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And within market design is marketing, this notion of marketing. And I guess I want to close with, maybe it&#8217;s uncomfortable, but I think I can tell you&#8217;re a very good spirited person and you won&#8217;t be offended by these questions, But Peter Nobel died on 26 May, just a couple of weeks ago, and he called the economics prize a cuckoo&#8217;s egg in the Nobel nest, and he called it a marketing PR coup by economists. So first, how do you react to that? Is it a marketing stunt? And as a marketplace designer, what do you look at it as? The Nobel in Economics, The Reese bank guys?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So I actually didn&#8217;t know that Peter Nobel had died until you sent me an email the other day saying that you wanted to ask me about that. And I looked him up in Wikipedia and what his Wikipedia entry says is, he&#8217;s principally known as an opponent of the Nobel Prize in economics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He was a lawyer. He was a Swedish lawyer.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />He was a Swedish lawyer. And he was the great grandson not of Alfred Nobel, but of his brother who predeceased him. So I can imagine that as in many estates, the family that didn&#8217;t get Nobel&#8217;s inheritance, instead he gave a big portion of it to a foundation which he started multiple generations later. They can have strong feelings about that. But Nobel wanted a professional foundation to be the custodian of the prize and not the great grandson of his deceased brother. But I can see that his name is Nobel, he lived in Sweden, so that every year there was a giant week long celebration that featured his name. I can see that that could be annoying to him.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The final thing I want to bring up is fellow Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who&#8217;s sort of supernatural to many of us and, or at least it&#8217;s. But he said he was a little bit embarrassed. He said he was uneasy with it and he said eventually with this gun arm Myrdal, who I don&#8217;t know who it is, but he sort of regretted accepting it because they felt like it wasn&#8217;t science. But tell me now, you&#8217;re clearly doing science. Your research breaches every boundary between what good empirical epistemology and rigorous academic research to be. Has economics progressed? Should we make sense of their comments in their time? And has, has economics really become a science more thanks to work by you and your colleagues in more recent decades? Was it reasonable for Friedman to be embarrassed back then, but not so now?</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Well, economics is an early stage science. There&#8217;s lots more we don&#8217;t know about economies than that we do. But you know, chemistry was once an early stage science. When Archimedes did physics, it was a pretty early stage science. But looking back at Archimedes, we can see the science in what he did. Although there may have been other things too. And you know, the early, early alchemists, you know, they tried to transmute lead into gold, but they also figured out how to make dyes that would survive washing, you know, steady dyes. So they did real chemistry also.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />So the alchemists weren&#8217;t scientists, but we can see the science that emerged chemistry from their work. So I think that economics is an early stage science. We&#8217;re learning more and we&#8217;re becoming more scientific and I hope to see continued progress.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Al Roth, congratulations on this wonderful new book. I encourage everybody to read it. I listened to it. The audiobook is fantastic. It&#8217;s an easy read, which I can&#8217;t believe I&#8217;m saying about an economics book. Thank you so much for spending this time with us and I can&#8217;t wait till we finally meet in person someday.</p><p>Al Roth:<br />Okay, well, thank you for having me.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Nobel Prize winner Alvin Roth just argued that letting people die to keep a market pure is a moral choice we&#8217;re making by default. If that reframed how you think about markets, subscribe and turn on notifications too, please. Then let me know in the comments. Would you let someone sell a kidney to someone, save a life and go deeper into the morality of modern life? My conversation with Sam Harris, it&#8217;s three hours long and it&#8217;s linked right here.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dead Cows, Aliens, &#038; Ghosts: How Kevin Knuth Connects Them All</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/kevin-knuth/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8277</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Dead Cows, Aliens, &#38; Ghosts: How Kevin Knuth Connects Them All Transcript Brian Keating:Today on Keating&#8217;s Razor. And I&#8217;ll just acknowledge right up front for a series called Keating&#8217;s Razor, it might be a little too appropriate, almost as if it&#8217;s a suspicious coincidence that we&#8217;re opening a Keating&#8217;s Razor video with a story about surgical precision allegedly being applied to cattle in 1980s Montana. I didn&#8217;t plan it that way. The universe did. So let&#8217;s get to it. Kevin Knuth:Where&#8217;s the beef when people are abducted by gray aliens? There were 60% of the people reported around the world that they were given babies to hold. Why would anyone reported that? They may have the mindset Earth is their planet, right? And we happen to live here. I don&#8217;t think anybody&#8217;s ready for this, really. Brian Keating:Today&#8217;s claim. Kevin Knuth, a working physicist, a former NASA scientist, a member of the physics community I respect. He believes aliens are very probably in our own solar system. He&#8217;s written a paper about the so called Tic Tac event, and he&#8217;s done the math on the Nimitz encounter. Kevin Knuth:And there was a cattle mutilation in Bozeman on a ranch that night. There were 100 phone calls to the sheriff&#8217;s office about UFOs. And then you have this cattle mutilation where there were two cows that were killed and surgically manipulated. It was very bizarre. Brian Keating:He traces all of it, the whole arc of his research, back to a story about cattle mutilations in Montana that happened in 1988. And he told it all to my friend Mayim Bialik recently. And here&#8217;s what most people missed about that interview. Mayim, throughout the interview was running the exact same methodology I&#8217;m about to apply. So this isn&#8217;t going to be a Brian versus Kevin. This is going to be about two scientists who looking for truth, using one set of inference. Does it make the Keating&#8217;s Razor cut? Let&#8217;s find out. Every claim gets a close shave. Brian Keating:Some survive, most don&#8217;t make the cut. Before I slice and dice anything, I&#8217;m going to tell you what&#8217;s not weak about Kevin&#8217;s case. Because a lot of people who roll their eyes at UAP research haven&#8217;t actually heard the steel version of it. Kevin is not the caricature of some armchair physicist. He&#8217;s a tenured professor of physics, a decorated educator at the University of Albany, the State University of New York, my ancestral homeland. He spent years at NASA Ames Research Center. He publishes about exoplanets in top astrophysics journals like the Astrophysical Journal. He teaches Bayesian inference and mathematical physics. Brian Keating:And he&#8217;s worked on exoplanet detection, actual exosolar planets found by actual telescopes in actual peer reviewed venues. This is a man who is a real scientist with a real track record, real peer reviewed publications, and you should set that down as a fact before we go any further. Kevin&#8217;s argument on the UAP question runs like, Claim one, there are sightings clustered around nuclear sites going back to the 1940s, before nuclear bombs were even loaded. Claim two, the speeds and accelerations reported in some of the encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena, including encounters with multiple instruments, multiple platforms like boats and aircraft, with trained observers, are extraordinary. Kevin Knuth:I have friends who work up, who are in the Air Force, who work up at Malmstrom Air Force Base in northern Montana, and they have problems there with UFOs flying over the nuclear missile sites and shutting down our nuclear missiles. Brian Keating:He estimated the Nimitz tic tac physics himself. And the numbers do not look like weather balloons, swamp gas or the planet Venus. Claim three, cross cultural patterns reported in abductions shows up from Nepal to Congo to Chicago in cases from before the Internet even existed. Kevin Knuth:When people are abducted by gray aliens, there were 60% of the people reported around the world that they were given babies to hold before they. So they would have some medical tests done, something&#8217;s medically done to them, and then before they were sent back home they would be given babies to hold. And I was like, wait, why would anyone reported that? That&#8217;s bizarre. And so that was one of the surprising things. But it turns out it&#8217;s 60% of the cases from Nepal to Congo to Chicago. It&#8217;s pretty, it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s again something. And these are old cases, so these are things that you wouldn&#8217;t. Brian Keating:And lastly, when you irradiate alleged crash debris with neutrons in a lab, sometimes you get something extraordinary, something genuinely strange. And Kevin himself, in his own words, when Mayim asked him about it, an experience he had, he said, I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know. And when Mayim pressed him about a personal experience he had, he was careful to relate the fact that it was his own personal experience, not a documented scientific fact in a laboratory. He said, I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know what the hell a ghost really is. Mayim Bialik:Are you comfortable with saying I&#8217;m a physicist and I saw a ghost? Kevin Knuth:I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know what the hell a ghost is. So I can&#8217;t really say it was a ghost. Brian Keating:That&#8217;s a careful man, a true Scientist. He&#8217;s not a true believer. He&#8217;s a true scientist. He doesn&#8217;t say what it is. He says something happened. This is a real physicist with real data, doing the real work, being careful with his language, but not overly careful. But we have to be careful too. And with Keating&#8217;s razor, it turns out that Mayim did some of the hard slicing for us already. Brian Keating:The subject today is something that&#8217;s near and dear to every animal lover on Earth. It takes us back to 1988. Kevin Knuth had been at Bozeman, Montana in graduate school for one whole week. All of]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8277" class="elementor elementor-8277" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-1859dfa e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="1859dfa" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-39a1392 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="39a1392" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Dead Cows, Aliens, &amp; Ghosts: How Kevin Knuth Connects Them All</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-2eab581d elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="2eab581d" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />Today on Keating&#8217;s Razor. And I&#8217;ll just acknowledge right up front for a series called Keating&#8217;s Razor, it might be a little too appropriate, almost as if it&#8217;s a suspicious coincidence that we&#8217;re opening a Keating&#8217;s Razor video with a story about surgical precision allegedly being applied to cattle in 1980s Montana. I didn&#8217;t plan it that way. The universe did. So let&#8217;s get to it.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />Where&#8217;s the beef when people are abducted by gray aliens? There were 60% of the people reported around the world that they were given babies to hold. Why would anyone reported that? They may have the mindset Earth is their planet, right? And we happen to live here. I don&#8217;t think anybody&#8217;s ready for this, really.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Today&#8217;s claim. Kevin Knuth, a working physicist, a former NASA scientist, a member of the physics community I respect. He believes aliens are very probably in our own solar system. He&#8217;s written a paper about the so called Tic Tac event, and he&#8217;s done the math on the Nimitz encounter.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />And there was a cattle mutilation in Bozeman on a ranch that night. There were 100 phone calls to the sheriff&#8217;s office about UFOs. And then you have this cattle mutilation where there were two cows that were killed and surgically manipulated. It was very bizarre.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He traces all of it, the whole arc of his research, back to a story about cattle mutilations in Montana that happened in 1988. And he told it all to my friend Mayim Bialik recently. And here&#8217;s what most people missed about that interview. Mayim, throughout the interview was running the exact same methodology I&#8217;m about to apply. So this isn&#8217;t going to be a Brian versus Kevin. This is going to be about two scientists who looking for truth, using one set of inference. Does it make the Keating&#8217;s Razor cut? Let&#8217;s find out. Every claim gets a close shave.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Some survive, most don&#8217;t make the cut. Before I slice and dice anything, I&#8217;m going to tell you what&#8217;s not weak about Kevin&#8217;s case. Because a lot of people who roll their eyes at UAP research haven&#8217;t actually heard the steel version of it. Kevin is not the caricature of some armchair physicist. He&#8217;s a tenured professor of physics, a decorated educator at the University of Albany, the State University of New York, my ancestral homeland. He spent years at NASA Ames Research Center. He publishes about exoplanets in top astrophysics journals like the Astrophysical Journal. He teaches Bayesian inference and mathematical physics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And he&#8217;s worked on exoplanet detection, actual exosolar planets found by actual telescopes in actual peer reviewed venues. This is a man who is a real scientist with a real track record, real peer reviewed publications, and you should set that down as a fact before we go any further. Kevin&#8217;s argument on the UAP question runs like, Claim one, there are sightings clustered around nuclear sites going back to the 1940s, before nuclear bombs were even loaded. Claim two, the speeds and accelerations reported in some of the encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena, including encounters with multiple instruments, multiple platforms like boats and aircraft, with trained observers, are extraordinary.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />I have friends who work up, who are in the Air Force, who work up at Malmstrom Air Force Base in northern Montana, and they have problems there with UFOs flying over the nuclear missile sites and shutting down our nuclear missiles.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He estimated the Nimitz tic tac physics himself. And the numbers do not look like weather balloons, swamp gas or the planet Venus. Claim three, cross cultural patterns reported in abductions shows up from Nepal to Congo to Chicago in cases from before the Internet even existed.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />When people are abducted by gray aliens, there were 60% of the people reported around the world that they were given babies to hold before they. So they would have some medical tests done, something&#8217;s medically done to them, and then before they were sent back home they would be given babies to hold. And I was like, wait, why would anyone reported that? That&#8217;s bizarre. And so that was one of the surprising things. But it turns out it&#8217;s 60% of the cases from Nepal to Congo to Chicago. It&#8217;s pretty, it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s again something. And these are old cases, so these are things that you wouldn&#8217;t.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And lastly, when you irradiate alleged crash debris with neutrons in a lab, sometimes you get something extraordinary, something genuinely strange. And Kevin himself, in his own words, when Mayim asked him about it, an experience he had, he said, I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know. And when Mayim pressed him about a personal experience he had, he was careful to relate the fact that it was his own personal experience, not a documented scientific fact in a laboratory. He said, I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know what the hell a ghost really is.</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />Are you comfortable with saying I&#8217;m a physicist and I saw a ghost?</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know what the hell a ghost is. So I can&#8217;t really say it was a ghost.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s a careful man, a true Scientist. He&#8217;s not a true believer. He&#8217;s a true scientist. He doesn&#8217;t say what it is. He says something happened. This is a real physicist with real data, doing the real work, being careful with his language, but not overly careful. But we have to be careful too. And with Keating&#8217;s razor, it turns out that Mayim did some of the hard slicing for us already.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The subject today is something that&#8217;s near and dear to every animal lover on Earth. It takes us back to 1988. Kevin Knuth had been at Bozeman, Montana in graduate school for one whole week. All of a sudden, two cows are found mutilated in a field outside town. Surgical looking incisions, organs removed, no tracks, no blood. Now, cattle country takes these things seriously. And within days, the local sheriff&#8217;s office logs roughly a hundred phone calls from people about UFOs. A senior physics professor in Kevin&#8217;s own department wanders out of his laboratory and makes a comment connecting the cattle to the wave of UFO reports near Malmstrom Air Force Base.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The missile silo shutdowns, the lights over the launch facilities, all of it. That comment becomes a running joke in the physics department. For many people it stays a joke. But 27 years later, Kevin watches a press conference by Robert Hastings. Now Hastings is a journalist who spent decades documenting Air Force veterans testimonials about strange sightings, including UFOs at nuclear sites. And Kevin realizes the joke back then wasn&#8217;t a joke. The professor in 1988 had been telling him something that he was too young, or perhaps unwilling to hear. That moment, that retroactive realization, is the moment Kevin&#8217;s research pivoted on a dime.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />From there, he writes the Tic Tac paper. From there he starts thinking about UFOs and, and UAPs as serious physics questions. And here&#8217;s the first cut in Keating&#8217;s razor. What Kevin had in 1988 was a story. What he had in 2015 was a second story that resembled the first. That&#8217;s so far not evidence. But that&#8217;s a pattern. And pattern recognition is ironically, something that Kevin himself recognizes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He acknowledged this on Mayim&#8217;s show, that humans are wired to find patterns even when no such underlying causation exists.</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />Humans like to find patterns and we, we are wired to recognize patterns. And sometimes that means we will create patterns where they don&#8217;t exist. And when we&#8217;re talking about this kind of data, it&#8217;s very tempting to piece it together into a pattern that points to there are aliens.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He said it, and Mayim and I agree with him, but I want to apply it to his own experience and see where it takes us. Now, I want to take just a minute to tell you what this series is because if you&#8217;re new here on my channel, you&#8217;ve just watched the first four minutes of a series I&#8217;m calling Keating&#8217;s Razor. It&#8217;s going to be a new continuing series on this channel, so I owe you a quick explanation of what you&#8217;ve gotten yourself into. On every episode of Keating&#8217;s Razor, a claim will get a close shave. Some will survive, but most don&#8217;t. But all get a fair hearing. We&#8217;ll approach it scientifically. We&#8217;ll use evidence data.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We&#8217;ll test hypotheses. We&#8217;ll use induction deduction and even a little abduction. We&#8217;ll give a green light if the claim holds up, yellow if it&#8217;s wounded but not dead, and red if it got sliced through and didn&#8217;t survive the cut. Today&#8217;s claim. You can probably guess where I&#8217;m going, but the verdict isn&#8217;t in at this point. The work to get to the verdict is the point. That&#8217;s what the Keating Razor is. Now, here&#8217;s what this is not.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m not interested in dunking on people or participating in crank to crank warfare. There&#8217;s plenty of YouTubers who will spend a full day or week of their lives explaining why someone&#8217;s stupid or doesn&#8217;t deserve to be listened to or is a grifter or is a fool and only they should be listened to. God bless them. That&#8217;s not what I&#8217;m here for. Keating&#8217;s Razor is for serious people interested in in serious science. Working scientists, but curious laypeople, credentialed researchers and people with a passion for understanding more and wanting to go deeper, even if they didn&#8217;t have scientific training in their past. Kevin&#8217;s not like that. He&#8217;s a NASA scientist.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s a professor. He&#8217;s an educator. Future episodes will look at people whose work I&#8217;ve studied for a long time. Again, targets or dunking or poking fun. That&#8217;s easy to do because they put themselves out there. Now, sometimes it&#8217;s unavoidable. I&#8217;m going to disagree with certain claims and these people that I disagree with are often very smart themselves. They deserve a steel man before they get the cutting verdict.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s the rule of the show. Steel man first cut with steel second verdict comes last. We try again next time. We often tell our students that all questions are good questions, but that&#8217;s not always true in science. Not all Intentions are good intentions. Not all scientists are trustworthy. And the ones who still get things wrong are the ones sometimes that get the most attention. The razor is the tool that I use to figure out which is which.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Subscribe and you&#8217;ll catch every one of these close shaves. Okay, now back to the cattle mutilation money.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />Knew something was going on, right?</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />But that&#8217;s also selection bias, right? Because if they were to say, we&#8217;d like you to report alien sightings near dairy farms, you know, I can&#8217;t go back in time, at least not currently, and say, well, if we had been looking at dairy farms, you know, maybe. And again, I&#8217;m devil&#8217;s advocate here. Maybe people who think that they&#8217;re seeing UFOs will see them anywhere you tell them to look.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />That&#8217;s very true. Possible.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah. That right there, that&#8217;s a scientist instinct fully intact. Mime is not in the lab anymore, but it&#8217;s impossible to take the lab out of the scientist. She studied neuroscience and has a PhD from UCLA. She. She caught the selection bias before Kevin could even finish his thought. And she pushed it even further than I would have into the priming question. What do witnesses do when you tell them where to look? That&#8217;s neuroscience, not astrophysics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s her methodology being applied to UAP data in real time. Kevin nodded. He kind of had to, because she had him dead to rights. You don&#8217;t get a PhD in neuroscience and interview some of the brightest people on the planet and forget how to ask whether a correlation is truly a causation. Mayim asked it. Kevin answered it. But his answer didn&#8217;t survive the question. And to give him his due, he recognized it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, for my atheist friends, like past guest Richard Dawkins, you&#8217;ve heard of God, of the gaps. It&#8217;s an old theological problem. Every time science explains some unexplained phenomena, the apologist retreats. Lightning isn&#8217;t divine wrath. Its electricity may be interacting with cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Disease isn&#8217;t from sin, it&#8217;s from microbes. Mental illness isn&#8217;t possession or witchcraft. It&#8217;s in neurochemistry.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Each gap closes, and the deity has to relocate to a smaller and smaller region. A tinier and tinier gap. I want to introduce a parallel. Aliens are the gaps. Same move, different ceiling. Every time we encounter something we cannot immediately explain. An unusual sensor anomaly. A strange movement caught on camera.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />A coincidence and correlation between sightings of eyewitness testimonials, weird patterns around sensitive sites. Cultural patterns that appear around the globe. The Inference jumps not to we don&#8217;t know yet, not to let&#8217;s design a probing experiment that we could falsify but rather to therefore non human intelligence exists and that non human intelligence is visiting us, interacting with us. Now the problem isn&#8217;t that aliens are impossible. Aliens are real or they aren&#8217;t. That&#8217;s an empirical question, one we can approach with the tools of epistemology. But aliens as the answer to every unexplained pattern in your data set, well that&#8217;s not necessarily science, that&#8217;s apologetics with a flying saucer. So let&#8217;s apply this to Kevin&#8217;s specific cases.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Lets go back to the Malmstrom Air Force base shutdowns. Kevin himself acknowledges that guidance malfunction in 1960s Nuclear control systems is perhaps a defensible explanation. Soviet spoofing using electronic warfare is another. Aliens is a third hypothesis. Now that&#8217;s just three, three hypotheses. The third one is the one that the data supports least the 60% cross cultural pattern in abduction reports. The babies, the medical procedures, the gray figures, those are cultural impressions that transmit via film, via comics, via the Internet, et cetera. There&#8217;s a whole communion template that Whitley striber published in 1987.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I remember that. That&#8217;s a hypothesis. Sleep paralysis universals across human neurology, that&#8217;s also a hypothesis. It&#8217;s generally shared an encounter with non human intelligence, that&#8217;s another hypothesis. Again three options. Now to his credit, Kevin admits he initially didn&#8217;t want to think of the least probable alien abduction phenomena as being the real explanation. But then he encountered data and he updated however towards the rarest of the three available hypotheses. Now that&#8217;s exactly the move that the Keatings razor is designed to catch and the materials work.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Matthew Zigdages, a serious experimental physicist on also at Kevin&#8217;s institution, University of Albany, has been running the actual neuron activation analysis, neutron activation analysis on alleged crash debris. And Kevin to his enormous credit, quoted Zegatis directly on Mayim&#8217;s show. Zadigad says I have analyzed more Earth dirt than I ever would have imagined. Not strange material Earth dirt. That&#8217;s the most important sentence in the entire interview.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />Just quote Matthew here one day I asked him how it was going and what he&#8217;s found. And he goes I have analyzed more Earth dirt than I would have ever imagined, basically. And that&#8217;s one of the problems we&#8217;re finding here. The UFO community is thrilled that we scientists are involved, but in a lot of ways we ruin everything. We ruin all the fun. And because we find out that most of these things are not that interesting. And so most of these material he&#8217;s analyzed, it&#8217;s not interesting and clearly not alien.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The honest result of years of material science research, the irradiation, the probing, the sensing, is that the materials are not exotic. That should update Kevin to the downward position, but it doesn&#8217;t appear to.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />So they were actually moving military equipment around to get UFOs to come. And that would typically happen within 24 hours. So light travels 186,000 miles a second. Right, got it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s a self undermining trick. And Mayim walked Kevin right into it, but gently. She didn&#8217;t argue even against the alien hypothesis. She argued, you can&#8217;t have it both ways. Either the constraint applies and the speeds are impossible, or the speeds are possible and the constraint doesn&#8217;t always apply. That&#8217;s not skepticism, that&#8217;s basic logic. And again, she did it without raising her temper or her voice with humor. She even made a joke about the aliens being hangry.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We can all relate to that. Or maybe they were fighting with their alien wives over which direction to turn. But then Mayim asked a killer question.</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />So your solution to my question is they live here.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />They have to live within one light day of this, of Earth.</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />What&#8217;s a light day?</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />So that basically puts them in our solar system somewhere. So they have to be somewhere in our solar system and very possibly here on Earth already. The Soviets, when trying to study some of these objects, would make military maneuvers, especially naval maneuvers. So they would perform these large naval maneuvers that would typically just confuse the United States. But what the Soviets were doing is they would make this large naval maneuver and then UFOs would show up and they would study them. So they were actually moving military equipment around to get UFOs to come. And that would typically happen within 24 hours. So light travels 186,000 miles a second.</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />Right, got it. So you. So for a UFO to get here in 24 hours, the light would have had to travel out information some distance and then they have to travel back.</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />If we&#8217;re talking about us communicating with aliens and them receiving information enough for them to act on it and then show up. Why on earth do they have to follow our information timescale of how bits and quanta travel through the universe?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />This is exactly how you should run an interview. And I take notes whenever Mime does one of these tour de force interviews. She after making the joke about hangry aliens, she asked the question that broke the entire light Day argument. That&#8217;s not platforming, that&#8217;s interviewing. She takes her guests seriously and with respect. Even if she might disagree with them, and even if she agrees with them, she&#8217;ll push back where necessary. So where does all this leave me? Honest concession. First, I don&#8217;t know that aliens aren&#8217;t here.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Nobody does. I&#8217;m a cosmologist. I spent my entire career looking at the sky for signals from outer space. And in theory, I should be one of the first people to know if there were a credible signal of alien visitation using non human technology in our very backyard. If we can sense the wispy signals of the Big bang that happened 45 billion light years away, we can certainly detect things in our atmosphere on Earth. I&#8217;d be the first person to shout out Hallelujah. And I know that the inference structure that Kevin uses is the same inference structure used by every gap filling explanation in the history of theology and apologetics. The razor doesn&#8217;t cut Kevin.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The razor is going to cut the inference move. There&#8217;s a difference. Now, in her long conversation with Kevin, Mayim caught the inference move many, many times. She caught the selection bias. She caught the light speed contradiction. She caught the night day anomalies. She pushed Kevin on the hallucination question. She drew the hard line between banal pattern fallacy and the meaningful phenomenon of pattern detection.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Every one of those is a razor in motion. She didn&#8217;t call it that, but that&#8217;s what she was doing. And here&#8217;s the part most people missed after the newsletter. Mayim, in her substack newsletter, told her audience about it. And she didn&#8217;t write it as a gotcha or the way that a publicist would, or an AI would. Promoting the episode, hyping it up, promoting the guest and hyping the guest up. Maybe I would do that. But she wrote it as a researcher and she was candid.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />She asked her substack readers, and I&#8217;m paraphrasing, how much evidence do we actually need to have before we believe something? And then this is the line that got me. She wondered in writing whether Kevin&#8217;s whole perspective as a researcher might be different if he hadn&#8217;t had that one experience back in 1988. That is the razor. That is exactly the cut I&#8217;m making in this episode, the first in the Keating&#8217;s Razor series. Mayhem got there first in writing on her own platform. And you should definitely subscribe to it. You&#8217;ll find me there soon. The framework that I&#8217;m calling Keating&#8217;s Razor is the framework that was in motion.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The most honest thing that Kevin Knuth said in his hours with Mayim was about a personal experience he had. And his exact words were, I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know what the hell a ghost is. He&#8217;s describing an encounter that could sound paranormal. That sentence is the entire scientific method in words, in 14 words. Kevin had it, Mayim had it. The problem is the framework didn&#8217;t get applied to the cat.</p><p>Mayim Bialik:<br />Are you comfortable with saying I&#8217;m a physicist and I saw a ghost?</p><p>Kevin Knuth:<br />I don&#8217;t say that because I don&#8217;t know what the hell a ghost is. So I can&#8217;t really say it was a ghost.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So the data is real, the speeds are interesting, the material&#8217;s work is rigorous, the cultural patterns deserve study. Every one of those questions survives a close shave. But the inference therefore, that non human intelligence is responsible for all these phenomena, for cattle mutilation, for nuclear reactor shutdowns, for the strange motion from the perch of a base less than one light day outside of Earth in our solar system, that aliens operating, but the inference that therefore non human intelligence is operating from a base from a perch within one light day of Earth in our solar system, well that doesn&#8217;t survive. Kevin Knuth is a real physicist. The scientific method survives, the data can survive. Miam saw it. I&#8217;m here to give it a name. That&#8217;s the verdict.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Doesn&#8217;t survive the close shave. We&#8217;ll try again. Next time on Keating&#8217;s Razor. I&#8217;m Brian Keating, the Chancellor&#8217;s Distinguished professor of Physics at UC San Diego. And each week we&#8217;re here to never dumb down science, make it accessible, and always give you the facts on both sides. Now, one of the things that fascinates Mayim are near death experiences. And I&#8217;m generally a skeptic of near death experiences, but there&#8217;s absolutely 100% sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a near death experience led to the Nobel prizes. And how that changed signs and how it affects you is the subject of my video here.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Subscribe so you don&#8217;t miss it. And if you came from my nbialic&#8217;s breakdown, you already know the rigor that we give. We just gave it a name and you&#8217;ll enjoy it. Welcome to the research. Welcome to Keating Grazer.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intelligent Design Theorist: AI Just Proved It Can’t Think Without Us</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/stephen-c-meyer/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8272</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Intelligent Design Theorist: AI Just Proved It Can’t Think Without Us Transcript Brian Keating:An intelligent design theorist just told me the one thing that artificial intelligence proves is that AI can&#8217;t think without us, without a mind. Now here&#8217;s the argument. I challenge you to find a cracking. Stephen C. Meyer:If you train an AI system, a large language model, on a great body of text, and then you query that text, the AI system will output an answer in the next iteration, the output is progressively more incoherent. And if you do that iteration after iteration after iteration, you get a complete breakdown in coherency. The AI system, as impressive as it is, is fundamentally dependent on the initial input that in fact has come from a conscious agent. Brian Keating:That&#8217;s Stephen C. Meyer, a philosopher of Science with a PhD from Cambridge who argues the universe looks designed. Brian Keating:If I told you we had some uranium somewhere and there was a functioning nuclear reactor that had no human input, there was absolutely no mind in place, would that be a challenge to the argument from the existence of information originating from a mind? Stephen C. Meyer:Before jumping into a carefully laid trap like that, I&#8217;d like to know what&#8217;s the factual. Brian Keating:You got me, Steve. Brian Keating:I spent years pushing back on him. Today I laid three traps to spring on him. Watch what he does with the third one. Stephen C. Meyer:Where did these atheist scientists gain access to the mind of God to know what he would or wouldn&#8217;t have done Brian Keating:if I told you that AI seems to be mind like and that AI is now creating its own versions of seemingly. According to many people, not only is generally intelligent, meaning that can do anything a person can do, certainly has passed the Turing test by most people&#8217;s standards a couple of years back. But more than that, maybe it&#8217;s creating consciousness and maybe it&#8217;s able to create minds. Does that implicate your hypothesis, which is the abduction? You should explain what abduction means, not alien abduction. We&#8217;ll get to that later. But the abduction inference to the best explanation first explain what that means and then is AI a counterexample to that whole thesis? Stephen C. Meyer:Just brief primer on inference to the best explanation as a mode of scientific reasoning? As you well know and have explained, scientists don&#8217;t come to conclusions that are deductively certain. It is not the goal of science to achieve the standard of absolute certainty through a process of logically certain deduction from certain premises. Rather, scientists reason either inductively or hypothetically, deductively or abductively. And all of these modes of reasoning are similar, where you get plausible conclusions that in the best of cases provide the best explanation of the data that you have at hand. An abductive inference has a different logical form that is not logically certain. It runs something like if A, then C. C, therefore possibly A. Okay. Stephen C. Meyer:C is observed. C would be a matter of course if A were true. If it rains, the streets will get wet, right? The streets are wet, therefore you can&#8217;t say therefore it rained, because there may be other possible causes. Brian Keating:Here in San Diego, you could say that. Stephen C. Meyer:And it might have been the car wash, might have been sprinkler system, might have been something fire hydrant bursting, whatever. The only thing you can conclude from the surprising fact that the streets are wet is that it may have rained. Okay, that kind of an inference is what philosophers call, they say that&#8217;s under determined. You have the. Under determination of theory by data. It&#8217;s a possible explanation that it rained, but it&#8217;s not decisive. So what do you do? Well, if you&#8217;re using this method of reasoning in science, which is very often used in science, you go out and you look for additional data points and you say, well, oh, there&#8217;s a bucket with soapy water by the car. The grass is not wet, but just the driveway is wet. Stephen C. Meyer:And so you start adding new facts to your body of data. And one by one you start eliminating the other possible explanations until finally, in the best of cases, you have just one, at least for the time being. So you have a best explanation of the data set at hand. And this is a very common way of reasoning in all the historical sciences, certainly, but in theoretical physics, in all the forensic sciences, it&#8217;s used across the board. Increasingly, philosophers of science, yes, they still prize the importance of predictions and confirmation of a theory by prediction. But prediction logically is seen to be a special case of explanation where you&#8217;re explaining something that has not happened yet. And so this connection between theory and what you would expect to follow from the theory if it were true is the way we end up testing things and winnowing our different possible explanations till we in, in again the best of cases, we come up with the best explanation. Sometimes we come up with two better explanations than all the alternatives, but we don&#8217;t have a completely decisive situation. Brian Keating:And that&#8217;s partially by design. I mean, it&#8217;s not, not to make a pun, but. But abduction is not induction or deduction, and that there&#8217;s a reason for that. Stephen C. Meyer:Another way to think of abjection is it&#8217;s often reasoning from effects back to possible causes and then undergoing this process of elimination. As you introduce more and more data into your analysis set, you get to a point where you can infer to a best possible causal explanation. And sometimes those can be very, very decisive, but still not proof, because the logical form doesn&#8217;t admit that. It&#8217;s not a deductive argument where if you have]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8272" class="elementor elementor-8272" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-50e29ce4 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="50e29ce4" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-b48223a elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="b48223a" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Intelligent Design Theorist: AI Just Proved It Can’t Think Without Us</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-2b2c9393 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="2b2c9393" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />An intelligent design theorist just told me the one thing that artificial intelligence proves is that AI can&#8217;t think without us, without a mind. Now here&#8217;s the argument. I challenge you to find a cracking.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />If you train an AI system, a large language model, on a great body of text, and then you query that text, the AI system will output an answer in the next iteration, the output is progressively more incoherent. And if you do that iteration after iteration after iteration, you get a complete breakdown in coherency. The AI system, as impressive as it is, is fundamentally dependent on the initial input that in fact has come from a conscious agent.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s Stephen C. Meyer, a philosopher of Science with a PhD from Cambridge who argues the universe looks designed.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If I told you we had some uranium somewhere and there was a functioning nuclear reactor that had no human input, there was absolutely no mind in place, would that be a challenge to the argument from the existence of information originating from a mind?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Before jumping into a carefully laid trap like that, I&#8217;d like to know what&#8217;s the factual.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You got me, Steve.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I spent years pushing back on him. Today I laid three traps to spring on him. Watch what he does with the third one.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Where did these atheist scientists gain access to the mind of God to know what he would or wouldn&#8217;t have done</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />if I told you that AI seems to be mind like and that AI is now creating its own versions of seemingly. According to many people, not only is generally intelligent, meaning that can do anything a person can do, certainly has passed the Turing test by most people&#8217;s standards a couple of years back. But more than that, maybe it&#8217;s creating consciousness and maybe it&#8217;s able to create minds. Does that implicate your hypothesis, which is the abduction? You should explain what abduction means, not alien abduction. We&#8217;ll get to that later. But the abduction inference to the best explanation first explain what that means and then is AI a counterexample to that whole thesis?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Just brief primer on inference to the best explanation as a mode of scientific reasoning? As you well know and have explained, scientists don&#8217;t come to conclusions that are deductively certain. It is not the goal of science to achieve the standard of absolute certainty through a process of logically certain deduction from certain premises. Rather, scientists reason either inductively or hypothetically, deductively or abductively. And all of these modes of reasoning are similar, where you get plausible conclusions that in the best of cases provide the best explanation of the data that you have at hand. An abductive inference has a different logical form that is not logically certain. It runs something like if A, then C. C, therefore possibly A. Okay.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />C is observed. C would be a matter of course if A were true. If it rains, the streets will get wet, right? The streets are wet, therefore you can&#8217;t say therefore it rained, because there may be other possible causes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Here in San Diego, you could say that.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And it might have been the car wash, might have been sprinkler system, might have been something fire hydrant bursting, whatever. The only thing you can conclude from the surprising fact that the streets are wet is that it may have rained. Okay, that kind of an inference is what philosophers call, they say that&#8217;s under determined. You have the. Under determination of theory by data. It&#8217;s a possible explanation that it rained, but it&#8217;s not decisive. So what do you do? Well, if you&#8217;re using this method of reasoning in science, which is very often used in science, you go out and you look for additional data points and you say, well, oh, there&#8217;s a bucket with soapy water by the car. The grass is not wet, but just the driveway is wet.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And so you start adding new facts to your body of data. And one by one you start eliminating the other possible explanations until finally, in the best of cases, you have just one, at least for the time being. So you have a best explanation of the data set at hand. And this is a very common way of reasoning in all the historical sciences, certainly, but in theoretical physics, in all the forensic sciences, it&#8217;s used across the board. Increasingly, philosophers of science, yes, they still prize the importance of predictions and confirmation of a theory by prediction. But prediction logically is seen to be a special case of explanation where you&#8217;re explaining something that has not happened yet. And so this connection between theory and what you would expect to follow from the theory if it were true is the way we end up testing things and winnowing our different possible explanations till we in, in again the best of cases, we come up with the best explanation. Sometimes we come up with two better explanations than all the alternatives, but we don&#8217;t have a completely decisive situation.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that&#8217;s partially by design. I mean, it&#8217;s not, not to make a pun, but. But abduction is not induction or deduction, and that there&#8217;s a reason for that.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Another way to think of abjection is it&#8217;s often reasoning from effects back to possible causes and then undergoing this process of elimination. As you introduce more and more data into your analysis set, you get to a point where you can infer to a best possible causal explanation. And sometimes those can be very, very decisive, but still not proof, because the logical form doesn&#8217;t admit that. It&#8217;s not a deductive argument where if you have certain premises and you use logically valid modes of reasoning, you come to a certain conclusion. You really only get deductive certainty when you, in something like geometry. And even then you have to start with, with postulates that are inside the realm of proof probability. Yeah, I don&#8217;t work on AI, but I think there&#8217;s some interesting things going on in AI that underscore some of the key insights that we have had in the intelligent design research community. The key insight is that information of a certain kind, we call it specified information or functional information, meaningful information, always arises from a mind.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />There&#8217;s a famous early molecular biologist who was a pioneer in applying the information sciences to molecular biology, Henry Quler, who said that the creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity. This is part of our uniform and repeated experience. Well, so what about what&#8217;s going on with AI? Well, I think there&#8217;s a tell in AI and it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s sometimes called the model collapse problem, that if you train an AI system, a large language model, on a great body of text. You know, take a. Recently I got contacted by a group that was involved in a, in a, some kind of a suit against a firm that was taking books and feeding them into their, their LLMs and not telling the authors they&#8217;d done that. So I&#8217;m going to get kind of a payment for that. I was flattered rather than upset. But in any case, so you, you train your AI on text that has been generated by conscious agents, and then you query that text and the LLM, the large language model, the AI system will output an answer.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And it&#8217;s a remarkably cogent answer. Typically, we&#8217;re shocked at how well this technology works. But now if you take the output of the system in that first iteration and you treat that as data, sometimes it&#8217;s now called artificial data, and you query the outputs of those initial queries with a new question. In the next iteration, the output is progressively more incoherent. And if you do that iteration after iteration after iteration, you get a complete breakdown in coherency. And so what that ends up showing is that the AI system, as impressive as it is, is fundamentally dependent on the initial input of specified or meaningful information that in fact has come from a conscious agent, from an actual human intelligence and mind. In other words, there&#8217;s an asymmetry between the output of the AI system over These multiple iterations and the output of the. The initial output of the mind, which is the.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />The source of. Of the data that is is first queried. You see this dependency on the. Of the AI on the. The intelligent mind. And I think that shows a couple of things. One, that AI is not going to replace the need for a conscious intelligence. And secondly, the initial origin of the information which is the basis of the whole system has come from a conscious intelligence.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Just as Henry Kossler observed in his book in the early 60s when he was first thinking about the origin of information in a biological context. And that is the essential basis of the inference to intelligent design in biology is that that we have in biological systems a large amount of the kind of information that in our uniform and repeated experience always does first arise from a conscious intelligence and that the specified intelligence or specified complexity or functional information. All of those terms are meant to distinguish a particular kind of information, where there is sequence specificity as a condition of function from mere Shannon information, which, which is a measure of the carrying capacity of a channel and the improbability of the arrangement of the characters without respect to whether or not the sequences or strings are functional in any way.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;d love for you to kind of steel man this approach. So if I told you certainly there are natural fusion reactors that exist, right? There&#8217;s one powering at least San Diego. It&#8217;s up in the sky, it never takes a break, it never goes on strike and it doesn&#8217;t ask to defend its PhD thesis right when you need it most. So obviously there are natural fusion reactors. But if I told you that, that we discovered a fission reactor which is much more complicated in a certain sense that we don&#8217;t know of effective ways that randomly things can come about. But if I told you we had some uranium somewhere and there was a functioning nuclear reactor that had no human input, there was absolutely no mind in place, would that be a challenge to at least this branch of the argument from the existence of information originating from a mind? Would the existence of a sophisticated neutron moderated fission reactor that self sustained with slow neutrons for a very long period of time without any human design, without any human intervention, would that present you</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />a challenge before jumping into a carefully laid trap like that? I&#8217;d like to know what&#8217;s the factual.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You got me, Steve. I just like you so much and it&#8217;s so fun to talk to you because you do have integrity. Again, we don&#8217;t agree on a lot of things, but it&#8217;s very fun to talk to you because you have a very fine mind. So yes, you caught the trap. You, you saw it carefully laid by the devilish Keating. And in Africa a billion years ago, there&#8217;s something called the Okolo natural nuclear reactor, and it was a sustained neutron, slow neutron moderated fission reactor which operated without any obviously human intervention a billion years ago, and it lasted for millions of years and it was producing heat and light presumably, and you could have extracted energy from it. And it was all due to changing levels of the water table and this natural material that was causing the neutrons</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />to be split of natural, natural factors</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />that it was completely natural. But, but if you hadn&#8217;t known that, you know, I guess the question is, if I didn&#8217;t tell you that, or if we didn&#8217;t know about it and then tomorrow I discover it, then the question still stands. I think like we see things that are complex, we can&#8217;t understand without a mind. But, but who&#8217;s to say that the eventual evidence in a Bayesian sense won&#8217;t come and, or it hasn&#8217;t come already and we just didn&#8217;t understand it at the time.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Meyer concedes that the math can dodge a beginning. But he says that the dodge has a price and that price looks a</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />lot like a mind does.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />What&#8217;s interesting about that example is that you have a relatively complex convergence of factors that are producing a functional outcome. So is a kind of finely tuned system that is producing a functional outcome. And I guess our response to that would be to get a little deeper into the apparatus of design detection. William Dembsky, our lead mathematician, has written extensively on this, would want to know what are the relevant probabilistic resources that are available to generate that convergence of factors. You can suspect design at many levels of complexity. There&#8217;s a point past which the inference becomes decisive where the level of complexity is such that it exceeds the probabilistic resources of the naturalistic systems that are relevant in this case. Clearly there are naturalistic resources that were sufficient to produce the convergence of factors that made this kind of functional outcome. I ran the math on this in my book Signature in the Cell, looking at not a naturally occurring nuclear reactor, but the complexity of a single protein fold.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And if you take a 13.8 billion year universe and first you run the numbers on the complexity of the protein, the degrees of freedom that allow you to calculate the brute probability of getting that protein on a one off, and it&#8217;s infinitesimally extremely small. But you have to take into account to determine whether or not this could be explained by A chance or natural processes, you have to take into account how many opportunities there were for that extremely improbable event to take place. So you run the numbers and if you say, well, if every event in the history of the universe had been devoted to looking for or generating a unique combination of amino acids in sequence connected by by some kind of a bond, and you define an event minimally as an interaction between elementary particles, turns out that if every event in the history of the universe had been devoted to generating a protein, an amino acid sequence of that in this case to be calculated on a basis of 150amino acids, you would search but a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. So the probabilistic cut on that is that it&#8217;s much more likely than not that chance is much more likely that chance would fail than succeed. It&#8217;s overwhelmingly more likely than a chance or natural processes would fail than they would succeed. Therefore, since we&#8217;re looking for a best explanation, it&#8217;s more likely that it would fail than succeed. It&#8217;s more likely that it didn&#8217;t happen that way than it is that it did. And therefore pausing the chance interaction of natural processes is a much less likely explanation for the information content of the protein than design is.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />My likely response to the hypothetical or what&#8217;s a real example would be to look at, well, what are the conditions that were necessary to make this happen? Do they exceed the probabilistic resources of the entire universe? Clearly on space they don&#8217;t because it happened within the natural system on Earth. There are features of living systems, of information systems that we develop that clearly do exceed the probabilistic resources of the universe. And therefore there is a sound basis for inferring to design in those cases, but not all cases where you have complexity and function.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Listen to what Stephen just did. Stephen just did something very high in terms of integrity, which a lot of people on either side might not do. There&#8217;s a universe where he could have said yes, but who designed the Earth, right? Who designed uranium? Who made the chemical values, the fine tuned values that they actually like? You could have said that. You didn&#8217;t say that. You said that. Not in all cases will evidentiary data point to clearly as clearly point to a non mind, right? Like there will be some situations where it will seemingly point to a design and there&#8217;ll be, in this case, you could have, in other words, you could have copped out and said God made everything. And actually that&#8217;s one of my biggest problems with my friends in the Jewish community and my friends in the Christian community, they&#8217;ll deny the scientific evidentiary pathway to their children. They&#8217;ll look at a rainbow and say, God made it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think that that&#8217;s, you know, I joke. That&#8217;s child abuse, Right? If you do that, you could say that, and it cannot be refuted. But isn&#8217;t it better, Stephen, to say no? There&#8217;s something called a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, and that electromagnetic radiation interacts with molecules in the air and scattering processes take place via Rayleigh scattering, that is wavelength dependent to the fourth power of the wavelength, and then go down the evidentiary chain. You talk that way, Brian, and that&#8217;s</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />the way I talk.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I literally talk like that to my older kids. Okay? Because at the end, Stephen, we can always say, yes, God made the universe from you. As Carl Sagan said, to make an apple pie, first you have to have a universe. But if he said the apple pie came about because of the Big Bang, it&#8217;s also child abuse, right? So the point is, there&#8217;s many mysteries, and being a scientist is a privilege, and it&#8217;s so wonderful to think about these things and get paid to do it.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />In the current discussion, too, the example you pose, it highlights something that&#8217;s really important about our design detection apparatus. There are methods of design detection that we use in lots of fields in cryptography and archeology and forensic sciences. And what Dembski did was, and maybe for the first time in history, there&#8217;s people that have had this intuition of design. But what he did was he explicated the joint criteria by which we justify design and showed where the inferences are legitimate and where they&#8217;re at least equivocal, where they&#8217;re not decisive, there&#8217;s a qualitative element that is the identification of what he calls a specification. And there&#8217;s a quantitative element, and that is a threshold of that where the complexity of the event exceeds the probabilistic resources of the relevant environment. And in some cases, the relevant environment is the visible universe itself. And in the case of large information bearing biomolecules, unlike probably your natural nuclear reactor, the complexity of those molecules, the amount of information present in them, exceeds the probabilistic resources of the entire universe by many orders of magnitude. And then the calculations I made was relevant to one modest length protein.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />So there&#8217;s more subtlety in this than the amount that you can give as the bumper music comes up on the talk radio or podcast. And you got to quickly make argument. Thirty seconds, by the way. That&#8217;s a way that ideas are often Tested in philosophy, you test them by counterexample.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, and I want to bring up another one because this comes up in the film. And I was shocked. I say shocked, Stephen, to find you agreeing with noted atheist Sean Carroll. He once told me that the God hypothesis, the least likely of all scientific hypotheses because God is not a good theory. God is a weak theory. And the piece of evidence that he gave was, look at all the galaxies in the universe. There&#8217;s about probably something like a trillion, maybe, maybe, you know, an order of magnitude more, certainly not an order of magnitude less. That&#8217;s known in the observable universe alone.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And then you can fold in the multiverse. And his point is that&#8217;s an awful waste of space. Kind of aping Carl Sagan&#8217;s line in the movie Contact. And I pushed back on him and he didn&#8217;t really have a good answer. But I was kind of surprised to similar veins of that argument running through the story of everything. In other words, look at how special we are. What&#8217;s the point of all those galaxies? Essentially, you&#8217;re conceding Carol&#8217;s point like a God should be economical, he should be parsimonious if he exists, but he doesn&#8217;t. And so therefore this is sort of capitulating that there&#8217;s a waste of space.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, I say this kind of in jest, but you do make that in sort of a fine tuning argument, or other people, Luke Barnes and others in the film go about this and justify it from a scientific point of view. The conditions on Earth. Earth had to be just right with Jupiter in this place and that place. What&#8217;s the point of Jupiter? It&#8217;s for life on Earth. So what gives? Are you moving to Sean Carroll&#8217;s side of things? Is this an extravagant universe that. That is clearly a waste of space?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />I do think it&#8217;s an extravagance. But where did we get the idea that God must be something less than extravagant? We have a whole host of these arguments in evolutionary biology. Darwin made these. God wouldn&#8217;t have done it that way. Stephen Jay Gould made these God wouldn&#8217;t have done it that way arguments. Where did these atheist scientists gain access to the mind of God to know what he would or wouldn&#8217;t have done?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s their mind. Oh, no, they have access to their own mind.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />So they&#8217;re. Where are they deriving those predicates in the argument? But first of all, I got this wrong in return of the God hypothesis, and I think you sorted me out. I had quoted an earlier figure of 200 billion galaxies and I was off by at least an order of magnitude. So, you know, paperback, I think we corrected that. And it&#8217;s a trillion, right? But either way it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s a lot. And here&#8217;s the other crazy thing. We didn&#8217;t even know this until a century ago. Up until 1924, they were still debating whether or not the Milky Way was the only galaxy.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />That&#8217;s just a mind blowing thing, a new awareness of the human race, the vastness of the universe. But I think it&#8217;s just as like from a theological point of view, it&#8217;s just as plausible to say that there are so many galaxies because God is a God of great creativity. And he expresses that creativity in an extravagant way that gives us a universe to marvel at and to wonder at.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My counter example again, to give you more ammunition perhaps, is, you know, you could have made that statement again, like you said in 1922, but you could also made it a thousand years ago with respect to the number of elements. We used to believe there were four elements. The smartest man who ever lived by some opinions, Aristotle. Right, so Aristotle believed in the four elements, right? Which we all know is all there is. No, of course not. And so I said to Sean, why are there 116 elements elements, you know, like, aren&#8217;t most of those extravagant? We don&#8217;t use anything above, I think iodine in terms of atomic mass in our bodies, like we don&#8217;t need it. So is that not extravagant? But if you had asked that question, you know, a couple hundred years earlier, he would have been in a pickle, right? Because we only knew about, you know, maybe a half dozen elements in the 18. We didn&#8217;t know about helium until 100 years ago.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />These arguments about what God would or wouldn&#8217;t have done are very weak on either side. Okay? I think they&#8217;re dispositive. We do know something about what minds do. However, we have uniform and repeated experience about the kinds of things that minds generate. And that gives us a foothold into the larger metaphysical discussion about whether the universe is the product of a mind or life is the product of a mind versus undirected material processes. And this is where I think these advances in design detection allow us to make some solid inferences about whether or not life is designed, whether or not the universe is designed. We don&#8217;t know why the designer did what the designer might have done, but we can at least infer that a designing agent acted speculating about, you know, why someone would do this or that is inherently More speculative than deciding whether or not there was a someone. If you look at the Rosetta Stone, you can see a mind was behind those inscriptions.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Why did the mind include the same message in three different scripts? We don&#8217;t really have access to that different kind of question.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. And they wrote the most famous four words in human history. Please like and subscribe. So make sure you do that for Steve&#8217;s channel. For my channel. But there&#8217;s another piece of fine tuning which I&#8217;ve never really heard anybody really make the case for. I&#8217;m noting the fact how commendable it is that Stephen just said that some of the weaknesses on both sides is essentially saying in the most scientifically honest fashion that neither one of the two sides can specify what an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent power could or could not do. So I think that&#8217;s foolish.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But my other piece of, you know, quiver for your next movie, you know, which I&#8217;ll be headlining I&#8217;m sure, is that there&#8217;s. There&#8217;s 116 different elements on the periodic table. Many of them are man made and only last for femtoseconds. But, but of the 92 sort of stable ones up to uranium, even those are, are woefully underpopulated. In other words, there could be like, we could have like helium 26, but we only have helium 3 and helium 4. In other words, there&#8217;s an arbitrary number of neutrons that could be added to almost any proton configuration. Hydrogen isotopes. Helium has two.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We don&#8217;t know why. Why does hydrogen have three and helium have two? We have no idea. But we. It could be that they could have a thousand. I think there&#8217;s only something like 400 or 500 different nuclei that are, that have any degree of stability. But a particle physicist would claim, a nuclear physicist would claim is stable. And yet there&#8217;s about 40,000, I think different permutations of just, you know, 100 protons and 100 neutrons or whatever it works out to be. In other words, it&#8217;s extremely restricted.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, the Creator or Mother Nature was very parsimonious in some ways. And this brings up another point you make in the film. The film is divided into four chapters, right? Two of the chapters have relevance to what I do. Two of them, I&#8217;ll have to concede to you with your degree of expertise and knowledge base, but chapter one is really where I shined on film. The universe had a beginning and we talked a lot about that in our first conversation on the podcast. I&#8217;ll refer people to that and it makes less of an appearance this time. I would say the Bordegoud Valen theorem of past incompleteness at the classical level. It is true that Vilenkin claimed, as we, you and I talked about.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And again, Stephen is incredibly intellectually honest. You just have to go look at it. I know you haters out there won&#8217;t do it, but if you have any shred of intellectual honesty, you&#8217;ll go back and see what Stephen and I talked about and what he writes about in his book. Instead of characterizing it as a strawman and then burning down the strawman, we talked about past incompleteness. First of all, let&#8217;s talk about that. Why did it feature less in the film? Is it just too complicated around and not controversial? But is it sort of, you know, past incompleteness of geodesics is not something that the audience is going to appreciate. Right.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />We kind of wanted to tell the main empirical. The story of the main empirical discoveries that have raised the question about whether the universe had a beginning or not. And you did a fantastic job in explaining the conflict between the two basic cosmologies that arose in the mid 20th century between the steady state and the hot Big bang model. We didn&#8217;t go into the oscillating universe. We didn&#8217;t get into any of the newer eternal cyclic cosmological models. There&#8217;s so much. This is a huge discussion. In fact, we might do a sequel just on the cosmological discussion because I think it could be made very interesting.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />But on its face, the main discoveries of experimental, or rather of observational astronomy, coupled with two big developments in theoretical physics, seem to point strongly towards the beginning. Does that give you a proof? No, because you don&#8217;t get proof in science. But you do get a prima facie very strong case that the universe had a beginning and it&#8217;s been expanding outward ever since. We addressed one of the main objections to that idea, maybe the most prominent one, which is the idea of quantum cosmology, which arises in part because the singularity theorems of Hawking and then Hawking and Penrose and then Hawking and Ellis do not absolutely prove a beginning. And there is a window, a very small smidgen of space or space time in which you can imagine quantum effects predominating energy conditions not applying, and therefore leaving you uncertain as to whether you can back extrapolate all the way to a beginning. I devote two chapters of this to my book. We made a single point about these quantum cosmological models, and that is that they invariably end up Having to depict the universe as a superposition of possible states where the possible universes are represented as different configurations of matter in different spatial geometries. And if you have to represent the physical universe of matter, space, time and energy arising out of that universal wave function describing those possible states of affairs, you end up with this weird paradox that Vilenkin himself, one of the architects of quantum cosmology, has noted.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And that is that you get matter, space, time and energy coming out of mass that you have. The universal wave function is a mathematical representation of possibility states. It is the solution of a deeper, more fundamental mathematical apparatus, the Wheeler DeWitt equation, which can only be solved if the mathematical degrees of freedom associated with that are arbitrarily constrained by the theoretical physicists. So you have this weird input of information into the mathematical apparatus from the modeler to get a universe like ours as a possibility out the other side. So you have this, you&#8217;re modeling a kind of end directed teleological process as part of the quantum cosmological program that we couldn&#8217;t get into all of that in the film. But what we did point out was just this one observation that Vilenkin made, which I think is very profound. And that is before there is a universe of matter, space, time and energy, what laws? And he was referring to quantum mechanical law of gravity. What law could these equations representing those quantum gravity, what, what could they be written on? What tablet could they be written on? There&#8217;s no matter, space, time and energy.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />You have this weird paradox of matter and energy emerging out of math. But since math is conceptual, we simply made the point in the film, which is something that Vilenkin himself alludes to. If math is conceptual, are we really saying that? His exact quote, Are we really saying that a mind predates the physical universe? And so we raise this deep question showing that, well, you&#8217;ve got this prima facie case from observational astronomy, from theoretical physics that is pointing strongly to a beginning. There is a well known way of circumventing that conclusion. It&#8217;s called quantum cosmology. And we simply made the point. Yes, you can circumvent it that way, you can get around that point. But if you do, it comes at a cost.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And that cost actually, oddly seems to point in the same direction. It points in the direction of a pre existing mind. And we kind of left. There&#8217;s so much more to say about that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh yeah, you know, for sure.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Yeah, I have two big chapters on this in, in my book. And then you&#8217;ve got all the newer past eternal cosmological models as well. My take on those is that they also come at a cost that in a weird way typically points to theism on other grounds because they always invoke unexplained fine tuning as part of the necessary gerrymandering of the model to, to fit it to data which is otherwise more simply explained on the basis of the hot Big bang.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We did talk about the, you know, kind of the past incompleteness and the Bordeaux Guth Valencol, and we did describe it last time we spoke in terms of the, you know, the limits of our knowledge rather than essentially pointing to a beginning. And sort of even Vilenkin acknowledges that as you said, it does point to a beginning of classical time, which then invokes this thing that Hawking smuggles in, as you and I talked about in person many times, that he introduces in the most popular book in popular science ever written in A Brief History of Time. He says, oh, we&#8217;re going to do this trick, it&#8217;s called a Wick rotation, but you know, don&#8217;t worry about it, it&#8217;s just a little trick. And then the rest of the book, where time comes into existence at a specific point called the no boundary theorem and the Wheeler DeWitt equation, he just smuggled it in and then he applies it and then he says that&#8217;s what, you know, breathes fire into the equation.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />The other very analogous quotation from Hawking, wonder. And it&#8217;s a deep intuition. We&#8217;re trying to explain the physical universe with math right at the end of the day. But the math is inert, it has no causal power. So how does math alone, which is essentially in our experience always conceptual, how does that bring a physical universe into existence? And both Hawking and Valenckin, who have two different quantum cosmological models, kind of come up against this same profound mystery. And I think that&#8217;s a mystery that actually points in a mind first view of reality.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You&#8217;re not saying that it definitively points to it, nor are you saying that you can rule out these conjectures of the null boundary theory, which then invokes time coming into existence and basically, as you say, mathematics. But it is true that people will push back and say, well, the existence of blueprints. You know, the blueprints aren&#8217;t the house or the structure or the reality, but they&#8217;re not nothing, right? They ain&#8217;t nothing. You know, kind of, to use Lawrence Krauss&#8217;s famous words, a universe from nothing.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />That&#8217;s the sort of the more Platonistic concept In this technical article I&#8217;ve written about quantum cosmology, I say it&#8217;s very odd because the, the quantum cosmological model is meant to, at the end of the day, restore a materialist account of the origin of the universe. But it at least points to idealism, a kind of a Platonic idealism. And I would argue, for reasons I can articulate, that a theistic twist on that idealism makes more sense. We don&#8217;t know of ideas that exist independently of minds. We do know that ideas typically and always in our experience exist in minds. And so if we&#8217;re going to say the universe came out of kind of mathematical idealism, this is the question that Vilenkin actually raises. Are we really saying that a mind predates the universe? And I think it&#8217;s interesting, in his book Many Worlds in One, he leaves that question hanging, having laid the foundation for thinking that, yeah, it&#8217;s kind of weird to think of conceptual mathematical realities existing apart from a mind. But he never answers the question.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />He closes out the book in the next couple paragraphs.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, and the same with Michio Kaku. You know, say things like, o string theory is the mind of God and the God equation. And where did it come from? Well, it came from evolution. It&#8217;s sort of puzzling. And again, you know, I&#8217;m very sympathetic to cosmologists because it&#8217;s very hard to do cosmology. And I often say, if I go to the biology department, you know, where I can get some chemicals or whatever, you can get like a frog there that&#8217;s dead. And I dissect the frog, Steve, it comes back and starts screaming. So they don&#8217;t let me around there very often.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But over there it&#8217;s possible at least to do experiments. But cosmologists, astronomers, I can&#8217;t turn up the temperature of the sun and see what does that do to the heliosphere. And I can&#8217;t change the distance, distance to the moon and see what does that do to the Late Heavy Bombardment by comet. So there are all these different things that would make it very hard to do cosmology. So that means to me, where you can find quantitative evidence, you should really dwell hard there and make precision measurements.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />That&#8217;s the cool thing about what you do. You&#8217;re an experimental astrophysicist, cosmologist, and many people in cosmology are operating purely in the purely theoretical realm.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I have a lot of concerns about that because it portrays the, you know, the existence of physics as being the generation of really cool whiz, bang, wormholes and multiverses and black holes that don&#8217;t seem to tunnel to another universe. And also that Michio Kaku has just done my friend Stephen Bartlett&#8217;s Diary of a CEO and talking quite frankly a lot of nonsense that the extra dimensions that the universe is expanding into are the dimensions of string theory and that string theory explains dark matter. And so I&#8217;m going to have a video about that pretty soon.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Just kind of a generation of mathematical castles in the air because we can, we can depict something mathematically or we can imagine something and then depict what we&#8217;ve imagined mathematically. Therefore we need to take it seriously as impossible. Alternative model for the origin of the universe or something. And I think there&#8217;s a proliferation of these models. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s actually the sign of a healthy research program. The idea of these infinite universe cosmologies are proliferating and there&#8217;s a new book out by Phil Halper with Professor Naish F. Shorty and, and they document and do a very nice job explicating describing these different models. But they don&#8217;t, these models, no one of them is caught on as the dominant model.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And they often are mutually contradictory. And more importantly, I think they always come at a huge epistemic cost. They may invoke mathematical sleights of hand like the Wick rotation move that, that Hawking makes, or like the conformal rescaling that Penrose does. Or they invoke physical processes that have no precedent in our known physics and often contradict known physical, well established physics like the unitary principle or a limitation on the speed of light. And, or they invoke a lot of processes that are pure posits. They violate the Occam&#8217;s principle of as much as possible avoid postulating pure theoretical postulates. And finally, all of these models that we&#8217;ve looked at invoke vast amounts of additional new unexplained fine tuning, which is a kind of measure of the degree to which the models are being gerrymandered to try to retrofit themselves to data which otherwise I think more comfortably fits in the standard hot Big bang model.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, I want to talk about the fine tuning next, but before I get there, there is a segment, I think on the chapter on life and the universe, something about 2/3 of the way through the film, which is, which is excellent. It&#8217;s so beautifully filmed and, and it&#8217;s dramatic, it&#8217;s animated, it has, you know, incredible energy, pacing, tempo throughout it. I should say it took you long enough, but, but Now I understand why. You know, I recorded in 2021. I remember how to get like, you know, a Covid pass and all these other. Thank God that&#8217;s. That&#8217;s over, right, Steve?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Part of the problem, Brian, is that we, we. We couldn&#8217;t get to people to interview people we want because of all the COVID restrictions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, it was incredible. But anyway, the film&#8217;s wonderful. People should see it. When it&#8217;s out, I&#8217;ll publicize it again. I didn&#8217;t make a penny from it. Steve, you can swear on whatever you believe is holy that is true. I didn&#8217;t make any money, and I wouldn&#8217;t have done it for money, because that&#8217;s not my interest. I get paid by the state of California.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Thanks to Gavin Newsom for now. But the point is, Stephen, that you go through. In the Life chapter, you go through these beautiful things. Literally. I mean, the flagellum, the protein folding. Doug Axe at Biola is featured, and they&#8217;re talking about the different ways the protein is synthesized from DNA. That double helix is beautiful.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Beautiful.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And you quote people saying it had to be, right? It was so beautiful.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />The person in question is Francis Crick, who used the beauty principle as a heuristic, as a guide to discovery.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I want to dwell on that for a little bit because if Eric Weinstein were here, I&#8217;m sure, or Sabina Hassenfelder, they&#8217;d be screaming at us, saying beauty is the worst guy, because beauty has led to things like string theory proliferating, sucking the oxygen out of theoretical. Again, I&#8217;m quoting Eric, not me. But the point being, it is the most beautiful form. Form of mathematical physics. There&#8217;s no doubt about it that it&#8217;s elegant, as Brian Greene has called it. And part of the reason for the proliferation of theorists versus experimentalists. I was proposing, like, my third or fourth book to my former editor, my current editor, I guess, and he was saying, well, they don&#8217;t want to hear about experiments. They want to hear about fanciful theories.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I&#8217;m like, these theories are ridiculous and most of them will never be proven. And most of them are fundamentally disproven and disfavored already. And he said, they don&#8217;t care. And so I think that&#8217;s a problem. And reference. He&#8217;ll quote things like Stephen Hawking, who said when string theory and M theory, he believed in M theory. When that&#8217;s proved, then we will know the mind of who, Stephen?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />God damn right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The mind of God. Right. So the God equation. Anyway, my point is that I had Kamran Vafa, who&#8217;s one of the foremost explicators and also researchers, theoreticians in physics today, period, full stop. I made this claim that string theory makes no predictions. And he said, no, Brian, that&#8217;s not actually true. And I said, really? Because there&#8217;s like Joseph Conlon, who wrote a book with a chapter called Experimental Evidence for String Theory. It says there is none in that chapter, very famous chapter in a CRC book that he wrote.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But anyway, I said, kamran, what is that? He said, well, the string theory makes a prediction that the mass of the electron should be somewhere between 10 to the minus 3 Planck masses, which is an enormous number, by the way, and 10 to the minus 50 Planck masses. And I was like, okay, so that&#8217;s like me saying your height should be somewhere between a light year and a micron. And he said, yeah, but he said, it&#8217;s not true. Technically, it&#8217;s not true. And so I said, fine, so it could be, could have been falsified. Of course we discovered the mass of the electron long before we had string theory. But, Stephen, critics often accuse you guys at the Discovery Institute, or intelligence designers in general of the sharpshooter fallacy. Like, you just paint your target around the arrow, but you don&#8217;t make any predictions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Is that really true? Are there no predictions? Or is it all kind of retrodictions which are valid, as, you know, philosophically, Einstein did. He didn&#8217;t prove gr. He didn&#8217;t discover the perihelion anomaly of Mercury. He retrodicted, he explained it and he was actually wrong for a couple years at first. Right. But tell me, does intelligence, does it predict anything or is it in the business of seeming like. To me, it&#8217;s always on the defensive. We have to explain why the inference is to the best explanation being a mind, not like, oh, you&#8217;re going to find a hyperon, a three paired quark, and it&#8217;s going to have these properties.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So does Id make predictions?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />It does. But can I come back to that? Because you raised such interesting points, citing Sabine in particular and the beauty thing, I&#8217;m very sympathetic to her and her critique a lot because this is actually, I think, where I don&#8217;t know whether she coined this phrase or whether I coined it, having read her stuff, but this idea that physicists have become more and more in the business of creating mathematical castles in the air, it&#8217;s mathematized metaphysics of a very speculative kind that you find increasingly, especially in the physics of cosmology, with the development of all of these different models so I&#8217;m very sympathetic to that and that the idea that you can hold the beauty principle in isolation of other important principles like parsimony, or like explanatory power, or like evidential support. I have a calling. Michael Keyes, who&#8217;s written a really important work on the explanatory virtues and he identifies 12 of them as part of the process of good science to get the best set of trade offs among those explanatory virtues. And if you hold one like beauty or symmetry in your equations to the exclusion of all the other explanatory virtues, you&#8217;re going to get a skewed model. So beauty is an important element, but it&#8217;s not by itself decisive. And I think where, where physics has gone wrong is holding mathematical beauty or just the ability to construct something that is a mathematical apparatus that matches an imaginative scenario. If you hold that the ability to do that in isolation of all the other explanatory virtues, you&#8217;re going to get a skewed model.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />So I think there&#8217;s something. There are some really profound points in the philosophy of science as we think about, well, what are the features of a. Often it&#8217;s holding several things, getting the right balance between several things. As to predictions. Yeah, a good scientific theory go back to say Lakitas or some of the. Or Kuhn or people in philosophy of science that recognize that good scientific theories do two things. They explain, well, facts that we already know, and they also anticipate or make predictions about facts that have yet to be discovered or that could be discovered under controlled experimental or laboratory conditions. In other words, a good theory has heuristic value.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />It serves as a guide to discovery. The theory of intelligent design does both. We think it does a better job of explaining the irreducible complexity of molecular machines and circuitry in cells. It does a better job of explaining the origin of the information and information storage, transmission and processing systems that we find inside cells, cells, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We could enumerate a number of things that have been long known in biology that suggested a mind played a role in the origin of those systems. But it also makes predictions. One of those really obvious one was about the junk DNA. When the non coding regions of DNA were discovered and it was discovered that the majority of the DNA sequence did not code for proteins.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Neo Darmanists immediately assumed that 97% or whatever it was, was the leftover of the process of natural selection acting on random variations where the random mutations were accumulating over time in the genome. And this was for them an expected outcome of the process that they thought had produced the information in the coding regions and the overall structure of the organism. Our team, starting in the 90s with Dean Kenyon, William Dembsky, Forrest Mims, and then later Richard Sternberg, said, yeah, we accept that mutations are a real process, but we would not expect if the genome were designed, that the information bearing properties of the genome would be dwarfed by the noise, that the signal would be dwarfed by the noise. So we&#8217;re going to predict that the non coding regions of the genome will turn out to be be importantly functional. And with the ENCODE project, even before the ENCODE project research that Sternberg was doing in mathematical biology and bioinformatics, but then with the encode project in 2011 and a whole series of discoveries since then in genomics and bioinformatics, it&#8217;s really clear that the non coding regions of the genome are in fact importantly functional. That overall their function is something like an operating system in a computer environment in which they&#8217;re controlling the timing expression of the coding files. And whereas there are accumulations of random mutation, the majority of the non coding region is in fact importantly functional, just as the ID people predicted. And in my book Signature in the Cell, I laid out that as a prediction prior to the publication of the Encode project in 2011, partly in response to our mutual friend Michael Shermer, who was still marshaling junk DNA as an argument against the idea that you needed Intelligent Design to explain the origin of the information in the genome.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />So that&#8217;s one example. But I also included in the book an epilogue of nine other predictions of intelligent design. And as our research program matures, it not only is demonstrating rich explanatory power, it&#8217;s generating more and more testable predictions that are proving, are providing a guide to research. And we have now very robust research program where people are doing research around predictions that have been generated by an ID model.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />When I talked to James Tour a couple times, once on the podcast, once in person, it seemed to me his main line of argumentation is look at how complex it is, look at the cell, look at the lipid layer. We can&#8217;t even understand that most people think we&#8217;ve made frogs in the lab, but we haven&#8217;t even made a cell. In other words, it was more sort of. Again, and I&#8217;m trying to do this in a way that strengthens your position, which we&#8217;re free to disagree with, but the point is it&#8217;s always a defensive posture, like they can&#8217;t explain this. They don&#8217;t understand that. What is your reaction to that line up? Is it valid?</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Jim has been very explicit up until quite recently and I&#8217;ll tell you the recent twist on this, that he really doesn&#8217;t have the tools as an organic chemist to make the argument for intelligent design. And so he doesn&#8217;t, doesn&#8217;t attempt to. He&#8217;s been more a critic of the theory of chemical evolution or different models of evolutionary abiogenesis. And there are, you know, there&#8217;s a proliferation of those models as well. He&#8217;s played the role that Robert Shapiro once played in origin of life research. They used to call Professor Shapiro Dr. No. With his deep knowledge of chemistry, he would hold, hold origin of life theorists accountable.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />It was a kind of a chemical accounting, saying no, you say that that&#8217;s a plausible model, but that&#8217;s not how chemistry works. That won&#8217;t happen. We know that. And Tour&#8217;s main involvement in the origins debate has been principally in that vein of critiquing the plausibility of chemical evolutionary theories based on what we know actually can and cannot happen chemically. But recently he and I have jointly authored a paper which will be coming out in a Cambridge University Press volume in which he&#8217;s turned the corner. And while still saying I&#8217;m not really an intelligent design theorist, I do see the logic of this. And part of the logic comes, flows out of the critiques that he&#8217;s been making. If you look at these prebiotic simulation experiments again and again, you can&#8217;t get the chemistry to move in a life friendly direction without intelligent intervention of the simulator of the chemist.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />And so what you find is that to the extent that you get life tropic life friendly chemical processes arising from even more simple chemistry, it invariably involves the chemist reaching into the system, removing some reaction products, characterizing and moving others on to the next step, starting with purified reagents. And you can quantify the information that&#8217;s being input into the system by the intelligent simulator, by the person doing the simulation experiment. So I made the point. Well, if you always need a mind to input information into the chemical system to get it to move in a life friendly direction, and we&#8217;re nowhere near simulating in the lab an actual living cell. But if you need information from a mind to even get you moving in the right direction, what are you simulating? Because the logic of a prebiotic simulation experiment is the logic of uniformitarianism. The present, our present observation of cause and effect processes in that laboratory setting is a key to the past well, if we see that we always need the hidden hand of the investigator to move things in the right direction to generate information in a chemical environment, are we really saying then we need a mind to explain the origin of life? Jim gets that argument and we built that into this paper that we wrote together. So I wouldn&#8217;t look to him though, and I think he&#8217;d be the first to say this. I&#8217;m not the guy to articulate the</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />logic of no, I understand. But he&#8217;s very effective.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />He&#8217;s very, he&#8217;s formidable. And people in origin of life research have repeatedly passed on very friendly open ended invitations for conversations.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh, I know. And he&#8217;s debated people that will be attacking this podcast and when it comes out. And he&#8217;s fearless and I respect him. But I want to say something. I do think it leaves vulnerability for the chemist of the gaps kind of hypothesis again, that we didn&#8217;t know about these things. And if I told. If you had been alive 40 years earlier or if you had written this paper 40 years earlier, perhaps you wouldn&#8217;t know about, you know, the asteroid Bennu that has, you know, incredible numbers of really complex chemistry on. Again, you know, I&#8217;m not the guy to go to with biology and I&#8217;ll defer to your expertise on it, but there are advanced amino acids and compounds and, and it is true that Miller Ury Urey was here at UCSD and I&#8217;m going to give you a tour of his lab when you come and visit me.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And we know that Miller Urey was wrong in terms of the reduction versus the oxidizing atmosphere that they assumed, but they still made amino acids. And I guess the point is, are we not in this low information, low signal to noise regime where yes, of course, anyone, anything made in a lab is going to be traceable to the Fisher Scientific Company, right? So with the reagents and so forth, but in space, in laboratories, in this meteorite here which has biological material on it. And you&#8217;ll get it if you subscribe to my newsletter and have a Edu email address and live in the United States brianketing.com edu and it&#8217;ll have biology on it because I touched it. But the point is, Stephen, where do we come down where we don&#8217;t know now this particular fact. But we also didn&#8217;t know about the complex amino acid chemistry which I can look up while you&#8217;re answering my question. But the point is we didn&#8217;t know about it, but now we do. And so does that not leave you vulnerable to God of The gaps type</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />attacks God of the gaps is another way of expressing the idea that an argument is committing the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. And I&#8217;ve had this debating point back and forth with Michael Shermer over the years. Typically, the claim is that, yeah, you ID people are arguing from ignorance. You&#8217;re saying that known processes of chemistry, whether based on chance, whether based on natural laws, or whether based on some combination of the two, are insufficient, are not causally adequate to produce the kind of information that we find in living cells. Specified or functional information. And then from that you say, therefore an intelligent agent God must have done it. And that&#8217;s an argument from ignorance. And that would be an argument from ignorance if we were arguing that way.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />The fallacy of arguing from the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance is that you&#8217;re asserting simply a negation of the causal power of one cause without affirming or providing evidence for the causal power of the alternative cause which you want to elect as the better explanation. And instead we&#8217;re saying, no, we&#8217;re not saying that natural processes can&#8217;t produce functional or specified information, therefore a mind must have done it. It we&#8217;re saying natural processes do not, and for profound theoretical reasons in some cases cannot produce that type of information. But there is a cause of which we know that does routinely generate that kind of information. We have positive experience of conscious agents generating the kind of functional or specified information that we find in living cells. We&#8217;re not arguing from ignorance. We&#8217;re making an inference to the best explanation based on our knowledge, not our ignorance of known cause and effect processes. What are we including in the known cause and effect processes? We&#8217;re including what we know from our own observation of what our own minds can do.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />In other words, and this is the point that Thomas Nagel made in his book Mind and Cosmos, if we leave out our awareness of the reality of minds as part of our characterization of the universe, we&#8217;re leaving out something really significant. And that&#8217;s what gets left out in the analysis of the prebiotic simulation experiments. The role of the mind in simulating the movement from less life friendly to more life friendly chemistry. So we want to say that in making the inference to design, we&#8217;re not arguing from ignorance. We&#8217;re arguing from our knowledge of the cause and effect processes at work in the world, from our uniform and repeated experience of what it takes to generate functional or specified information.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I do want to make a couple advertisements. Again, I don&#8217;t get a penny from this film, but it is I think it&#8217;s the best made film of its kind and there&#8217;s no real competitor to it. It&#8217;s. It fills this void that that was missing for so long. I mean just for one example, that again, I didn&#8217;t know about it. I didn&#8217;t know what, what cuts I&#8217;d be in. I would have liked more screen time, but I&#8217;ll take what I got.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Well, it gets you in the sequel on cosmology friend. That&#8217;s, that&#8217;s where we got to go next.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Top billing, me and Ryan Gosling. Right. And you of course, course we got to have you in there. You do a great job. But the Hoyle resonance sequence where you talk that and you actually bring up one of my heroes which almost nobody ever knows about Willie Fowler, who helped describe why these kidding.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Did you know? Did you overlap with him at all?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I didn&#8217;t but his prize student is my good friend and close colleague George Fuller who just got elected the National Academy of Sciences. He&#8217;s my closest collaborator here. They along with the Burbages who were famed atheists who owe office I now occupy which I will delight in bringing to the Burbage&#8217;s office. They described how meteors, meteorites form. Again, this is incredible storytelling and no one has ever had, you know, this compelling of a storyline where you talk about very complex topics but in a way that anyone can understand. But it&#8217;s scientifically rigorous.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />One of our young film editors found that footage or found the reel to reel tape of Fowler telling the story in.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s incredible. And if you&#8217;re, even if you&#8217;re an A, I don&#8217;t care if you&#8217;re the most militant atheist, Lawrence Krauss, you&#8217;re going to learn something from this film film about the science. You may reject it, not wanting to come into the film, but you&#8217;re going to learn something scientifically from the, from the first person sources. And I think the fine tuning arguments are really a puzzle. And, and I, as you know, I had a conversation on common knowledge with Luke Barnes and Jay Richards. I come down along with Fred Adams who&#8217;s a past guest on, on the fine tuning maybe not being as big of a puzzle, but there&#8217;s some aspects of again I don&#8217;t know about the biology whatsoever, but the cosmology is done incredibly with care and with attention, with respect. And I think the materialist philosophy has weak points and I think pointing that out to the general public is important. You don&#8217;t come away saying it has to be.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It means to be solved and it needs to be Solved. There&#8217;s only one way to solve it. We have the right answer now because I think you have the vulnerability there. When I&#8217;ve heard William Lane Craig again. We talked about this in our first conversation on the podcast. The inference back to a kalam argument that then goes to a God that then goes to Jesus Christ. A lot of people, including me, find that not really very probative and not helpful. Helpful.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So you don&#8217;t do that in this film. This is not a Christian, you know, film. There&#8217;s nothing about.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />I don&#8217;t do that in my book</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />and you don&#8217;t do that anywhere. You cannot attack Steve for being a Bible thumping Christian. He&#8217;s talking to a practicing Jew. He&#8217;s done it many times. He&#8217;s not scared to talk to me and he&#8217;s not scared to talk to militant atheist Michael Shermer. You quote Lawrence Krauss in that book, which. And then the return of the God hypothesis. I think for me, you know, the thing that I&#8217;m most interested in is the experimental side.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Like you hit a. We don&#8217;t have enough evidence. We&#8217;re operating in a realm at least in a cosmology field. Hopefully with new instruments like the Simons Observatory and our competitors around the world, we&#8217;re going to get more information about perhaps the very first moments of the universe with hard, factual data. And I think this is an eternal mystery. I think it&#8217;s beautiful. I think it&#8217;s a wonderful thing to think about. It&#8217;s the kind of thing you stop thinking about when you go to college because you don&#8217;t have time in the quotidian demands of a family and kids and pets.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />Courses done. And get a job. Okay. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And speaking of which, I got to go grade a final. Give a final. But Steve, I want to give you the last word. Where. Where is this film? Where can we find more about this? Where are these papers? And. And I want to support the film in any way we can. Thank you.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />We had a really nice run in theaters. It was initially scheduled for seven nights. We got a two. Two separate extensions of the film. Well, at the box office. I learned all this stuff on Rotten Tomatoes, the go to site. They&#8217;ve got a 92 plus percent popcorn rating, which I guess means it&#8217;s good. The film will be coming out on streaming platforms starting with a release on Amazon prime on June 25th.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />It&#8217;ll be coming out on other streaming platforms later in the summer. But if people are eager to see it soon, June 25th is the date when you can first purchase your own copy to watch on your laptop or big screen at home. I think you&#8217;ll learn something. And it certainly opens up these big questions that, that Brian and I so enjoy talking to each other about.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So, Dr. Steven Seymour, thank you so much for sharing so much of your time. And I can&#8217;t wait to show you around the lab here in San Diego and maybe we can search for some maybe intelligently designed things that, you know, it&#8217;s something made by me, maybe not so much, but my students are quite intelligent.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />I always say that in my own stuff. It&#8217;s evidence of quasi intelligent design if</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />it&#8217;s intelligent and happened because of my wife or my students. Stephen, thank you so much. Have a wonderful day.</p><p>Stephen C. Meyer:<br />We&#8217;ll see you soon. BR thank you.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Steve Meyer thinks that AI proves minds can&#8217;t be reduced to matter. If that rewired anything in your mind. Subscribe. I know you&#8217;re intelligent and you&#8217;ll want to turn on the notifications as well. Tell me in the comments, is MAVA collapse evidence of a design or is it just bad training data? And go deeper. With my conversation with Sean Carroll linked right here.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the White House&#8217;s New UAP Council a Game Changer for Disclosure?</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/avi-loeb-live/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:21:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8267</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Is the White House&#8217;s New UAP Council a Game Changer for Disclosure? Transcript Brian Keating:Queens, foreign and domestic, with my. I think my most frequent guest. I&#8217;m not even sure. Could be. You could be my most frequent guest. And that&#8217;s an honor, I&#8217;m sure. All right, let me see if this is working here. We&#8217;ll cut this out of the final video, of course. Brian Keating:Let&#8217;s see if this works. My videos, you channel. Let&#8217;s see here. Could be you could be my mom. We&#8217;re working. All right. Avi Loeb, welcome back to the into the Impossible podcast. Avi Loeb:It&#8217;s great to join you, Brian, and as I said before, I really appreciate the dialogue with natural intelligence rather than artificial intelligence. Brian Keating:That&#8217;s right. You were talking about my brain and how you&#8217;re glad to talk to a real brain instead of a silicon one. We&#8217;re gonna have a lot of fun today talking about all these exciting things that you&#8217;ve been up to, including a new White House position, because I know you don&#8217;t have enough jobs, Avi, you must have. You must have been lonely. Avi Loeb:This one is particularly important and what I often tell my team members, we should keep our eyes on the orbs, not on the audience. Meaning just like in basketball, you know, I&#8217;m sure that the New York Knicks managed to win because they were focusing on the ball, not on the audience. And in the context of what I&#8217;m doing, there is a great opportunity. Now that President Trump came with the directive of declassifying videos, imagery, documents as much as possible within the constraints of national security, there is an opportunity for us to look into the question of whether there are unusual objects near Earth that are not human made. And, you know, you might think that I&#8217;m approaching it from a perspective of an astrophysicist, but that&#8217;s not true, actually. You know, I draw my lesson from going to the kitchen. If I find an ant, a single ant on the kitchen cabinet, then I know that there should be thousands of them under the sink. And I&#8217;m very worried about it. Avi Loeb:So. So when we shut down the Chinese spy balloon, you know, a few years ago, probably the Chinese intelligence agencies were laughing because we use the missile to shoot down one balloon, but they have many more that we are not aware of. And so the question, you know, the down to earth assumption would be to say all these orbs and unusual objects being identify, being noticed by military personnel near strategic assets of the US Are actually human made. And as a result, if the intelligence agencies are telling us that they cannot figure those out, if the Pentagon cannot really identify the, the senders of these gadgets, and by the way they could be launched from within the US by people who cooperate with adversarial nations. It doesn&#8217;t need to arrive from outside the border. Brian Keating:That&#8217;s right, yeah. Avi Loeb:And so I think it&#8217;s a serious matter. We&#8217;re not dealing with necessarily the exactly the same objects that we dealt with 50 years ago. And so we have. Brian Keating:Yeah, yeah. I just wanted to ask you because we have a limited amount of time, why go to a Harvard professor as esteemed as you are, as. As renowned as you are? I mean, my main concern is a lot of things are coming out now. Disclosure Day just came out. Popular movie, you just reviewed it. And I think it&#8217;s. I&#8217;m going to direct everyone to the Medium article about it. But amidst that, there was also a disclosure, you know, kind of revelation by your friend David Grush and your friend Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna. Brian Keating:And I want to get right to the point because I&#8217;ve been frustrated with both of them. I have, as you know, I&#8217;ve wanted to talk to both of them and I&#8217;m hoping you&#8217;ll make an introduction. A shit, as we say. But Avi, why can&#8217;t I understand why David can&#8217;t come forward? He could go to jail. And I don&#8217;t want him to lose his livelihood or God forbid, Hassel Shalom get injured in any way. I have great respect for him. He&#8217;s a great patriot. However, he&#8217;s talking about things he&#8217;s never seen with his own eyes. Brian Keating:He&#8217;s talking about things he&#8217;s been told and he&#8217;s saying he can&#8217;t come forward with what he&#8217;s been told in more detail than sentient plasmoids and non human biologics. Now, that may be true. I don&#8217;t know anything about disclosure in terms of the government crack down on an individual. I don&#8217;t want any harm to come to him. But Anna Luna, your friend who went to your observatory, who took a tour with you, who&#8217;s on tour with you, she could do this in a heartbeat. And the fact that she&#8217;s not releasing everything that she knows and she&#8217;s hiding behind this suggests to me as just an independent skeptic, but someone who wants to believe that we&#8217;re not alone and wants to know that we&#8217;re not alone. I don&#8217;t want to believe anything. I want to know. Brian Keating:So, Avi, why can&#8217;t she come forward and just tell us everything that she knows? She&#8217;s not going to be put in jail. Come on. Avi Loeb:Well, Representative Luna actually argues that we are not and she is not being privy to all the information that is relevant to this matter and what they are shown under, you know, secrecy in skiff setups, which are basically Faraday cages where no electromagnetic information can penetrate secure, compartmentalized information secure. I mean, what they saw is intriguing, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s the actual things that Grush was talking about. So there is here, there is a gap between the access that congresspeople have and what Grush is talking about.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8267" class="elementor elementor-8267" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-4504805e e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="4504805e" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-de3df0b elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="de3df0b" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Is the White House's New UAP Council a Game Changer for Disclosure?</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-58ab4550 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="58ab4550" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />Queens, foreign and domestic, with my. I think my most frequent guest. I&#8217;m not even sure. Could be. You could be my most frequent guest. And that&#8217;s an honor, I&#8217;m sure. All right, let me see if this is working here. We&#8217;ll cut this out of the final video, of course.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s see if this works. My videos, you channel. Let&#8217;s see here. Could be you could be my mom. We&#8217;re working. All right. Avi Loeb, welcome back to the into the Impossible podcast.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />It&#8217;s great to join you, Brian, and as I said before, I really appreciate the dialogue with natural intelligence rather than artificial intelligence.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right. You were talking about my brain and how you&#8217;re glad to talk to a real brain instead of a silicon one. We&#8217;re gonna have a lot of fun today talking about all these exciting things that you&#8217;ve been up to, including a new White House position, because I know you don&#8217;t have enough jobs, Avi, you must have. You must have been lonely.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />This one is particularly important and what I often tell my team members, we should keep our eyes on the orbs, not on the audience. Meaning just like in basketball, you know, I&#8217;m sure that the New York Knicks managed to win because they were focusing on the ball, not on the audience. And in the context of what I&#8217;m doing, there is a great opportunity. Now that President Trump came with the directive of declassifying videos, imagery, documents as much as possible within the constraints of national security, there is an opportunity for us to look into the question of whether there are unusual objects near Earth that are not human made. And, you know, you might think that I&#8217;m approaching it from a perspective of an astrophysicist, but that&#8217;s not true, actually. You know, I draw my lesson from going to the kitchen. If I find an ant, a single ant on the kitchen cabinet, then I know that there should be thousands of them under the sink. And I&#8217;m very worried about it.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So. So when we shut down the Chinese spy balloon, you know, a few years ago, probably the Chinese intelligence agencies were laughing because we use the missile to shoot down one balloon, but they have many more that we are not aware of. And so the question, you know, the down to earth assumption would be to say all these orbs and unusual objects being identify, being noticed by military personnel near strategic assets of the US Are actually human made. And as a result, if the intelligence agencies are telling us that they cannot figure those out, if the Pentagon cannot really identify the, the senders of these gadgets, and by the way they could be launched from within the US by people who cooperate with adversarial nations. It doesn&#8217;t need to arrive from outside the border.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right, yeah.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />And so I think it&#8217;s a serious matter. We&#8217;re not dealing with necessarily the exactly the same objects that we dealt with 50 years ago. And so we have.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, yeah. I just wanted to ask you because we have a limited amount of time, why go to a Harvard professor as esteemed as you are, as. As renowned as you are? I mean, my main concern is a lot of things are coming out now. Disclosure Day just came out. Popular movie, you just reviewed it. And I think it&#8217;s. I&#8217;m going to direct everyone to the Medium article about it. But amidst that, there was also a disclosure, you know, kind of revelation by your friend David Grush and your friend Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I want to get right to the point because I&#8217;ve been frustrated with both of them. I have, as you know, I&#8217;ve wanted to talk to both of them and I&#8217;m hoping you&#8217;ll make an introduction. A shit, as we say. But Avi, why can&#8217;t I understand why David can&#8217;t come forward? He could go to jail. And I don&#8217;t want him to lose his livelihood or God forbid, Hassel Shalom get injured in any way. I have great respect for him. He&#8217;s a great patriot. However, he&#8217;s talking about things he&#8217;s never seen with his own eyes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s talking about things he&#8217;s been told and he&#8217;s saying he can&#8217;t come forward with what he&#8217;s been told in more detail than sentient plasmoids and non human biologics. Now, that may be true. I don&#8217;t know anything about disclosure in terms of the government crack down on an individual. I don&#8217;t want any harm to come to him. But Anna Luna, your friend who went to your observatory, who took a tour with you, who&#8217;s on tour with you, she could do this in a heartbeat. And the fact that she&#8217;s not releasing everything that she knows and she&#8217;s hiding behind this suggests to me as just an independent skeptic, but someone who wants to believe that we&#8217;re not alone and wants to know that we&#8217;re not alone. I don&#8217;t want to believe anything. I want to know.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So, Avi, why can&#8217;t she come forward and just tell us everything that she knows? She&#8217;s not going to be put in jail. Come on.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Well, Representative Luna actually argues that we are not and she is not being privy to all the information that is relevant to this matter and what they are shown under, you know, secrecy in skiff setups, which are basically Faraday cages where no electromagnetic information can penetrate secure, compartmentalized information secure. I mean, what they saw is intriguing, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s the actual things that Grush was talking about. So there is here, there is a gap between the access that congresspeople have and what Grush is talking about. There is a gap, and the question is, is it real? The fundamental question is, does the government have materials or even videos of clearly non human made objects and perhaps even biologics. Okay. Which is the claim that is being repeated by a lot of people. But for me, it&#8217;s unclear whether the government has it because obviously there should be a retrieval and reverse engineering program within government for things that are found in crash sites of, you know, battlefields or elsewhere where adversarial nations are using technologies that we want to be aware of. So we collect those materials.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />We see pilots there as well. So if you wanted to sort of not to make adversarial nations aware of what we know, you might label those documents with aliens. And then if someone looks at these documents, they might think, oh, the US has in its possession extraterrestrial artifacts. And it&#8217;s not obvious to me that it&#8217;s not just a labeling system, that someone gave it a name and then the rumor was, was spread by a bunch.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He talks about interdimensional beings, she talks about interdimensional beings with the confidence that your colleague Kamran Bafa talks about 11 dimensional strings. And I don&#8217;t know what that means. And I&#8217;m, you know, they always say they defy the laws of physics, but you and I are physicists, Avi. They don&#8217;t defy things that we can understand. So when are we going to get the actual hands on data?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I, I, I think it&#8217;s so part of the reason that I&#8217;m very happy to help government is the first reason. Of course, as a citizen of the US I feel that my duty is to help them develop better sensors so that we can protect the nation. Okay. So it&#8217;s really important not to have holes in our defense system, especially in strategic sites. And perhaps some of my insights as a physicist would help them, and I&#8217;m happy to do that. I would not feel that my time is wasted if we don&#8217;t find anything other than human made technologies. But at the same time, there is a possibility that there is something beyond that, and of course, even if it&#8217;s one object out of a million, it will constitute the biggest discovery ever made by. In science.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Now, the government is not a scientific organization, so they may be baffled, they may be uncertain. They may not know what they are dealing with. And in that context, I&#8217;m happy to help. If it exists. I don&#8217;t. I have not seen it. So, you know, I respond to evidence. I.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I didn&#8217;t have a lot of fun in Steven Spielberg&#8217;s movie because, you know, the artistic freedom that script writers in Hollywood take is not to my taste. They violate the laws of physics. What people have to understand is, you know, the laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe as far as we know. You know, and, and they apply to every atom. It&#8217;s not as if there could be free will of atoms, that one atom will deviate from quantum mechanics because. Because then whoever finds that atom will get a Nobel Prize. So the point is, the laws of physics are based on a huge amount of data that we collected so far. You can&#8217;t just say, oh, I will violate it.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />The speed of light I would violate. I mean, the speed of light being the limit of travel. I would introduce additional dimensions if, you know, you can imagine those things. But unless you have evidence to support these ideas, they should not be regarded as real possibilities because there are many more possibilities than the reality that we all share. So what we need is better evidence. You can&#8217;t look at fuzzy images and say, oh, this is an object that lives in extra dimensions. That&#8217;s not a good enough reason. You know, you can imagine extra dimension mathematically, but it&#8217;s not supported by data.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So I respond to evidence like a detective. You know, a detective goes to a crime scene and, and there are various possibilities as to who is responsible for the outcome. And a good detective would not listen to what the people say, but would look for evidence that would clench the case. And that&#8217;s exactly the work of a scientist. So in that sense, if we don&#8217;t have good enough data, if the images are too fuzzy, if we don&#8217;t know the distances to objects, what we need to do is not go philosophize about it, argue about it. You know, have forums online, on Twitter and on X, and all this social media about it. What we should do is develop better sensors, get better data, and then assess the situation. And I&#8217;m happy to help the government go in that direction rather than regress back in time, because we cannot go back in time and check all these places where the reports indicated something.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, I&#8217;m showing this from the Hollywood Reporter that David Grush is consulting on a new movie that&#8217;s going to be about. Did. Have you been asked to be on these films as well as David, or what do you make of it? I mean, do you think it&#8217;s. I mean, it&#8217;s a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />A couple of months ago, I was on a movie set in New York City. It&#8217;s called the Saul Hershkovitz and the Guide to Extraterrestrial Life. And they asked me to appear there for one day on a camera or playing myself because the main character has an encounter with aliens and wants to speak with Professor Abilob. And they bring me to the set and he asks me questions so that I played myself, basically, but that was my only overlap. And in that case, I basically said what I say to you. I spoke like myself. And so. But I assume that David Grusch is in the spirit of Steven Spielberg, talking about, you know, alien bodies and other things that we have not seen yet.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, we have not seen. And that. Yeah. Do you find that that contaminates the waters? I mean, I heard another interview. Again, I have great respect for these military. I was just on Sean Ryan show. You helped me out preparing for that. Thank you very much.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Should be out soon. But I told him, you know, I get uneasy criticizing the military because I have so much respect for. My stepfather was a fighter pilot and a refueler attacker in Vietnam War and combat, many 50 combat missions. I have great respect for the military. I wasn&#8217;t fit enough to get into them. I would love to be, and I support them. And I&#8217;ve had many of the military pilots that have witnessed, you know, encounters, shall we say, like Ryan Graves and others who haven&#8217;t witnessed them themselves. I should say that they&#8217;ve reported from their own squadron mates what they&#8217;ve heard.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />David Fravor is now reportedly yesterday was talking about Roswell and that the government should just come clean with Roswell. Do you. What do you make of the military? I mean, you and I did. I mean, you. You served, but I didn&#8217;t serve. So. So what. What do you make of.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Are we as civilians allowed to Criticize people of 100 times bigger cojones than we ever have? I mean, again, I&#8217;m speaking for myself. You serve. I know, but tell me, Avi.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Yeah, my impression is these reports are very sincere. I mean, I very much trust the integrity and the honesty of these military people. And obviously they serve the nation and they&#8217;re very honorable. The fundamental question as far as I&#8217;m concerned, is whether the objects they saw, and these must be real objects, right? Whether they had a good assessment of the distance to these objects, the motion of these objects, and in those cases also whether these objects are produced by adversarial nations that they are not aware of. And that&#8217;s a matter of national security. So I think we should clean the uncertainty by simply getting better data, by checking what is flying around strategic assets of the US and once we have better data, most likely it will indicate that we are dealing with some human made technologies. And that by itself would be extremely important, just like the discovery of the Chinese spy balloon. And if it turns out there is something else, that&#8217;s just the icing on the cake as far as the Pentagon or the intelligence agencies are concerned.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So I feel that it&#8217;s worth doing, that this should be a matter that is, you know, within the mainstream of science and within the mainstream of the intelligence agencies. And it should not be ridiculed the way it was in past decades because now we have much better sensors.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But I point out they also ridicule themselves. I told this to Sean and I told this to Lex Friedman when I was on his show. The pilots who were most, or the people that were most likely to haze, to tease, to make fun of, to mock work. Fravor squadron mates and Dietrich squadron mates. In other words, when they get back to the ship, they got mercilessly teased. I asked Sean Ryan, did you ever tease your friend who was worried about IEDs, you know, and them being planted or drones? 20 years ago, drones were very new, they look like alien technology. He said, no, we would never do that because I know people whose legs have been blown off. But by actual, I, I should say</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />that in the latest release on Friday, which was the most intriguing, there were several pieces of information that were quite noteworthy. One is a letter written by the brilliant Dr. John Kozlowski. He is the director of the old Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And this letter was written on the 5th of June. So just a week and a half ago. Yeah, and this letter talks about an event lasting two days in October 2023, very recently, where a combination of orbs and kites and objects that were not fully identified that were noticed. And the orbs, for example, they had the ability to generate smaller orbs, which is really strange.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Mother orbital creates a baby or smaller or.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, I saw that, but people said it was a flare. Obviously this is the problem. We have people that, yeah, they, they,</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />they say, I won&#8217;t discount it as Flares, because they actually look specifically at flares and other possible explanations. They claim that 40% of the phenomena that were discussed by very reliable law enforcement officials, 40% are not easily explained in terms of you, in terms of what the US currently possesses and adversarial nations, as far as we know, have. So I would not discount it. I would just say, let&#8217;s get better data. And that&#8217;s serious.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What do you make about. Sorry, yeah, one second.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />The other thing related closely to what you previously said is that is a report from the CIA in 1992 which says that in the late 1950s and in the 1960s, half of the reports on UFOs were associated with U2 airplanes. This was a new technology, exactly as you are saying now. If in the late 50s it was already operational and the US government denied that it has any such equipment and so it was ridiculing the reports, whereas we know that they were related to UFO to. To these U2 airplanes. So if in the late 1950s these were definitely operational, it must mean that in the early 1950s they must have tested them. And probably the Soviets also had. Before Sputnik, they must have tried to lift the objects, you know, out of the earth gravitational potential wells. So what I&#8217;m saying is there are lots of people saying, oh, there was UFO activity before the Sputnik era.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />We see it in photographic plates and so forth. But it wouldn&#8217;t surprise me if these were glints from, you know, U2 airplanes, which are very high and can reflect sunlight, or the early versions of Sputnik. Before Sputnik.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. Yeah. And I am talking with Beatriz Villarreal this week, and I know that you guys have had some back and forth about her claims of. That this has to be outside of the atmosphere, not a U2 as high as they fly, or SR71, because they&#8217;re showing glints that go into shadow on the Earth&#8217;s. We&#8217;ll get to that in a minute if we have time, Avi, but I want to. I want to get into the headline news. I mean, we buried the lead for 20 minutes and my audience is dying to ask you questions. And you have to be a member to ask questions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s so many people that want to ask questions. You do have to be a channel member. It&#8217;s 70 cents or something to be a channel member, but that&#8217;s just to keep the volume to a reasonable minimum. Avi, the big question. When did you get the call? When did Trump call you up and say, avi, I got a Mission for you. I&#8217;ve got. You&#8217;ve got the best hair next to mine. Avi, I need you to help out.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />When are you going to start this UFO Council? That&#8217;s my Trump impersonation.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />But it was a messenger that I hosted at my home. It was an in person meeting followed by additional conversations that lasted about a week before I started to assemble the council just a few days ago. And I was aiming to collect brilliant members, people who I know personally that have a very high level of intellect and also knowledge of the subject.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that&#8217;s why I didn&#8217;t get the call. I don&#8217;t think I got the call, but, you know, maybe I was on a break now. I&#8217;m just kidding. We&#8217;ll talk about the team members in a bit.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I should say one thing, that I selected one member to be a skeptic. It&#8217;s very important in every committee to have someone who is the devil advocate that prevents the committee from losing sight of biases. So it&#8217;s really important in these days where people&#8217;s opinions are very polarized and the two sides of the map always hate each other, they don&#8217;t want to speak with each other and they say nasty things on each other online, on both sides. You know, people have to realize that in order to have an effective committee, you really need at least one person from the other side in order to introduce a sanity check that we are not just biased in the way we discuss it. But in addition, I should also say that, you know, the quality of the work that we do really depends on the data that we get access to because, you know, we will make the best lemonade out of the lemons that we get. I mean, if we get very bad lemons, the lemonade will not be so great. And so it all depends on the data. And that&#8217;s the way I look at it.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />But I assemble a group of people that can give sound scientific advice that has all aspects of the phenomena. It includes, you know, the nerds that will analyze data, machine with AI, machine learning. It includes also people who deal with psychology, anthropology, philosophy of anomalies and theology as well. So because these subjects are interconnected with respect to the impact on humanity, such a finding of something that is not human comes forward. You know, we really need to know how to deal with it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Will there be an official announcement from the White House or from the Office of Science Technology? Like when it will. People online are curious if it&#8217;s going to be officially sanctioned by some official White House channel.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Well, my sense right now is that The White House stands behind the President Trump&#8217;s directive and that includes all agencies of the intelligence and the Pentagon. And in terms of declassifying what, whatever is not risking national security. And so everyone is on board on that. And, and the question is, what does the government really have? I mean, we hear all these stories as we discussed before, are they real? And of course a lot of people wish to believe that they are real. I mean, Steven Spielberg definitely is confident that the US government has act has bodies of aliens in its possession from crash sites. I&#8217;m not that sure. I mean, he, as an artist, he&#8217;s allowed to think whatever he wants. But as a scientist, I respond to evidence.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />And of course if I have to sign a non disclosure agreement, I would do so just because I think it&#8217;s a very important type of evidence for the future of humanity and I don&#8217;t need to broadcast it to the public at large if there are reasons not to do it immediately.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Will there be a budget that you are author, you have to tell me what it is. But, but will there be a budget? Will there be transparency, oversight, governance, etc.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />No, at this time we are an advisory council. So my guess, based on service on similar, in similar committees, that the budget includes travel expenses when we meet in person. That&#8217;s basically it. No personal compensation or any financial interest. But I think it&#8217;s really very encouraging that the government comes forward to a scientist like myself and asks for assistance because in the past it was more of an approach of keeping a distance from the public, from the scientific community. So just the change in attitude I think is a great blessing and I really appreciate the opportunity that they give us to have a conversation with whoever has the data and help them. Are you, yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Are you worried about backlash? I mean, this is not a field where the light of heart fear to tread. And I said, when you go, when you go to Washington, if you want a friend, you know, bring an alien with you. But you know, for example, I&#8217;ve also been disappointed. Again, I&#8217;d love to talk to Representative Luna because she&#8217;s so involved and so energetic and enthusiastic. But sometimes she says things. She says things that quite frankly, I think are harmful to her own cause. For example, she called Kirkpatrick, you know, basically accused him of not being forthright when he was leading Aero because he doesn&#8217;t agree with the Lou Elizondo kind of Jeremy Corbell and that sort of faction. So she.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And she. And he called into doubt basically Grush&#8217;s, you know, testimony. And he was the one that was empowered. Now he. He. He gets the most hate of any guest I&#8217;ve ever had on the podcast. I mean, it&#8217;s unbelievable how much vitriol he gets. And so at one level, we want to trust Aro, but Aaro.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But the other hand, what if you get attacked by Luna in six months because she says you&#8217;re not towing whatever line she wants you to tow?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Oh, no, no, I&#8217;m not worried about that, because I. I will basically follow whatever the data suggests. I mean, you know, I&#8217;m not the kind of person that would. I mean, of course I can suggest interpretations that are not confirmed, and I did that in the context of astrophysics, because that&#8217;s the way you operate. You just use your imagination. As Einstein said, the imagination is more important than knowledge. So given the data that we have, you can come up with possibilities, and then you decide which one is the correct one based on additional data. And that&#8217;s the way I will operate.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />But it&#8217;s not as if I will bend my statements to political will because, you know, whether we have a neighbor or not is not a matter of discussion. Either we have a neighbor or not, for the same reason that either the Earth moves around the sun or the sun moves around here now. So it&#8217;s really all about the data and the quality of the data and. Or getting new data that will help us figure it out. And so I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a political process. In fact, members of Congress on both aisles, you know, for the political spectrum, they work together. And that&#8217;s one of the unifying themes, actually, that everyone engaged with politics seems to be excited about discussing this subject. So I think it will bring actually people together rather than separate them, if we.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Where these things are, and not in the. Not in the context of watching a plot on the movie screen, but in reality, which is, by the way, it could be much more inspiring because there may be ways by which aliens visit us that were never envisioned, but in Hollywood, because, you know, the. The training data set that encompasses all the real estate beyond Earth is far greater than. Than what you find here on Earth. And our imagination is dictated by our experiences so far. So we are very limited, and we might be very surprised once we have the first encounter. Just to give you an example, we might think of biological creatures, but it could also be biology that is synthetic. That is something that waits for our.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />In our future. Right now, we are producing computer chips out of silicon. That&#8217;s the source of artificial intelligence. But imagine us getting to a point where we can use biology to, to create artificial intelligence. That obviously would be far better because the human brain is consuming only 20 watts compared to the.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, that seems to be.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />My point is that it could be very surprising for us to encounter something that is synthetic biology from another, from an exoplanet or a robot that is purely technological. I&#8217;m saying we, until we, we have that experience, we will not know who our dating partner is.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, and that seems to be consonant with what Grush said, apparently, that there&#8217;s a continuum from corporeal bipedal type life, which is a very shocking statement to me. I&#8217;m not actually more, you know, kind of perplexed or astonished by the fact that he mention, assuming it&#8217;s true, a corporeal bipedal life form. Now, you know as well as anybody that bipedal life existed and evolved on Earth over very, very specific conditions. It&#8217;s almost inconceivable that you could have bipedal life that&#8217;s extraterrestrial. Right, but. But that&#8217;s more shocking than sentient plasmoid life and synthetic life, right? I mean, isn&#8217;t it?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Yeah. So yesterday I wrote an essay on the question that I was asked by a fledgling biophysicist. And he asked me, you know, if we find the extraterrestrial life, you know, visiting us or in another place, and how would we be able to tell whether we have common ancestry, whether, you know, we are, we both have the same origin. And I said, I answered it very simply. You know, the life on Earth, the double helix is twisted. The right handed, you know, both the RNA and the DNA have a twist in the right handed direction. Could have been left handed, but the symmetry was broken. We don&#8217;t know why.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />That&#8217;s a mystery. Now, if we meet life that came from a completely separate source, it has 50. Even if it has the same building blocks of the DNA RNA that we have, the amino acids, it could have 50, 50%, the opposite chirality. And therefore, if we find that multiple life forms, extraterrestrial life forms, have the same chirality as life on Earth and the same building blocks, it might argue for a common ancestry. It&#8217;s sort of like meeting siblings of our family. And the question is, then who is the parent? You know, if were we introduced here on Earth by some interstellar gardener? And, you know, so extraterrestrial life or technology, you know, in a way also brings us closer to understanding our origins.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, there&#8217;s one thing that I think is most likely knowing, you know, from, for Example my military relatives who are in special operations. I mean these are the most elite people on earth, as far as I know. And that they&#8217;ve been waterboarded, they&#8217;ve been tortured, they&#8217;ve been for our country, by our country, by the Pentagon, by the, you know, all these three letter, five letter agencies that you can imagine that, that they&#8217;ve been fed and they&#8217;ve been tested to the limits, psychologically, physically, you know, to every level that you could imagine. And they&#8217;re the ones that are very skeptical of a lot of these claims. For example, Bobby, if you&#8217;re dealing with, you have to know that there is a shadow government that has what I, that Eisenhower called in addition to the military industrial complex. His very last speech that he gave in public life, he said that he&#8217;s most worried about a scientific technological elite that would gang together and then have exert their control by their excess wisdom. And he worried there was a shadow scientific academic front that was operating within hedge funds and operating within spy agencies and then Pentagon. So how will you be able to differentiate between evidence that&#8217;s manufactured so called psyops by the government that, that you&#8217;re alleged that you are earnestly working for, shall I say? But how do you know that they&#8217;re not going to work against you? They must be as smart as you, right?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Well, that&#8217;s an excellent question. And I have my ways. First of all, I&#8217;m using my intelligence and they cannot easily fool me. Okay? I&#8217;m not just a robot that will, you know, given the evidence, I will follow, but I will just look for patterns in the evidence and whether they are trying to manipulate me. I mean I can tell if someone tries to manipulate me. The second, of course is that I selected the, some members of my committee that have, you know, inside information and</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />so, or maybe that&#8217;s psychology. Right? You have a psychologist on the team too, right?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I also have a psychologist, but I&#8217;m saying even, you know, I have people who would be able to alert me to a manipul, manipulative scheme. And you know, some people are worried it will be a repetition of blue project, Blue Book. And I don&#8217;t, you know, frankly, my approach is that I don&#8217;t care what happened before. You know, I&#8217;m, I&#8217;m looking at the future and it could be better than the past. And I, I, you know, and the way I see it here is that we have better sensors, better scientific tools that we can apply to this problem and resolve it. You know, the goal is to resolve it, not to listen to the people who jump up and down on social media. I don&#8217;t, you know, there are lots of people who have opinions, there are lots of filmmakers that have ideas. But my duty as a scientist is to promote a better understanding of the reality.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />And it may well be that the government has nothing, or it may well be that the government has really something that Spielberg doesn&#8217;t know about. I want to get to it. And at the very least, I&#8217;m saying, even if you are down to earth and you say there is nothing beyond human made objects, I, I say, well, I&#8217;m not wasting my time because I help national security in that context.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right. Now another question that has come up. Maybe it&#8217;s just me who&#8217;s interested in it. There was a survey done by Vickers et al in nature astronomy in 2024. I just learned of it recently, talking to some people that believe in things like intelligent design, which, you know, I, I will consult with them and I&#8217;ll talk to them, but I say the same thing to them as I say to you and anybody else in the CMB cosmos cosmology continuum as well. I want to see evidence, not, not belief. But this is what bothered me. They did a survey and they found that over, you know, 80% of astrobiologists believe, they use the word belief, you know, in the abstract that alien life exists outside of the Earth.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I said that didn&#8217;t bother me. The number what bothered me is that they answered the question at all. Because, Avi, if I say to you, do you believe in astrology? You don&#8217;t say, no, I don&#8217;t believe in it. You say, I have evidence that it is false, that it is as good as chance at predicting whether Mercury is in the seventh House if you&#8217;re going to get a parking ticket that day. What do you make of 87% of astrobiologists said that they believe on it? They didn&#8217;t say, oh, I&#8217;m waiting for it to be. There&#8217;s no evidence yet, which is what I think you should say. And how does that pertain to what you&#8217;re doing?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I, I should also mention that many of them said that they started, they went into astrophysics because they were inspired by science fiction stories. What I would say on that is, is make an analogy with a congressman that five years ago, you know, before he retired, he advocated for legislation against gay rights. Okay. And then when he retired from Congress, he admitted that he&#8217;s gay. And, and so then you wonder, how is that possible? Well, he said that he wanted to satisfy his constituency and try to be popular. But it went against his personal beliefs, Right? He could not have believed what he&#8217;s trying to advocate for. Right? And so you find people in situations, and that happens a lot in society. They are following the herd.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />They don&#8217;t want to be in constant friction with their environment. So they follow the environment, they follow the herd, they advocate for the same things. And just because right now, the popular view within the astronomy community is to talk about microbes and investing more than $10 billion in the habitable world observatory, they would say, yeah, let&#8217;s zero out any federal funding towards searching for technological signatures, because we are very focused on searching for microbes. Now, what I say is this is not a good approach because we don&#8217;t know if it will be easier to find microbes than it is to find technological signatures, because we don&#8217;t know how many objects might be within the inner solar system that are technological. We try to look for radio signals, but, you know, we ourselves are stopping to use radio communication. In fact, Artemis too, started to use laser communication. So who knows, in a thousand years we might not use radio radio communication. It&#8217;s an ancient technology.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So to invest 70 years and then say, okay, there is nothing there, that&#8217;s not the right approach. Because looking for a package in our mailbox is a completely different approach than waiting for a phone call. So my point is, you know, the mainstream is at risk by basically trying to reach a consensus. When you try to argue that we need, as a community of scientists, reach a consensus as how to invest all of our funds and we must go in the same direction of looking for microbes, this is actually damaging innovation because you want to encourage at least two approaches or maybe multiple approaches, so that if one of them fails, like for example, the large Hadron collider failed to find super symmetry, fail to find dark matter, okay? So if we get to a situation where we build the habitable world observatory and we have a hard time detecting oxygen, methane in the atmospheres of exoplanets because of some technical problem, because the signatures are not clear, I don&#8217;t know what the reason might be. We need to have a diversification of our portfolio so that at the same time we invest billions of dollars in searching for technological artifacts within, you know, the interstellar comets or rocks that arrive into the inner solar system, for example, we can explore them. So my point is we need to diversify the portfolio of the way we invest in science. Not it&#8217;s not about consensus. And by the way, right now that the Catal survey is considered to be a consensus document, and the astronomers are all aligned behind a single mission.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s the right approach. I think we should have multiple missions, especially in the search for life. Because when I was dating early on, before I met my wife, I was aiming high. I always wanted to meet someone more intelligent than I am. And currently the astronomy community is aiming low. They are looking for the most mediocre dating partner. More, you know, microbes rather than intelligent being.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, yeah, I always tell the young, you know, women that I get to advise or when they ask for, you know, advice from my wife, you know, and how to meet the perfect man. She says, don&#8217;t bother looking. I&#8217;m already married to him. Okay, Avi, we got questions from the audience here. So many questions. You have to be a channel member, but we&#8217;ve got literally hundreds of members. Swain, ME 6969. I don&#8217;t know what that code stands for, Avi.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Many say we&#8217;re on the verge of government trump announcing alien life and craft and bodies. Yet it sounds like this board of yours, your counsel to collect data, analyze it. Is disclosure imminent?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Well, that would be wonderful if it is, because, you know, frankly, my life will be worth living if I realize that, you know, we have a lost sibling out there as someone else. You know, right now, the universe appears to be. And, Brian, you know that in all the textbooks, it&#8217;s described as a mix of radiation and matter and the dark energy. These are. This makes the universe feel lonely and cold. However, if we realize there are intelligent beings out there, we will have an emotional connection to the universe. We will have a reason to go interstellar. Not talking about going to Mars.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />That&#8217;s just another rock that happens to be near us. I&#8217;m talking about when we realize that someone is visiting our backyard, we might want to visit their backyard. And. And then it changes everything for us because you know, not only philosophically or theologically about our place in the universe. You know, we. We are not at the top of the food chain, cosmologically speaking, but also in terms of our ambitions and our aspirations and priorities. Instead of killing each other on this rock for territories, you know, like, this is ridiculous. It&#8217;s a piece of rock that is, you know, a few times 10 to the minus 6 of the mass of the sun, the.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />That happen to be left over, and we fight over it when there is so much more real estate out there. And so we would realize that we have to change our perspective. Sort of like it&#8217;s A transition bigger than the Copernican revolution. You know, when in that Galileo helped pioneer. Because it&#8217;s not just that we are not at the physical center of the universe, it&#8217;s just, it also means that, you know, for us to be remembered in the history books of the Milky Way galaxy, we have to become interstellar. Not Martians. Interstellar.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right. And that reminds me, one of my favorite books. See, this tells me that Avi is, is a close friend because he sent me an early, early copy of that book as well as the first book. Okay, next one comes from Sigil Strategic Research. I&#8217;ll add it to the conversation. Reports of strange things before the 18th century are not influenced by Pentagon US security restrictions. The the Roman Legion saw flaming shields in the sky. And we can go back to, you know, Yeshua and the Torah and other things.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />For example, or this 1933 magenta Italy sighting. And I&#8217;ve heard a lot about that. I mean, I think Grush brought up stuff from the 1930s. I mean, is any of that relevant? I mean, we can&#8217;t even agree on what happened yesterday.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />It&#8217;s definitely interesting and intriguing. The problem is that the data is very sparse. It&#8217;s not comprehensive, it&#8217;s not scientific quality. So we can&#8217;t do much with it except for saying, look, these things happen over the past century, they should also happen now. Okay, so for example, you know, there were claims that the Apollo astronauts noticed UFOs around the moon. Well, if that&#8217;s the case, then why didn&#8217;t the Artemis 2 astronauts notice anything unusual on the, you know, they had much better cameras. There are claims that there were, you know, transients from glints on satellites around the the earth in the 19, early 1950s. Well, surely right now, you know, the Director of National Intelligence should have would have been alarmed if they noticed satellites that do not belong to specific nations that we know about.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />If they saw a fleet of a thousand satellites moving around the Earth, they would immediately, this would be a red alert that they would have to figure it out. They would get as much data as possible. So I don&#8217;t think right now it&#8217;s possible to hide things as much as 50, 100 years ago, when the technologies of sensors were much worse. And therefore if we don&#8217;t see right now things that people claim to have seen, let&#8217;s say 50 years ago, then I would not buy those stories because verification validation is a very important aspect of science. And of course, if we had excellent data from long ago, for example, if we had a piece of material That I can examine in the laboratory. I can tell you whether it&#8217;s extra solar, whether it came from outside the solar system, because even if it has more than one gram of material, I can examine the isotope ratios and tell you that it&#8217;s not from the solar system. And so we need good data, scientific quality data in order to assess it. And the problem is many of these reports from the past do not have that high quality data.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />And they could be just, you know, misidentification of things that are common, you know, on earth.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, you mentioned the, you know, kind of the technological aspects of things. One thing that came out recently from the James Webb Space telescope is that 3 Atlas appeared to have some methane emitted from it. And I tweeted that that&#8217;s kind of like having a chemistry stock room, room, you know, sent from another, another solar system. What you, I noticed you also lowered the, the value on the lobe scale. Can you talk about the recent, recent findings from James Webb and the methane found from that?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />That&#8217;s really intriguing because the methane appeared after the, after 3 Atlas came close to the sun when it was warmed up. But methane is, is far more volatile than CO2 carbon dioxide, which was detected already in July when the object was first found. And so the question is, how is it possible that we detected carbon dioxide but not methane when the object was far? Because methane is much more likely to be sublimated, evaporate from the object. And of course, the authors of the paper argue that, well, perhaps it was removed from the outer layer of 3i atlas and buried deep in. So only when it&#8217;s sort of like onion shells. Only when you clip off the outer shells by warming from sunlight, you end up reaching the depth where methane is buried. That was the argument. But then carbon monoxide CO was also detected back in August 2025, before perihelion, before the object got closed without methane.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />And carbon monoxide has roughly the same volatility as methane saw. So I think it&#8217;s a bit puzzling why methane was produced close to the sun. And I just said it&#8217;s a biosignature. You know, there are papers in the literature saying methane would be the first molecule to be a biosignature if we find it in the atmosphere of an exoplanet. So I asked, is it possible that there are some microbes that were revived as a result of three ATLAS coming close to the sun, and perhaps they emitted the methane? So I actually am finishing a paper this week with my student estimating how, how much mass in microbes do you need in order to produce the level of methane that was observed? Hmm.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now you wrote recently. Oh sorry. You wrote recently about the Palomar Transient that some of them, most of them perhaps could be cosmic ray hits. I mean 60,000 impacts on a plate that are all aligned and they have three dimensional trajectories. Right now, Beatriz Villaroyle, who again I&#8217;m having on in a couple of days this week and I&#8217;d like to understand what, you know, she&#8217;s saying that it&#8217;s highly unlikely according to the Busco and other analyses. So they say that it&#8217;s not, it&#8217;s not likely at all. So where do you come down now? Do you find her or this other reanalysis?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I mean the reason, the reason I brought this up is first because of the Apollo astronaut images that showed that these blue lights, but they were, they appeared also outside of the, the lens of the camera. So it was clear that these were triggered by something that has nothing to do with, with objects in the sky. Now with respect to the photographic plates, I was intrigued by the fact that there was a paper, you know, analyzing the, the Palomar plates and stating that there is an anti correlation between the UFOs, these transients that appear only in one plate but not in other plates. There is an anti correlation between their appearance rate and the, the geomagnetic storm activity on Earth. So when the sun emits a coronal plume of, of highly high temperature gas and it impacts the Earth, that&#8217;s that triggers a geomagnetic storm. Then the number of transients went down, went down. So it was anti correlated. So then they said well maybe the UFOs somehow avoid geomagnetic storms.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />I just googled it, I checked and it turns out that cosmic rays have exactly this anti correlation because plumes of plasma that carry magnetic fields, they push away the cosmic rays from the earth and so that there are fewer cosmic ray hits. So I&#8217;m saying, look, you identify an anti correlation. I&#8217;m. This is a natural consequence for cosmic rays. We know that. We also know that cosmic rays introduce a background. You cannot avoid that. So let&#8217;s just not confuse cosmic rays with UFOs.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Okay? That was the only point I made. And they said oh, we are confident it&#8217;s not cosmic rays. But why is there this anti correlation? It must mean that at least some of the sources are cosmic rays because otherwise you wouldn&#8217;t get why would the UFOs care about geomagnetic storms this way? You know, and the other, the other thing is that now that the CIA report came out. I&#8217;m still wondering if there could be human made objects that are part of the other transients that they saw. And they saw transients near nuclear test sites. And obviously that&#8217;s a very good location</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />for and military pieces. Yeah, the Tic Tac was seen right off the coast. Yeah.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />All the US military trying to monitor the conditions before the explosion takes place.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, if you had to go back and revise your, your feelings about the first interstellar object, Oumuamua, how would you rank it on the lobe scale today, knowing everything you know?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Well, I think we suffer once again from lack of information. So there were the anomalies of the object being most likely flat and changing its brightness by a factor of 10 as it was tumbling every eight hours. That is a very extreme shape for an asteroid or a comet. And then there was no cometary tail around it, no gas or dust detected, and yet it was pushed away from the sun by some non gravitational force. So given these anomalies, I, I ranked it at 4. I mean most likely, it&#8217;s natural. But, and I should say right now, the comet experts define it as a dark comet, meaning a comet that doesn&#8217;t show cometary activity. And they listed additional dark comets within the solar system.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />There is one of them that we wrote a paper about with my colleagues and Adam, he and others, and where we showed that one of those is actually following the same path as the Phobos one mission that was failed. That failed. This was a mission by the Russians and they sent the wrong prompt. The technicians send an extra semicolon that triggered the loss of power in that spacecraft. And we show that it could be the dark comet that they&#8217;re talking about now. The Japanese, the space agency wants to, they said, oh, let&#8217;s first take some data on it. So there was a paper last year of data and it became clear the object is about 10 meters in size and moreover it&#8217;s very shiny. It reflects 50% of the light, the, the sunlight impinging on it.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So it&#8217;s shiny and it&#8217;s spinning really fast every five minutes. So it must be very sturdy. And they want to land Hayabusa2, that&#8217;s a spacecraft, they want to land it on top of this dark comet so that we can understand how the outgassing takes place. And I&#8217;m saying go ahead, make my day, because they will do it in July 2031 and imagine them landing on this object, the dark comet, trying to figure out how the outgassing comes from it and seeing a Label made in the Soviet ussr. Imagine them doing that and that, that we can test in July 2031. It&#8217;s a, is the beauty of science that you can actually check and I wonder if the lesson learned from this experience by the Japanese, if they land on it and it looks like it&#8217;s a human made object, whether people would say, oh wait a minute, maybe Oumuamua also was technological.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So Stephen asks if there have been several non human species visiting our planet for decades, as Eric Davis and David Grusch claim, could humans coexist peacefully with them if the truth cuts out that they&#8217;re here?</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Oh, definitely. I mean, I think they had a lot of opportunities to kill us. And it, you know, a very, if they are here, a very reasonable scenario is that they coexist in a way that we can&#8217;t easily notice them. And they are sort of, they regard the experience as an experiment where they are, they look at us and see what we are doing, but they do not intervene. We don&#8217;t pose a threat to them. They can easily do whatever they want. If they have much more sophisticated technologies. They might have accidents every now and then, like, you know, any endeavor.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So yeah, you know, an interesting question is whether life or intelligent life on Earth was planted by some interstellar gardener. That&#8217;s something I really want to know whether what we regard as a natural sequence of events from a primordial soup of chemicals on Earth, you know, to human intelligence, whether that was actually had the milestone along the way, milestones that led to human intelligence that were artificial in origin, that, you know, they introduced things. And we are not aware of that, of course, because documented human history is very limited. So it would be really revealing if it turns out that we think that we live in a brave new world that we created, but in reality it&#8217;s just a world that was created by someone else.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, last couple of questions. Swain asks. It&#8217;s very weird. Why are these objects so interested in US Military bases? They must have far advanced technology than our military does.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />That goes back to my zero, you know, the null hypothesis that I have that they&#8217;re human made objects and they are used for espionage.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And then my final question to you is if we do, you know, sort of get, get definitive contact, whatever that might mean, are you going to change anything about yourself? Would that cause you to, to reevaluate, you know, the fact that they would send something biological? Perhaps. And actually before I ask you that, Avi, why would they send something biological when they could send AI? I mean, what do you think is</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />more likely because maybe for us, AI is made of silicon chips because we are not advanced enough. So actually just a few days ago, every day I get very interesting things that I haven&#8217;t anticipated. I got a question and the question was, why haven&#8217;t we seen self replicating probes, you know, von Neumann probes? Because, you know, if even if one civilization in the Milky Way galaxy had that ability to create self replicating probes, we would see it because, you know, it would grow exponentially, this population and reach us. Okay? And we don&#8217;t see it. Right? So the question is, is that evidence against self replicating probes? And I replied, what are you talking about? We see here, I speak every day, we set for replicating probes. These are biological entities. You know, the human DNA is self replicating. Right? And so an interesting question is perhaps the highest level of technology is one that uses chemistry and uses the raw materials on the surface of a rocky planet to self replicate, which is exactly what we are doing, biology does.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />So maybe we are self replicating probes that came from another place.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Very good. Now if we do get contact and you do get this private information and Trump brings in back into the office, takes you up to the, to the Oval Office, Avi, and makes you an offer, what are you gonna do? What happens the day after? It just seems like disclosure day. Everyone&#8217;s building up. What happens? Disclosure date plus one for you personally.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Well, okay, so for me, it&#8217;s like a kid that enters a candy store and just gets a huge candy. And I, I would just enjoy that candy as much as I can. Now there are, of course, implications because it would affect policy, it would affect the stock market, it would affect, you know, our aspirations. And so there would be huge implications for our future. But at first, just this knowledge by itself would take me a while to, to fully digest. I don&#8217;t need to speak with anyone. I will just think about the implications. You know, every morning I jog at sunrise in the company of ducks, wild turkeys, birds, and, you know, bunnies.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />And I, I just think, and you know, I don&#8217;t need to speak when people approach me on, on the road, you know, they say good morning. And that, that bothers me because it cuts off my stream of thought, you know, so I would just think for a while about what it means, what we should do next and how can we promote a better future for all of us. And I think it will be a better future. So a lot of us are frustrated by what we read every day in the news, and I think it&#8217;s an opportunity for us to change everything in a better way.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Avi Loeb, thank you so much for joining us today. You got to go talk to the big shots at Time magazine, but I do appreciate you and I&#8217;m really, really excited to do, to see what you guys come up with, because I think you guys are doing the most rigorous and most important kind of scientific analysis, and you&#8217;re doing it as a scientist. You know, the fact is people ascribe a lot of stuff, nonsense to you that you don&#8217;t believe in, that you&#8217;ve never postulated, and to have a real scientist on of your caliber and, and, and stature and interest, curiosity level, and let&#8217;s just see where it goes, right, Navi? So thank you so much.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Thank you for having me.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Happy disclosure day.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />All I can say is that I will try not to disappoint all of you. I will do my best. And, you know, it&#8217;s not about the messenger. It&#8217;s about the message.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Wonderful. Avi Loeb, thank you so much, my friend. Talk to you next time.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Thanks for having me.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />All right, well, you hired the inimitable Avi Loeb, and he&#8217;s always such a fascinating guest to have on. I&#8217;ve had him on many times. But I want to talk to you now because he&#8217;s left the building. You know, he&#8217;s, he&#8217;s dropped his briefcase. He&#8217;s no longer here. But I have a lot of thoughts. I have a lot of thoughts. I have a lot of feels from this interview that I just did, you know, thinking about the preparation I did for it, involving multiple guests that are coming up this week, including Beatriz Villarrell is coming on Wednesday, Michael Shermer, who&#8217;s coming on Thursday, all involved in some form or another, what Avi&#8217;s doing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I really, you know, it&#8217;s hard when I do these podcasts, when I do these interviews, especially live, there&#8217;s a million things I want to ask. I want you guys to ask. I want you guys to, to be engaged. I don&#8217;t think any other podcast from, you know, the competitors do these kind of live streams. Kurt J. Mungle, a friend of mine, you know, past guest, I&#8217;ve been on his show, Sean Carroll, certainly, I don&#8217;t think David Kipping, my friend and respected colleague. And so I really do feel like this is a unique opportunity that I give in the comments, but also for you guys to ask questions. And there were literally hundreds of comments.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I did my best, and I always get criticized. Why Are you looking away? You know, like. So I bought a teleprompter, you know, and now I can put the questions here so it looks like I&#8217;m, I am indeed doing as I&#8217;m doing, paying attention. But I need to be candid with, with you because I mean, I think if I lose my, my, my trust with you, I think I lose everything. And I want to be honest, you know, I&#8217;ve pushed back on Avi since the wee days of when, when he first came on the podcast in 2020 to talk about his first book which is mentioned here, extraterrestrial. And I said, Avi, you know, you believe that, that this object comes from an alien civilization potentially. Maybe it&#8217;s not technology itself, but it&#8217;s left over from technology. It could be a garbage barge, it could be a solar cell.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I said, Avi, wouldn&#8217;t be great if you knew some billionaires that could spend, spend money to fly a probe and catch up to a more and, and of course that was tongue in cheek. But I was pushing back on him because he did know people like that Yuri Milner and he still does. The, the breakthrough Starshot Enterprises funded by, by Avi&#8217;s, you know, friends and colleagues, Yuri Milner and others. And he&#8217;s at Harvard, you know, arguably the, this hedge fund with a $50 billion endowment that still charges tuition that outpaces inflation. I always forget to criticize Avi for that and rejects more, more people, you know, than I got rejected, you know, when I was on the dating market. They serve a 1500 people, you know, in the freshman class. So it&#8217;s pretty small. It&#8217;s like a Chipotle does every day on a decent day.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So it&#8217;s exclusive. He&#8217;s in this multi billion dollar orbit. He brags about billionaires coming on his, his to his doorstep and I don&#8217;t fault them because he is incredible at what he does and he&#8217;s rigorous and he is a real scientist. That&#8217;s where I, I just had a video about criticizing Michio Kaku&#8217;s most recent appearance on diary of a CEO which got 4 or 5 million views. And I&#8217;m trying to debunk all these claims and I ran out of like patience after 15 claims in a 40 minute video. Avi&#8217;s not like Michio Avi&#8217;s, you know, working in the trenches writing papers. I don&#8217;t know when the last paper Michio Kako wrote was. I bet it wasn&#8217;t recently.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And there are a lot of great, you know, Neil DeGrasse Tyson hasn&#8217;t written a paper, you know, since the Reagan administration, as far as I can tell. But, you know, they do something important and they have a role and they also have their own, you know, kind of financial incentives because they&#8217;re all writing books. And so look, I write books, I don&#8217;t do it for the money. The amount of money I get from my books is near below minimum wage, I think, even here in California. So believe me, I&#8217;m not doing it for the money. You know, maybe these other folks are, maybe Avia&#8217;s, I don&#8217;t know, maybe David Gross Russia is, who knows? I&#8217;m not even speculating. They&#8217;re involved in movies. That&#8217;s never interested me whatsoever.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m interested in finding out information while I still can, while I still have influence and, and ability to influence young minds and, and get into the passion of science. You know, I wouldn&#8217;t become a public university professor if I was really interested in the money. Okay, so let&#8217;s put that to rest. But I told Avi back then when Oumuamua was in the news, you know, it&#8217;s not that far outside of our solar system. It&#8217;s your last chance to catch up to it. And he said, well, you know, there&#8217;ll be many more coming through. Now. There&#8217;s been two more that have come through and one of them was known to be a comet Borisov.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the second one, now a third one now seems very likely, even according to its greatest champion, Avi Loeb, to be, to be also more likely to be extraterrestrial, you know, natural material than extraterrestrial technological materials. He just said he lowered the confidence on his coined Loeb scale. I wouldn&#8217;t have called it the Loeb scale, although I do have the Keating medal. I do give the Keating medal to people that came in. And just recently I gave my first Keating medal for impossible imagination to a man who won the Nobel Prize. So we&#8217;re kind of squaring off which one is bigger. And my, my Keating medal is bigger than the Nobel Prize. Anyway, you&#8217;ll see that interview soon.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But here&#8217;s where I land. Avi is doing rigorous version, the most rigorous version I think that you could do. He wants the instruments. He doesn&#8217;t want the feels, he doesn&#8217;t want the testimony the interdimensional beings. I think Luna is really, really doing something that I, I think is, is self destructive for her. Cause she&#8217;s criticized Kirkpatrick again. I had him on. I know most of you hate Kirkpatrick.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think that&#8217;s Nonsense. Don&#8217;t you want to see me ask these people question? I didn&#8217;t let him get away with stuff either. I&#8217;m going to push these people and I&#8217;m going to ask questions because this is the most important thing I think that humanity may ever discover, including what I do, you know, which I think is pretty damn important. Important. Studying galaxies, studying the cosmos, studying the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, Lorentz invariation and variants. All these things. These are incredibly important things. But if we found extraterrestrial intelligence, sentient plasmoids and interdimensional beings, Come on, that would be, you know, I&#8217;d stop doing what I&#8217;m doing and join up with Avi.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But. So why haven&#8217;t I done that? Because I haven&#8217;t seen the sensors, I have haven&#8217;t seen the instruments, I haven&#8217;t seen the data. I&#8217;ve talked to the people that have talked to the people, and that includes people like Ryan Graves who have, you know, claimed to witness things, to seek to talk to people that he has. He hasn&#8217;t claimed to talk to the people, he&#8217;s talked to people. They work in a squadron and. But he is often claimed that he saw these things directly. But he said candidly on my interview with him, maybe things have changed, but that he didn&#8217;t witness it, but his colleagues and squadron mates did. And that was fine because you can report on it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Grusch is doing the same thing. He hasn&#8217;t seen these things. He&#8217;s saying that people that he knows has seen these things. Okay, so where does this sit in the evidentiary scale of science is very low, right? It&#8217;s very low. Whereas data, hard evidence, you know, people joke about. Well, you believe in dark matter. Yeah, I believe in dark matter because we&#8217;ve already detected dark matter, we&#8217;ve captured dark matter, we interact with dark matter. We know how to build sensors that do it, and we know how to measure it throughout cosmic history.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />They&#8217;re called neutrinos. Okay. So people say, oh, dark matter, you&#8217;re just an idiot. You&#8217;re a fantasy. You believe believe things too. No, I don&#8217;t believe in it. We have evidence for dark matter. Neutrinos fit every definition of dark matter.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />They&#8217;re massive, they interact weakly. There&#8217;s. This just happens to be not enough of them to make the universe flat and curve in terms of its curvature. And so there must be non neutral, there must be other non neutrino forms of dark matter. But neutrinos make up every bit of dark matter that any theorist would ever want. They just don&#8217;t make up enough to do well. That&#8217;s like saying, well, well, hydrogen, you know, only makes up 74% of the of the universe&#8217;s baryonic mass density. So does that mean that baryons don&#8217;t exist? It&#8217;s a stupid argument.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, so we&#8217;ve detected dark matter. We have evidence for dark matter now. We haven&#8217;t detected dark energy in the same way we&#8217;ve detected dark matter because we don&#8217;t have ability to bottle it up. But when we hear these things, this is what drives me crazy. I&#8217;m an experimentalist. Avi&#8217;s a theorist. Most of the people he&#8217;s talking to are theorists. Gary Nolan is not an experimental astrophysicist.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s not dealing with. With the same types of sensors. He&#8217;s dealing with experiences that he had that he talked about on my show when we did a co livestream together with Avi Loeb a couple years back. So you can look that up now. What&#8217;s important to me, I pushed him on Luna because he has access to her. She is obviously a fangirl of Avi, as are many people. He&#8217;s very charming. But we need a whistleblower who has the power and is not afraid to use it, not to go after people like Kirkpatrick, who was serving his country as best as he could, and he got a ton of crap for it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, I think after having spoken to him, he would never do it again. You know, death threats and, and all sorts of things, going after his family. It&#8217;s horrible that what happens to people like that. And that&#8217;s why I caution. Navi, are you sure you want to do this? Because it&#8217;s inevitable you&#8217;re going to piss people off and you&#8217;re going to go up against the Pentagon that has psyop information disinformation, mal information campaigns against everybody that you think that we don&#8217;t spy on the Chinese, Chinese or, or the Israelis or, you know, we spy on everybody and, and thank God, you know, for that. As Jack Nicholson said, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. Now, I don&#8217;t like the fact that my relatives were tortured. You know, I feel like that&#8217;s bad.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But they&#8217;re not babies. They&#8217;re some of the strongest men, you know, women that I know, and they do things for volunteer. They didn&#8217;t get recruited with a bag of their head and get waterboarded, you know, for grins and giggles. That wasn&#8217;t what happened. No, that was part of their Search of aid and rescue training that they had in the military, and thank God that they did. And I hope that they never have to use that, but they&#8217;re hardened against it should they ever have to use it. Okay, so let&#8217;s, let&#8217;s look at this. Where is Luna? Coming down.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />She has the power to subpoena people. She has full immunity. I&#8217;ve also wondered, and maybe I&#8217;m just foolish about how the government works again. I don&#8217;t want anything bad to happen to anybody. I don&#8217;t want Grush to be attacked. I don&#8217;t want him to, you know, go to jail for revealing classified information. But we have freedom of the press. We, you know, there could be leaks to the media and so forth in the press.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, if this is stuff that&#8217;s happening, you know, it&#8217;s hard to imagine how, you know, how sentient plasmoids. Telling us that there are sentient plasmoids and bipedal, you know, organisms, which is very shocking to me. I mean, that&#8217;s sort of the most shocking thing I&#8217;ve ever heard in this. Not the sentient plasmoids in the interdimensional beings. That doesn&#8217;t really kind of rankle me as much as the bipedal, because bipedalism is almost the least likely. I mean, look around your house. You might see one or two bipedal objects. You might see an equal number of.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We have an equal number of bipedal objects around the Keating household. Right. They&#8217;re called pets. Sorry, quadrupedal is bipedal, you know, and so this is a shocking revelation if true. And again, I just pulled up the quote and, and, and from the article, from the testimony in July on June 9th. So we have to say that this is, that this is, is. Is among the most important things. So why isn&#8217;t there protection? Why, why isn&#8217;t Luna saying, here&#8217;s what I found out.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Go to the people, skip Grush altogether and Grush and go straight to the source. He can tell them who to talk to, what he saw when he saw these objects, and she can talk to Lou Elizondo. He&#8217;s already revealed all this stuff. He&#8217;s on tour. He talks about this stuff with Jeremy Carbo. Why can&#8217;t she talk to them, get the names? And then she&#8217;s not going to be subpoenaed, she&#8217;s not going to be arrested. She&#8217;s leading the, the damn committee. She&#8217;s one of the most powerful people in the, on the planet.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I don&#8217;t understand it. And again, I, you know, I&#8217;d love to talk to her. I&#8217;ve asked Avi to introduce me to her. I think maybe one Jewish astrophysicist is enough for her, you know, to, to kind of make, make her sick of, of talking to me and scientists like me. But, but, you know, I&#8217;m happy to host her. I&#8217;m happy to host Lou Elizondo, David Garouch, all these people. I&#8217;d love to get them on and I&#8217;d love to stop the petty backbiting ad hominem attacks that they do and have done to them. Okay, so that&#8217;s number one.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Table stakes are they have to be safe, they have to be, have immunity. But I don&#8217;t buy this whole thing that they have to get, you know, some whistleblower law. We already have whistleblower laws passed. And again, David doesn&#8217;t have to be the one. David can hand off the information to Burchett and Burkhardt or whatever and to Luna and he can be safe and he can know that he doesn&#8217;t have to hand them off. They know who the sources are and they know where the facilities are. They can go into the skiffs themselves and they can find out the information. The other thing I pushed AMI on, as you notice, is on his criticism of Beatriz Villaroyle.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now I have my problems with Beatrice that we&#8217;ll talk about on Wednesday. Of course, Cora, I have great respect for her. She&#8217;s, she&#8217;s an incredible intellect and, and, and she has so much passion, charisma. She also gets a ton of hate. I hate the fact that she gets threats and hatred and, and, and people attacking ad hominem attacks, again, imputing her character as a scientist. I think it&#8217;s total. But everything scientific that she says is fair game. I&#8217;m going to ask her.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, Avi said this about the, about the solar coronal mass ejections on my show on Monday afternoon. Monday morning. And what do you have to say about that? You, you have to explain that in order to at least have a comprehensive explanation. You claim that these, that these defect. Now, I&#8217;m an observational astronomer. I know all about these plates. I have some of these plates from Palomar that Beatrice is analyzed. Not the ones that show glints and alleged, according to her and others, evidence of extrasolar or, sorry, extra terrestrial.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, obviously off of the Earth technology that reflects sunlight prior to the Sputnik Pro. So in other words, prior to low Earth orbit satellites. Now we don&#8217;t know for sure what was up there. Right. I Mean, there&#8217;s always that it could be as obvious said it could have been Chinese or Russian. I kind of doubt that because the Chinese and Russians stole a lot of information about our nuclear program and our space program from the US not the, the Soviets didn&#8217;t steal as much from, about the space program. They stole a lot more from the nuclear program, as you all know, from Fuchs and other people. And then they ended up building the hydrogen and the fusion devices shortly thereafter the getting the spy information from spy spies on the US So two scientists are going to come to different conclusions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s fine. But we have to hold them both to the same standard. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m going to do and I&#8217;m going to get you to decide. I&#8217;m going to present the evidence. There&#8217;s another thing that I want to challenge, you know, Beatrice about, which is, is that her contention that there were scientists killed in these, you know, massive string of deaths, allegedly, which is not actually the case. What, what, you know, that&#8217;s massive or aberrant or somehow unusual suicides, homicides, you know, potential accidents and so forth. And then accusing, you know, or suggesting, alleging as she did on Twitter that, that some of them were killed because of they had special information or access us to the type of science that she does with these glints, orbs, photometry and, and these, these specular reflections. And I want to talk to her about one scientist in particular who died where I do my work in the Atacama Desert, where I&#8217;ve been half a dozen times.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I can&#8217;t even remember. But this is a really important thing for us to, to discuss. And, and that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m going to push these people and I&#8217;m going to push Michael Sherman. I&#8217;m going to talk to Michael Shermer this coming, this coming week. I know a lot of you don&#8217;t find, find him to be your favorite, your favorite flavor of, of cars. But you saw, Avi has integrity. Avi put him specifically on the White House counsel, authorized counsel that he&#8217;s in charge of because he wanted someone not just a skeptic. I mean, Michael&#8217;s not just like, oh, you&#8217;re just, you know, he&#8217;s just speculating.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s trying to be, you know, Debbie Downer, you know, Cassandra wannabe, you know, pessimists, you know, get to be right, but I optimist get to be rich. No, no, Michael&#8217;s not like that. He will talk candidly as he does in his new book, which is the main reason he&#8217;s on, but I&#8217;m going to talk to him about the Galileo project and this new White House council because he&#8217;s on it with Pascal, Gary Nolan and others and I want to have them all on. A lot of them say stuff and I have to hold their feet to the fire. Now one thing about this council really rubbed me the wrong way and I wonder if you can tell what it is. I mean, maybe put in the comments. Comments, if you can suggest what, what you think really kind of bugged me about what Avi&#8217;s, what Avi&#8217;s was saying and the power of his committee. I was very concerned about it and maybe you can guess in the, in the broad.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So first of all, put a thumbs up and put a subscribe, you know, please, on this, on this channel because I am doing really, really interesting interviews this week. I like to think I do a lot of education. Most of it&#8217;s for free. Again, I teach at a public university. Right. I&#8217;m not, I don&#8217;t have any book to sell or you know, course to sell or whatever. I do a lot just to get it out there and I&#8217;m doing a lot more of, you know, kind of debunking style stuff, but not ad hominem. I, I didn&#8217;t, you know, I didn&#8217;t go after Michio Kaku and some of the ways that people were saying really awful things about him when I posted on X.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I guess I kind of knew that sort of my fault that they would say things like, you know, we don&#8217;t have the science communicators that we deserve. I&#8217;m trying to be one of them. You know, I&#8217;m not the best, I&#8217;m not the last. But I&#8217;m doing my, my best and I&#8217;m doing it all. Like I said, you&#8217;re watching YouTube for free, right? You watch some ads? Maybe, maybe not. If you have YouTube Premium, I don&#8217;t get a penny from that. But, but tell me, what do you think was the most concerning thing? If you could guess it, maybe put in the comments after the video. I&#8217;ll give you guys, you know, five seconds to think about it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I wish I had my clickers. I use my students. They love these clickers. They come in, I give them 10 points extra credit on their final exam if they brought clickers to class, every class and answered the questions. I don&#8217;t even know if they got them right. Just have to answer anyway. Builds engagement. You guys are engaging.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You&#8217;re attractive and engaging. Okay, what was it? Is that he has no money. He got no money from the government, right? So what is this? If you get no money and a government that, you know, spends what, 7 trillion a year? And this could be the most important thing in human history, that is American history. And even if it&#8217;s not, even if it fails, as people say, oh, it&#8217;s just going to discover Chinese Bible. That&#8217;s freaking huge. And even if we discover there&#8217;s a huge silent, isn&#8217;t that incredibly important to the stated goals of the Trump administration? And I share those goals, right? So having no money, 0%, not even like, oh, we need a, know, a hundredth of a percent, a thousand dollars, right? I, I think that&#8217;s a fatal mistake. I think, you know, the first thing that I want to know is, am I going to have a budget? Is there a governance structure? What is the transparency of this organization? Like, how are we going to communicate? What are we going to have access to? Now, Avi&#8217;s smart. He said that he&#8217;s smart, so he has to be smart right now.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That kind of bothered me too, that he said, well, I&#8217;m smart, so I&#8217;ll know that there are not gonna, that they&#8217;re not trying to trick me with a psyop. Really, Avi, I mean, I couldn&#8217;t push, you know, I can&#8217;t push back on everything because Avi charms me. You know, he is one of my, my, I just like him. I, I hate, I hate to say it, you know, I have weaknesses. I&#8217;m only human. That&#8217;s one of my biases. But I did push back during the interview. But, but mostly I feel like to say that you are not even to say, like I could say, well, I&#8217;m gonna take advice from my wife or my, my, my husband or my, my colleagues at, at Harvard.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, say something, right? Say something. There&#8217;s someone else besides you if you are your own arbiter of what is being truthful, if someone is being truthful or not. I, I feel like this is another kind of. It&#8217;s just putting a stumbling block in front of the blind. I think it&#8217;s, you know, if I had to bet right now that this, this, this council is led by my esteemed friend Avi Loeb, the foremost educational institution on earth, which has its own separate budget, and he has his own budget, and he&#8217;s also leading Galileo project. These are all separate kind of orbs, so to speak. I would say right now, I give it a 60, 40 chance of not succeeding just because it doesn&#8217;t have government backing. I also pressed him on a question that I got a lot offline.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Ask him, you know, if it&#8217;s going to be recognized by the White House. So far it&#8217;s not. And he said that, you know, it&#8217;s, you know, it&#8217;s authorized and it&#8217;s consonant with the President&#8217;s goals and the administration&#8217;s goals and all these national security goals. Well, sorry Avi, there&#8217;s. All these agencies are in constant conflict with each other. Part of what I heard from an Air Force, a very, very high up fighter pilot in the Air Force is that there&#8217;s infighting between the Air Force and Space Force and the Navy. You notice that many of these sightings from Graves reporting sightings by squadron mates and others and Fravor Dietrich are in the Navy side. Grush was in the Air Force.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now we have the Space force as of 2018, 2019, whenever that was started. And there&#8217;s huge amount of interagency, you know, hate. I mean quite frankly there&#8217;s hatred. I mean unless they&#8217;re in war, they&#8217;re a huge territorial pissing contest that you would not believe. I&#8217;ve heard some of the most staggeringly inefficient uses of our tax dollars come from the fact that these agencies all want to have their own control. And then you add in the CIA which is a separate, has its own separate military paramilitary intelligence gathering wings, the FBI, you know, even things like Homeland Security when the drones are flying over airport. These are all so entangled. And to say like Avi&#8217;s going to be their Harvard professor with $0 and they&#8217;re just going to listen to him.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />They&#8217;re not listening to Luna. I mean they&#8217;re not really. Where&#8217;s this data dump? I mean like I said, most of the stuff I&#8217;ve seen can be identified either by, has been identified by the NASA, you know, blue ribbon panel led by my, my friend and colleague David Spergel and and code co advised by our member Shelley Wright who studies optical transient events from extraterrestrial civilizations, potentially extraterrestrial civilizations using optical photo avalanche detectors in the most novel way. She&#8217;s invented these teles. She&#8217;s looking. She would be probably the most thrilled person on earth if these things were were found to be extraterrestrial. But they haven&#8217;t. They found 95% in the NASA panel could be explained.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now what bothers me is that people and so 5% can&#8217;t be explained. But as Michael Shermer puts it, just because you can&#8217;t explain it doesn&#8217;t mean that the, the antithesis is the correct one, right? You can&#8217;t just say, oh, because we can&#8217;t explain it means that it&#8217;s unexplained. Aerial phenomena means that they&#8217;re alien phenomena. That&#8217;s not the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis still it&#8217;s unexplained. We just don&#8217;t understand what it is. More data is needed or if it occurred in the past. I mean, if you had asked somebody, you know, two years ago, can we get data from the 1950s that could shed light, maybe not prove, but could shed light on the existence of, on the existence of alien artifacts in our, in our local low earth environment, you would say, what, are you crazy? There&#8217;s not, we don&#8217;t even get good video quality today.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Like, how are you going to get, like what are people going to be mediums, you know, seeing back in time? No, no, but she went back, Beatrice went back and found these plates from the Palomar skyscrapers. She didn&#8217;t look at them for the galaxies in the quasar surveys. You know, first quasar surveys really done here. Discovered Martin Schmidt here by Palomar up the road in San Diego county at 6,7000ft up with a 200 inch telescope. It wasn&#8217;t the biggest telescope in the world anymore, but it was at the time. She did the hard work and now we&#8217;re going back in time and getting evidence from that. So there could be other things in these, the oceans, you know, on the moon, there could be artifacts. And that always reminds me, you know, because I&#8217;m speaking so much, but, but I do want you to get meteorites, especially those of you who are students in the United States.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If you have a dot edu email address, you&#8217;ll win a meteorite. So I want to send these to you. These are true, honest to good, extraterrestrial, came from beyond our solar system, potentially. Now it came from the pre solar system. But I&#8217;m going to send those to you if you have a. Edu email address and live in the United States.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />States.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If you don&#8217;t, I give, I do give away 10amonth to people that don&#8217;t have it. Again, you have to live in the U.S. because the U.S. post Service charged an awful lot of money for this poor state university professor to send you. Okay, now next, here&#8217;s what&#8217;s coming up. So when Beatrice comes in, she&#8217;s going to talk me hopefully about the Vasco project. She&#8217;s very, very, very, very, I would say, exercised about these critiques that, that she&#8217;s had that these photo photographs did not come from the telescope itself. That came from artifacts like cosmic ray smashing that penetrate through the telescope completely and just make an image and an artifact on the photographic plate? No, she says they went through the optics and that could be proven.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So then we have to press her on this issue of solar activity and coronal mass ejection. These are completely things opposite, you know, kind of conclusions. Now, I want to understand what questions you want me to sort of ask her about things like disclosure day, about, about maybe confirmation bias. Put those in the comments after, you know, when the video&#8217;s up. It&#8217;ll. Anyone, not just channel members, can give, can give comments just on the live stream. So. And what do you guys think about this fact that, you know, Grush and others are now involved in the, in the Hollywood, you know, kind of dramatization, disclosure days? Is that just going to be, you know, the first of many things? And, and as Spielberg said, but Avi didn&#8217;t agree with, and I don&#8217;t agree with, you know, that he believes that these things are here and he keeps using that word, belief, belief, belief.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And, and a lot of people kind of took issue with the video I made with Hugh Ross, again, an intelligent design proponent. But I&#8217;ll talk to anybody. I talked to Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute. I don&#8217;t care. You know, I like to be challenged intellectually. I like to challenge other people intellectually. But I&#8217;ll do, I do it always for the sake of truth, trying to understand what&#8217;s.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m not selling anything. They might be selling things. I&#8217;m happy to promote them. It&#8217;s very hard to make your, your living and stuff like that. But what do you believe about these, you know, people that are in the disclosure forefront, tip of the spear for disclosure, like David. But they haven&#8217;t seen the craft, they haven&#8217;t seen the body, they, They&#8217;ve never touched the technology. They&#8217;re not, you know, they&#8217;re not hardcore engineers. I think David does have a background, maybe in engineering.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />People can correct me, but he was a major, major, maybe even a general, I don&#8217;t know, in the, in the Air Force, wasn&#8217;t a pilot, but. But I believe he operated drones. But anyway, to me it does. And it kind of, you know, I sort of brought this up with Avi. You know, he was asked to be in this movie, but he&#8217;s playing himself, I guess. I don&#8217;t think David&#8217;s an actor and that&#8217;s not really what he wants to do. Or maybe he does. I don&#8217;t know.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s a handsome guy. He could be A great actor, I don&#8217;t know. But if he&#8217;s an actor, that makes things even worse, right? Because he&#8217;s, I mean the actors are the ones that are most likely to be trained in human psychology and manipulation, right? So I don&#8217;t believe he&#8217;s going to do that. But, but he is, you know, kind of held up at this level on a Bruckheimer, you know, kind of consulting role. So I don&#8217;t know. Would you do that? Do you find that suspicious in any way? Do you find suspicious in any way the Frank Crave a revelation? Three days ago, four days ago I put on from Reddit and other places, actually it was on Twitter I first heard it, that he believes Roswell was, you know, evidence of non, you know, non human bodies, technology. Let me see what he actually said over here. I don&#8217;t want to misquote him, but, but yeah, I mean, I think this was a kind of a, an interesting, an interesting, you know, kind of twist that, that, you know, he was, he was essentially speculating or saying, I don&#8217;t know how he would have evidence of that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean he was a fighter pilot, commander of a squadron, right. So why would he have knowledge about something from the 1940s, right? Like why would that be what he had special access to? I mean it. Maybe he does. I mean, he might be just getting informed from people. But then that raises the question again, does he not, do these people have protection? Are they really in danger? I believe, believe David Grush could be in danger. So if that&#8217;s true, you know, then when, when he states something that goes in contradistinction to something that&#8217;s going on the record by Steve, by Sean Kirkpatrick. Why don&#8217;t we wait that like Sean could be, you know, could be committing some classified information faux pas reveal that he shouldn&#8217;t be, but he doesn&#8217;t, right? So he&#8217;s gone on the record and he said he disagrees with it. So I guess, you know, from my perspective it&#8217;s, it is, it&#8217;s hard to know what to believe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So yes, retired Commander David Fraver, famous for his tic tac encounter, has stated the government has recovered materials from Roswell and has known about a non human presence on earth for over 80 years. And then Fravor advocates for official transparency like we all do, suggesting the world honestly deserves, deserves honesty regarding these issues. So he&#8217;s known for the Nemet&#8217;s encounter. Fravor is called. You have to be honest about the. Just to be honest. We&#8217;ve known for 80 years that we&#8217;re not alone. Now why would a fighter pilot have special knowledge? Maybe he does, but, but as far as I know he&#8217;s retired.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I don&#8217;t know when he retired but, but I, you know, 2004, I can do the math. It was 22 years ago when he had the Nimitz encounter. Why would that then give him official information. Now he may get information because whistleblowers may come to him hoping that he can get their story out. But he doesn&#8217;t have, as far as I know, he maybe never had. I mean just because you&#8217;re in the military. I mean I&#8217;ve had, I have friends that are fighter pilots. My flight instructor is a fighter pilot, F18 pilot just like him, even maybe at the same rank as him.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He doesn&#8217;t have special information just because he&#8217;s a fighter pilot. And Shermer points out in his new book that actually pilots in general, including me, I&#8217;m a commercially rated pilot. That we&#8217;re some of the least reliable people and of the least reliable part pilots in the world are military pilots. Why is that? Well, you&#8217;re telling me they&#8217;re not brave? F. No, they&#8217;re freaking much more brave than I&#8217;ll ever be. And they&#8217;re badasses physically, mentally. They can kick the crap out of people like me. They could hold their own Navy seals.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />These pilots are insane. They&#8217;re jacked. They&#8217;re incredible. Ryan Graves is a beast, right? But they make mistakes at a higher rate. What explains that? Are they stupid? Absolutely not. One of my best friends is a Princeton grand graduate. He&#8217;s an F18 commander, combat veteran. Okay, so these are not stupid people.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, so what happens? And this is what&#8217;s been borne out. They are extremely good hand eye coordination. They are good at training for reactions to threats. Is a Cessna 172 that I fly around California. Is that a threat to the F18s at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station right here? No, they&#8217;re not a threat at all. So they&#8217;ll ignore those types of threats. So they&#8217;re looking for anomalies. You have a filter as a pilot you filter out things that are nominal and you look for things that are anomalous.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. So they&#8217;re trained and heightened on the state of awareness to look for things that are anomalous. So this is what psychologists studying the military for other reasons. This is to avoid crashes and, and, and, and, and sort of other hazards to flight. Another topic Ryan is quite bravely investing his time and energy in and, and this is all, you know, again for, for Good purposes. But when the first, you know, statement to go to is, well, Fravor is a fighter pilot, he&#8217;s braver than Brian Keating and he&#8217;s, and he&#8217;s a better pilot than Brian Keating, none of which I dispute, then we must trust him on everything, including information about Roslyn. No, no, sorry. You know, just like if, if they, if I go out and say, well look, this is how a CCD or CMOS camera operates.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />This dark noise, the flat field, these are the cosmic ray impacts, these are the, or dark current sensitivity or CMB camera works. And then someone says, well, what do you think about aliens? I should say, I know nothing about that. Right. I&#8217;m not, I&#8217;m not an expert in it. But when they say, like this object emits black body radiation, well, quite frankly, I am an expert in that. And the U.S. government under the Trump administration just forced the Argentinian government to cancel a high altitude site near the Simons Observatory in the, well, in the Andes Mountains. Not that near us, but, but very similar to us that the Chinese were developing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Why do the Chinese need an observatory in Argentina? Well, that&#8217;s weird. No, so they can have hemispherical synoptic observations of black body radiation. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m guessing that&#8217;s why they probably did it. So if they&#8217;d come to me and said, well, Keating, well why are they doing this? I would say, well, let&#8217;s look at it, you know, but, you know, I&#8217;m not going to talk about politics, but, but my, my expertise is in that field. Now if it was to look for aliens, I could also say, yes, we could detect planets and we can detect objects like, oh, anything that gives off heat. And everything in the universe gives off heat, even the universe itself. Right. And I&#8217;m an expert in detectors that operate at 100th or even a thousandth of a degree above absolute zero.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So these are things where you want experts in that field. Fravor, I&#8217;m sorry, he&#8217;s not an expert in the dynamics of UFOs just because he may have seen one that is unidentified anomalous phenomenon, aerial phenomenon. He may have seen one, he may not have. And it may have been an actual extraterrestrial object or it could have been a terrestrial object. That&#8217;s what Avi seems to be leaning towards. But again, that we should listen to him about Roswell and believe him because he is more brave than Keating and he&#8217;s a better pilot, maybe smarter than, I don&#8217;t know. But to say that that&#8217;s called the halo Effect, right. When you ascribe information to and, and, and powers to people because their domain expertise lies in one field.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s like, you know, the World Cup&#8217;s going on now. Would you like the, you know, this, this guy&#8217;s really good. I heard of this new soccer player. His name is Ronald O. I think he&#8217;s, I think he&#8217;s Irish. I&#8217;m not sure. Anyway, Ronald. Oh, Ronaldo.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. So would you want Ronaldo to be your dentist? You know, I just got a cavity filled, right? No freaking way. Right? So you don&#8217;t ask. But he&#8217;s so great, you know, he&#8217;s incredible. Yeah, he is. But he&#8217;s not a dentist, so we have to be careful like that. And that&#8217;s why when Anna Luna. Congresswoman.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Representative Luna, she talks about interdimensional beings, it does a disservice. I&#8217;m sorry, it just does. It sounds completely ridiculous. There&#8217;s no sense in which that that sentence can be uttered without the follow up question is what do you mean? And then she has to say, I don&#8217;t know. Because there&#8217;s no notion of interdimensionality. There&#8217;s no evidence, evidence for interdimensionality. Multiple dimensions, time traveling. When I Talked to Tom DeLong on this podcast with a CIA agent, Jim Semivan, you know, we heard the to the Stars academy has, has, has objects.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And, and I said, okay, well what&#8217;s their history? How do you trace them back? And he said, oh, we don&#8217;t have a full traceable provenance of the. Oh, that&#8217;s as good as nothing. That&#8217;s like me showing up with this and saying this has biological material. I licked it. You know, you don&#8217;t know. You don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s happened to this. You haven&#8217;t had the data, the bodies, the craft. So I think that these are, these are big challenges.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the final kind of sawhorse and hobby horse that I&#8217;ve been on lately involves, you know, this question of belief. Like what does it mean to believe something these, that you believe in extraterrestrial life. Like, okay, you believe in it. And these are, these are scientists, these are my colleagues all around the world. And I&#8217;m hoping to have David Kipping back on, maybe Adam Frank back on the podcast. Maybe all three of us maybe have a big, you know, kind of debate between not, not an argument, but I think we&#8217;re all respecting each other. But when you hear things about, about non human biologics, when you hear things about the continuum of life, not, not even like a continuum, you Know, in the, in the Earth. I don&#8217;t even know what a continuum is like.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s not a continuum. We think of sex. Right? Okay, I&#8217;m going to get really controversial right now. There&#8217;s not a continuum of. It&#8217;s not like the electromagnetic spectrum where there&#8217;s an infinite number of real numbers and there&#8217;s an infinite number of wavelengths. No, no, there&#8217;s not a continuum. So how could it be that aliens have a, have a continuum? Maybe they have this, this incredible diversity of light. Now why would we have collected all of these? Right? So maybe, maybe like in, in the movie Project Hail Mary by my friend and a former UCSD attendee, but he didn&#8217;t graduate.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Andy Weir, you know, the Rocky character is this, you know, kind of giant spider with a carapace and everything else. Maybe that&#8217;s life on someplace. Maybe there&#8217;s astrophage and some other star. Right? I always say it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s more plausible. The deep scientific plausibility of Project Hail Mary far exceeds that of Interstellar. Sorry to break that to you. And now there&#8217;s a new one, Iron Lung. Has anyone ever seen that movie? Well, that could be even more plausible than either Project Hail Mary or Interstellar.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So that&#8217;s my hottest hot takes. But anyway, you have a continuum, right? From corporeal bipedal life, which means it&#8217;s like us. Okay. I&#8217;m sorry to say that means it has a body. Corporeal bipedal has two legs. We evolved to walk upright under very specific gravitational, optical. And also from emerging from fish like creatures is the way we believe. Leave it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And having eyes on the side of our heads to having eyes on top of our heads. And the index of refraction difference gave us a predatorial advantage when we came on land. So the first objects had. Were fish that came on land, we believe evolutionarily, and then they had eyes on top of their heads, right? And then they want to see even further. So then they need to get more on land and then maybe the evolutionary process started from there. We don&#8217;t know. I mean, this is pure speculation. But at least the, the bipedalism.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If you, if we track bipedalism throughout the fossil record, throughout evolutionary biology, it&#8217;s an incredibly specific, highly, highly appropriate. I don&#8217;t even want to say intelligently designed because I don&#8217;t want you to think like, I just buy into everything. My, my intelligent design. No, far from it. Although I did have another hot take, which is that string theory has fewer experimentally verified predictions than does intelligent design. Because string theory has zero. And according to even the best string theorist Joseph Conlon has been on the podcast, his book on string theory, CRC Press has a chapter Experimental Evidence for String Theory. And the entire chapter is there is none.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But according to Stephen C. Meyer and other evolutionary biologists that work on this field that there was a prediction that the human DNA sequence would have so called junk DNA that would turn out to be functional. And for a long time they called it junk DNA and then it was found to be functional. Now that&#8217;s very, very low. What&#8217;s called Bayes factor. I&#8217;m not being serious really, but I do like to tease, you know, kind of my, my colleagues on both sides. I&#8217;ll tease the intelligent designers, as you&#8217;ll hear in my pushback on Stephen C. Meyer, because it talks about fine tuning and I said no, the universe is extremely poorly tuned.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s as if I&#8217;m playing the violin. You know, I&#8217;m a horrible musician. The only instrument I can play is Spotify. But the universe has dark energy which dominates all other forms of matter and energy. And we could change the amount by a factor of 10 and you wouldn&#8217;t notice it at all. We&#8217;d still be here, life would still be here. So to say that it&#8217;s exquisitely finely tuned is just false. And then they can cherry pick and go back to some other time.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I also push back on Jewish apologetics. Gerald Schroeder claims the universe seven days of creation in Torah corresponds to the astrophysical and physical epochs of quark hadron separation, electro weak phase transition. Total nonsense. Okay. And I push back on that very strongly. So you&#8217;re never going to get me. Maybe I&#8217;m explaining why I&#8217;m not invited to many parties, but, but anyway, I find it fascinating to talk to all these people on different legs of the stool and hopefully come to some conclusion that gets us a little bit closer to truth. Now you know, I&#8217;ve talked about, you know, people that, that like Avi, who would talk about things in this with a straight face, like sentient plasmoid life versus a hypothesis that gets smuggled in in terms of belief.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mentioned that to Avi. This vicar study kind of shook me that people would state that they believe. Not like I believe in God, you know, I believe in astrology. No, I don&#8217;t say any of that. I say I don&#8217;t believe in that. I say I&#8217;m. I actually don&#8217;t say I believe in God ever. Never say it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I say I am looking for evidence that God is plausible as a scientific hypothesis. And people like Sean Carroll, who are very simplistic in their knowledge of Judaism or Christianity or any type of religion, will say, oh well, God wouldn&#8217;t have created a universe that has so many galaxies, right? Why did he waste so much space? And I&#8217;m like, oh, yeah, you know, God wouldn&#8217;t have created an atom that has 99.999% empty space, right? It&#8217;s an idiotic argument to say, like, what God should or should not do. I mean, I know Sean has an ego, but, but, but really, Sean, I mean, this is like in his, in his most cited work, you know, God is not a good theory to appeal to that. It&#8217;s like saying, well, you know, why are there so many elements? You know, would God create so many elements? You know, how do you know how many elements? I mean, 190 years ago we thought there was about 10 elements, right? Now we know there&#8217;s, there&#8217;s 10 times that number plus. So I think these are awesome. I think we need to hold the scientists feet to the fire. We need to hold the alien, you know, kind of maximalist to the feet to the fire. We need to hold the religious adherence feet to the fire.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I don&#8217;t think anyone else is doing this. And that&#8217;s why I think this channel is, you know, criminally unsubscribe under subscribed, not unsubscribed. I don&#8217;t want you to hear that. But, but we cross 400,000 subscribers. But, but I, I really feel like, like we&#8217;re doing, we&#8217;re getting these incredible interviews. I just interviewed my 26th Nobel Prize winner and Nobel Prize winners are asking to come on my show. It&#8217;s a great flattery to me, but really, do you, I mean, a lot of these people see the power of the audience and, you know, a lot of people won&#8217;t or will. You know, I asked Neil DeGrasse Tyson to come on.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He said he would, then he backed out. He said he didn&#8217;t have time. And then I saw him on Piers Morgan, you know, like, okay, Piers Morgan&#8217;s got 10 times more subscribers than me. I&#8217;ll give him a pass. You know, I&#8217;ve been on Piers Morgan twice now, but, but you know, If I had 10 times more subscribers, who knows, maybe he&#8217;d say no to Piers Morgan and not to Brian Keating. Now, I know a lot of you don&#8217;t like Neil&#8217;s Neil DeGrasse Tyson anyway, but he&#8217;s an important person, right? I mean, I also push his Feet to the fire. He said a lot of nonsensical stuff, too. I mean, everything that he said about, you know, spectrums and things like that we could.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I can push back on him like, no, nobody else, because we have a respect. I&#8217;ve been on his show in person. You know, I&#8217;ve been on the show twice. He&#8217;s been on my show two or three times, and he&#8217;ll be back. But I want you guys to ask me the questions that I should be asking on your behalf. I view myself as your ambassador, but I&#8217;m also an independent person with my own curiosities. Right, okay. So the last question, you know, I kind of want to leave you guys with is, you know, where, where do you want to see things in the channel go? I&#8217;m not, I&#8217;m not like to be captured by the audience in the sense of I&#8217;ll do whatever you say and, you know, I&#8217;ll do the, the 100 days in a yacht challenge, and if I spend 100 days in the yacht, I get to keep.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m not going to do that. Sorry. But no matter how much the audience wants it. Right. I miss my, my home cooking. Right. But in terms of, like, the, the disposition, I find a lot of people, you know, either love or hate the kind of content that I do. They either love that I&#8217;m talking about religion or hate that I&#8217;m talking about religion.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Either love that I&#8217;m talking, you know, someone who&#8217;s interested in investigating alien life and then people that hate it or people that love that I&#8217;m talking to a skeptic like Shermer or hate that I&#8217;m talking to Shermer. People that think, oh, you&#8217;re just, you know, licking the boots of Eric Weinstein. I haven&#8217;t had Eric on in over a year. I mean, I talk to him all the time, but, you know, I haven&#8217;t found that what he has to say lately is a mandatory, you know, content for my channel. And a lot of people. I did a poll on the channel. Who do you want to see on? And he got the more votes than most people, as he usually does. But.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But it wasn&#8217;t by the same margin. It used to be like 80, you know, 80, 20 kind of thing. 80 for Eric and 20 for everybody else. But maybe I need to do more surveys like that. But I&#8217;m really enjoying it. But I need to know, you know, kind of where, where, you know, you&#8217;re going to be. You&#8217;re going to be intellectually honest with you yourself and have integrity to Listen to people you don&#8217;t agree with. Because what YouTube really rewards, and you know, I&#8217;m not a master of it at all, but.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But I find it fascinating because you get instant feedback, you get real time data, you get to talk to. I mean, I have, you know, half a million followers across the, the video and audio, you know, feeds of this podcast. It&#8217;s a huge. I just looked up that in, in the last six months of this year, like a million hours people have watched a million hours of my content. It&#8217;s insane. Like, I can&#8217;t believe that I can&#8217;t listen to myself for a million. You know, I talked to, you know, my, my mother. She&#8217;s like, people pay to listen to you.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Like, I wouldn&#8217;t listen to you for free. No, she doesn&#8217;t say that would be horrible. But, but what YouTube really rewards is, is first of all, looking at the video, deciding you want to watch it, sharing it with somebody else, leaving a thumbs up, leaving a comment. Those are huge engagement signals. But the best engagement signal is how long you watch the show for. Like, how long do you tune in for. And I think, you know, a lot of people will either tune in not at all, or they watch the whole thing. So I find a lot of people do that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />A lot of people are watching. 60% of you are not subscribed that are watching. I don&#8217;t know why. It doesn&#8217;t cost you anything to click that little subscribe button. And again, we&#8217;d have over a million subscribers on YouTube, a lot alone, plus even more on audio feeds as well. So I need to know that you&#8217;re going to be, you know, kind of the ride or die audience that I feel like I&#8217;ve cultivated. Again, 26 Nobel Prize winners talk to more Nobel Prize winners than anyone on earth, as far as I know. And I don&#8217;t just do like, even with my most recent guest, I push back on the Nobel Prize winner.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s fun. They like it. You can&#8217;t believe how many podcasts I&#8217;ve been on. I&#8217;ve been on all the big podcasts. Podcast, right. I can&#8217;t think of one. Maybe put one in the comments that you think I should be on. I don&#8217;t know.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What&#8217;s the guy&#8217;s name? Not.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Not.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh, I always get him. He always pops up. How? Lewis. How is it? Lewis Howe. And anyway, he, he&#8217;s like a really big name podcaster that I&#8217;m, that I&#8217;m often, you know, people tell me I should go on and tell my, my human story. Anyway, put it on there. But I think I&#8217;ve been on Rogan. I&#8217;ve been on diary of a CEO.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ve been on Jordan Peterson multiple times. StarTalk multiple times. I&#8217;ve been on Chris Williamson way back when, before he had a video even. And who am I missing? I&#8217;ve been a Ben Shapiro&#8217;s Sunday special. I&#8217;ve been on, you know, again, not. I&#8217;m blank. Andrew Huberman. I was on Sean Ryan.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I was on Mayim Bialik. I was just on. He&#8217;s incredibly, you know, these, these are tens of millions of views, right? But are there people that I haven&#8217;t been on? Because I think that that&#8217;s sort of a way to get a new audience into the pipeline, but to also know that to be exposed to the fact that I do something I think that&#8217;s unique and that people really need nowadays. And the types of content that I&#8217;m doing right now are very different from Lex Friedman. I&#8217;ve been on Lex Friedman. I should have 10th most popular episode on his show. I. I don&#8217;t know why I forgot that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I don&#8217;t feel like I need to go back on these people&#8217;s pod. Like, it&#8217;s like I leave, you know, the Jordan said, you know, leave the best on the floor. Like, you don&#8217;t have to come back. I don&#8217;t care if I ever go back on Rogan or whatever. The one episode I&#8217;m mad about is the Portal podcast with Eric Oinstein. I went on the Portal podcast in 2020, recorded it, this huge studio, multiple cameras. I brought him all these things and it never aired. Eric canceled the podcast, shut it down.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So leave a comment if you think the Portal should come back on or at least let me broadcast the episode. Eric, I mean, come on, this is six years now. It&#8217;s ridiculous. But I thought it was one of our best. And we, you know, we get along. We. We argue like brothers, but we get along like brothers. It&#8217;s a lot of fun to know, Eric.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But, but let me know where, where do you think the type of Keating approach is most valuable? Because I am doing explainers. I also should say, and I should have said this before, I have another channel where I&#8217;m moving my hard physics explanations to, based on advice that I&#8217;ve been given. You shouldn&#8217;t put that type of content on the same content as mainly the podcast or clips from the podcast. So this channel, Dr. Brian Keening from now on, really the last few months has been like, this is going to be all about interviews, conversations, sometimes explainers of not the physics, but of reactions to other people&#8217;s interviews. Like I said, I just did an episode about reacting to Michio Kaku&#8217;s appearance on Diary of a CEO where he made so many flaws. I&#8217;d like to believe that it was a mistake. And he&#8217;s just getting older.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s 80 years old, I think now. But, but some of them are just so bad and, and so pernicious to the human understanding of things like string theory and dark matter and, and, and, you know, I felt like it was my responsibility to hold his feet to the fight as a friend, as a, as a. Someone who really looks up to him. I think I was respectful. I&#8217;m not going to ever attack people ad hominem. There&#8217;s enough of that on the Internet. The next one&#8217;s going to be about this guy, Kevin Knuth, who also is a physicist. He was on May Bialik&#8217;s podcast before I was.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And he said a lot of, you know, kind of speculative things about cattle mutilations and, and, and UFO sightings. And he&#8217;s done actual hard work and physics research on the unidentified Aerial phenomena. Physics, which I think is interesting. I&#8217;d like to talk to him. Maybe he won&#8217;t come on after I do my reaction to him. Although, again, it&#8217;s very respectful. But I just take the claims and I hold it up against evidence. I identify with the human biases like belief and, and confirmation bias.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And all these things apply to me, Brian Keating, as much, if not more than anybody else. The next one after that is about Graham Hancock, who also appeared on Stephen Bartlett show and it&#8217;s already got 6 million views in like two or three days. Talking about mega structures underneath the pyramids, how the ancient world discovered Antarctica 300 years before the Western world did, and the younger Dryas impact theory of civilizational collapse. So there&#8217;s three huge waves whoppers that he brought up. A little bit reluctant to attack him. And anyway, I never attack him personally or any of these people personally ad hominem. But he is suffering some medical condition. Apparently he&#8217;s having a heart surgery soon.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I wish him well, wish him long life, but at the same level again, he&#8217;s getting all this influence. He came on the show, right? So he had the two and a half hours or three hours that Stephen requires. And that does bring me back. I didn&#8217;t close the loop. I have an explainer channel, Keating Experiments. Please do subscribe to that. It&#8217;s almost 10,000 subscribers over there. That&#8217;s where it&#8217;s going to be, you know, how do, how does the muon spin tell us about string theory or some extra dimensions? The explainer videos like that are going to appear over there exclusively.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And then where Brian Keating is either talking to somebody or talking about somebody, but again, respectfully reacting to somebody that&#8217;s going to be over here. And Dr. Brian Keenan. So bifurcation is a worrisome thing, but whatever, it&#8217;s fun for me. I have a small team in various countries around the world shout out to the team and they&#8217;re keeping me sane. And then I have my day job where I&#8217;m publishing incredible video. Incredible videos. Incredible.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I am going to make a video about some of the science that&#8217;s coming out of the Simons Observatory as soon as it&#8217;s unembargoed. But I&#8217;m just, I am just so excited to share with you, you guys. I mean, I&#8217;m an actual working scientist. I&#8217;m an experimentalist. I&#8217;m not like Brian Green, Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Jim Gates, Eric Weinstein. These brainiac theorists. No, we need them. But some of my best friends are theorists.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But I am an experimentalist. I want the evidence, I want the hard data. I want to collect the data. I want to build the instrument that collects the data. I want to analyze data that comes out of it. I want to understand how things like AI and these massive revolutions that we&#8217;re undergoing for the first time in human history are going to impact me intellectually and you intellectually. So I&#8217;m going to have dedicated videos. Those will be on Keating experiments where I go into the experimental, you know, nitty gritty.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But why? It&#8217;s important to you. Why should you care about that? Why do you care if a neutrino has negative mass? What does that even mean? That&#8217;s going to be on Keating experiments. Please do subscribe down there for that. I&#8217;ll put a link down below. The last thing I want to say is what makes me unique. I have to say this. As I said, the thread that gets lost because I am a professor and I do get absent minded is I&#8217;ve been on all these huge podcasts from Rogan to Stephen Bartlett to Lex Friedman to Mayim Bialik, now to Shawn Ryan. I love all those guys and girls, okay? I want to say that I&#8217;m grateful that they gave me their platform.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That said, they do things differently than I do. And that is the main thing for me is that I will never have somebody on who has a book that I haven&#8217;t read. Their book. And I&#8217;m not going to name names, but there are some people on that list. It was obvious to me within 10 seconds of sitting down with them, putting on the headphones that they never open any of my books. I put my blood, sweat and tears into these four books that I&#8217;ve written. Soon will be five, maybe I have six in me before I die. But these books, my self help guide for the stem.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Curious into the impossible. Think like a Nobel Prize winner. Into the impossible. Focus like a Nobel Prize winner. Distilled wisdom from the greatest geniuses on earth that have ever lived. I&#8217;m almost at the point where I can write a third volume. I don&#8217;t know the title. Give me a title for that down below.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And then my magnum opus, you know, my first, my memoir. Losing the Nobel Prize is about what it means to be, be a cosmologist, but a father, a son, someone who loses a mentor to suicide, someone who loses his father. And trying to operate at the highest levels because I was told I couldn&#8217;t get tenure if I didn&#8217;t win the Nobel Prize prospectively. So what does it feel like to be a young scientist with everything to lose and curious about something that has no practical value whatsoever like inflationary cosmology. How did the universe begin? I write those books and it takes a lot out of me, takes a lot of time, opportunity cost, time value of money, all these things incredible. Plus it cost money. I had a higher artist, you know, the publisher doesn&#8217;t give you money to, to get illustrations, but I felt those are mandatory to explain the science and you know, inflationary cosmology in my first place I paid for it out of my own pocket. Again I made almost low a tenth of minimum wage, probably a tenth of minimum wage given my advance was, was what it was and the amount of hours put into it, surely far below minimum wage.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now I put a lot of time and effort into it. You can distill the wisdom of at that time a 40 year old, 45 year old guy, right? And the knowledge, and that&#8217;s so pertinent nowadays. We were swimming in knowledge. We have almost no wisdom. We&#8217;re dying of thirst for wisdom and we&#8217;re drowning in knowledge AI the Internet. We have abundant information, we have no distillation of the. And that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m trying to do on this podcast, but that&#8217;s certainly what I do in my books and to have a host, you know, fly me out at great expense to them and time expense to me, away from my wife, my kids, my Teaching. I have to get people to cover for me, you know, shout out to my colleagues that cover my classes and my postdocs and supervision.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s a lot, you know, I have a lot of things on my plate and I&#8217;m going out there. The least you could do is read my book. Please. It takes, I mean, some of these books take almost. I have audiobooks for every single book I&#8217;ve ever read written, including Galileo&#8217;s dialogue. Now, okay, I don&#8217;t expect anyone, you know, who&#8217;s having me on to listen to a 21 hour long audiobook, but that was with Carla Ravelli and that&#8217;s an acted version for the first time in human history of a book by Galileo, the greatest mind and science, I think that ever lived. You know, maybe with the possible exception of Einstein or, or my father in law. No, I&#8217;m just kidding.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But, but the point is how, how else, you know, why are you having me on? You know, and you know, I know you&#8217;re having me on because you&#8217;re partially. You have a much bigger platform than me. You know, say, I don&#8217;t know, someone&#8217;s podcast I haven&#8217;t been on, or maybe I have it on. You have a much bigger podcast. And so I appreciate you and I&#8217;m grateful. I have gratitude to you. That&#8217;s the most important thing, first of all. But take the time.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And so I do that for every one of my guests. I&#8217;ve read 500 books, books. And you know what, I had a brain scan done for some other reasons. You know, everything&#8217;s fine, turns out, but they did brain scan on me and then they did it again a year later. And then at the five year mark, my brain is actually increasing in density and gray matter and vascularity and all the good things about brain. And I think it&#8217;s 100 due to this podcast. You know, I do have a selfish reason to do it. It&#8217;s not monetary.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I bear, I don&#8217;t. I lose money on this podcast because I pay my editors. I never get somebody to read. I don&#8217;t have anyone doing my booking. I don&#8217;t have anybody who does, you know, kind of research for me except for my AI tools, which I have handcrafted over the last two or three years to make them incredibly pertinent to the things that interest me the most. You know, call outs to the things that matter to you the most and to edit it tightly to get rid of all the verbal yappage that I&#8217;m known for. Right. I want to cut down on that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I know this is kind of self indulgent, but you&#8217;ll excuse me if you&#8217;ve lasted this far. I assume that you can handle a little bit of yapping. Let&#8217;s see how many people are still listening at this point. Oh, my God. There&#8217;s more people listening now than was listening before. Okay. There&#8217;s over a thousand people listening right now. I just really appreciate you guys.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I can&#8217;t tell you. It&#8217;s fun. Money. My, my. Sometimes I got recognized. I went to Hawaii last year and I was getting on the plane, I&#8217;m like, about to get the guy staring at me. I&#8217;m like, I passed tsa, you know, why are you looking? He&#8217;s like, you&#8217;re Brian Keating, right? I&#8217;m like, yeah, it depends. Do I owe you money? Like, oh, what&#8217;s going on, brother? And he&#8217;s like, no, I love your podcast.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I get these things all the time. I&#8217;m like, it makes me so gratified, like, this thing didn&#8217;t exist, you know, six years ago. I started this thing six years ago when Covid was raging and I could. I knew I was smart enough to know that authors like Avi or other people would answer my email if I asked them to come on the show because they weren&#8217;t doing book tours. I did, you know, a book tour in 2018, 20, 19, 2020 was gone. Couldn&#8217;t go on book tour. So I could get any of the dream guests that I ever want. I&#8217;ve never had a guest, really.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I can&#8217;t think of anyone. I mean, I&#8217;ve talked to Elon Musk. You know, I like to talk to him probably again at some point, but. But. But, you know, kind of been there. Talked to 26 Noble. The people that I miss talking to are the people that are no longer with us. So best of luck with that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Maybe Anna Luna can get me some interdimensional beings and I can do some interviews. But I did interview Freeman Dyson. That&#8217;s one of my most treasured interviews. Him, Jim Simons. These people aren&#8217;t alive anymore. And that is my treasure. You know, I have that for all time. And the Nobel Prize winners are just going to keep growing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And like I said, they keep. Some of them are asking me. I mean, 10, 10, 10 of them have asked to come on my podcast. I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re asking to come on, you know, some of these other podcasts. Right? I mean, they might appear on them, but. But I think that they know they get something special, and I&#8217;m always going to read their Books, I mean, that&#8217;s the least I can do. And so you&#8217;ll never have me unprepared. I will cancel an interview if I haven&#8217;t had time to read it or I don&#8217;t want to read it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And it really helps when I have on people that have audiobooks, just in case you want to know. Because I listen to things. I can listen at 2x speed and I can do things, you know, with audio that I can&#8217;t do with printed. But I am reading printed books now. I&#8217;m kind of getting back into it. Some fiction I&#8217;ve had on four Pulitzer Prize winners. These are the things that really make it so enjoyable. And I always say at work I have to talk to people.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There are people I have to talk to. The, you know, telescope azimuthal encoder drive is broken and I need to get somebody out at 18, 000ft in Chile. And it&#8217;s a Chilean holiday and it&#8217;s a German company and they can&#8217;t get an import for an American part that comes from China. Anyway, you want to know, those are people I have to talk to. Some of them I like a lot. You know, I love my graduate students. I have to talk to them or else they&#8217;ll go off in crazy directions, right? My undergraduates I have to talk to. I get paid to talk to them.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And just the other day I finished up class for the quarter and they all did great and they gave me a standing ovation. It was like, emotional for me. I have to be honest with you. A couple of them came up and took a selfie with me. They were like, do you mind if. Can I take a selfie with you? Like, they were so. And I was like, yeah, you guys rock. Like, everything I do I owe to you guys.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And so this is what I do. This is what I love. I&#8217;m always going to read the books, I&#8217;m always going to go deep. I&#8217;m never going to stop talking to people that I disagree with. You know, I&#8217;ve had people not, not want to come on the show. I can name names, right? It&#8217;s too bad, you know, it&#8217;s too bad for them. I think that they are scared of a little bit of pushback. I think you all know the Malibu meditator that I&#8217;m talking about just didn&#8217;t want to come back on the show ever again because I pushed back on him and his utterly simplistic, ignorant kind of view of, again, some biblical topic that he feels capable of talking about.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Fine. I&#8217;m not going to say he can&#8217;t talk about it, but the fact that he never yet got pushback once everyone just tells him what a brilliant genius he is and everything he says is just so wonderful and intellectually deep. I&#8217;d love to talk to him. I offered him to stay at my house during the. The Malibu fires me politely, you know, turn that down. But that&#8217;s again, I feel like it&#8217;s his loss. I can talk to Richard Dawkins who hosted me, flew me up to Vancouver to host him for two days at this wonderful live show in front of a thousand people. And it was incredible.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And, and he knows I don&#8217;t dis. I don&#8217;t agree with him about a lot of stuff. I push back on Richard Dawson. Like who is the chutzpah to do that besides me? I mean, I don&#8217;t care. I don&#8217;t want these interviews where people are just like, oh you&#8217;re so amazing, let me just lick your boots. And this is incredible. Now do I talk to people like Avi or my friends and I cut them maybe a little bit more. Okay.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m a human being. I have friends. Sorry to say I have friends. But you notice even with the friends like Eric, Eric, I think he gets annoyed with me. You know, he&#8217;ll tell me, you know, like that he doesn&#8217;t want to talk about a subject because I&#8217;m pushing him on something that&#8217;s uncomfortable for him. I&#8217;ll push him on things like publication. I&#8217;m no big very person who, you know, really forced him to publish on April Fool&#8217;s Day 2021, his theory of geometric unity. Now he didn&#8217;t do it to the level that people want him to and, and he said he&#8217;s an entertainer so that he wouldn&#8217;t be liable for people cutting his stuff and he could have legal recourse against them.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />This is his excuse. But without me and my. One of my best friends in the world, Stefan Alexander, we pushed him to put it in writing and he did. And it was, I mean it wasn&#8217;t all because of me and stuff on but I think we played a big role in it. And so I&#8217;m going to push back even on my good friends. Okay, so that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re going to get. You&#8217;re going to get depth, you&#8217;re going to get someone who&#8217;s prepared. I always come prepared.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ve heard people like Chris Williamson, you know, who I think also has sort of blocked me because I criticized him for, you know, hosting rabid anti Semites and people, you know, that are just horrific human beings beings, you know, because they&#8217;re of interest to his audience.</p><p>Avi Loeb:<br />Fine.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;ll ever have me back on. But I was there for him before he had, you know, a thousand subscribers. Now he&#8217;s got four and a half million. So good for him. I&#8217;m really happy for him. But, but to hear that, you know, when he told his audience that, you know, he doesn&#8217;t read the books effectively because he doesn&#8217;t want to be like a short form or, you know, blinkist for his audience to skip the book. And, and I don&#8217;t want that either. I want you to buy the books.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I want you to, you know, I&#8217;ve kept these books for years, right? These are, you know, my library. That&#8217;s like one tenth of my library behind me. I&#8217;ve got 10 times that in my studio, in my, my in person studio. So my books are my treasure where people love the book, right? This is the most important thing to me. So that means I&#8217;m going to take it serious. I&#8217;m going to read the books. I&#8217;m not going to summarize it so you don&#8217;t have to buy it, but I&#8217;m going to read that. I&#8217;m going to pull out the things that are most personal, most just fire me up.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My obsidian, my Apple notes, my, my second brain is brimming with connections between these 550 now books, between them. So I can ask, you know, upcoming guest Annie Jacobson, who&#8217;s coming on for a new book that she&#8217;s written called Biological War. That should be fun, right? You know, Biological War, a scenario she&#8217;s coming on in July. It&#8217;s embargoed. They, they&#8217;re sending me that. That&#8217;s incredible that they have trust in me and I&#8217;ve earned the trust. I&#8217;ve never broken an embargo, never will, even with my own experiments, right. I&#8217;ve been under embargoes many times and for books and for research and I&#8217;ll always respect that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s, that&#8217;s the duty of a scholar. So in summary, if you want deep dives where people are going to go, be pushed, respectfully friendly. I think I bring more humor to it than most podcasters do. Even I had one producer of a podcast that shall remain nameless. But I went on his podcast and it was right after Joe Rogan was on the podcast with the same host and the producer said he laughed more when I was on the show. Okay. Now I think Joe is a lot funnier than me, but on the same token, I do believe that there&#8217;s a role for seriousness and for humility and quite frankly, to be. To be, you know, kind of respectfully antagonistic, I have to say, to have the chutzpah to back it up with intellect and back it up with preparation.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Always going to maintain the preparatory standards. Preparation H. I&#8217;m always going to maintain it because if I don&#8217;t, I feel like a fraud. I feel like people. If I were to have on a guest like Michael Shermer or, you know, so sometimes I like to be a guest on other people&#8217;s podcasts. I have to do no preparation, although I even do that. I actually have a self trained LLM specifically for when I&#8217;m on a guest on Sean Ryan&#8217;s podcast. I do deep research on him.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, he doesn&#8217;t have books, but he has 500 episodes. And what are the themes? What are the things that he goes deep on? What are the things that he doesn&#8217;t care about? What are the things that he&#8217;s so passionate about? He&#8217;ll interrupt something even more important to discuss this subject. Does he talk about the news? Does he talk about his kids? Does he talk about his upbringing? He changes name. You know, what, what does he do? So I go deep into them when I&#8217;m a guest, but it&#8217;s a little bit easier to be a guest than to be a host. So it is hard to be a host, especially this week. I have four guests on this week, including Avi Loeb, Beatrice Villarrell, Michael Shermer, and then Nate Suarez, who wrote, co wrote, if anybody builds it, Everybody Dies. With Eliezer Yudowski as an AI safety researcher. I just released my episode with Roman Yampolsky.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Please check that out. I went deep and that was not an easy book to read. A lot of math proofs and deep excursions into the formal logic behind the assertion that AI is either safe or unsafe. And that has huge implications for governance, for regulations, for our own safety, and the flourishing of the human species. And he&#8217;s very pessimistic. He made me sort of debt. But I pushed back on him. I said, you know, you say that AI is unpredictable, therefore it&#8217;s uncontrollable.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It was sort of a version of the halting problem that Turing popularized in his Turing Machine paper. That was the name of it, actually. It&#8217;s a halting problem and sort of like the Girdle&#8217;s incompleteness theorem. And I said, you have a version of those two massive theorems, Godel&#8217;s theorem and Turing&#8217;s theorem. And you&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s predictable, that it&#8217;s going to be unpredictable, but isn&#8217;t that a tautology? So I want you to watch that episode. Hour and a half. I think I went deeper with him than any other interview, certainly than Mike. I love Stephen Barlett, but he can&#8217;t get as deep technically because by his own admission, he didn&#8217;t go to college.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He didn&#8217;t finish college. I think he went for two days. But. And I love those guys, and I really appreciate them for hosting me. I just wish that they would maybe spend a little bit more time. If you, if you like me enough this far, you know, to go on a first date, you&#8217;re gonna love me once you get to know me. And that&#8217;s the way I feel about my guests. I really love each.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I haven&#8217;t had anyone on, even, Even Sam Harris. I love Sam Harris. I, I, there&#8217;s nothing that he could do. I pay for his apps and his podcast because he has, he has a fine mind and we disagree on a ton of stuff, but, you know, so be it. He&#8217;ll never come on again. Maybe I&#8217;ll see him in some, you know, some secret cabal meeting somewhere where he, you know, kind of runs for president to take over, you know, Trump on his eighth term. You know, Sam will be there standing at the vanguard. But until then, Sam, you&#8217;re always welcome back on.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And everybody else, I don&#8217;t want to say you&#8217;re welcome. I want to say thank you. I want to say thank you so much. So maybe this is my 400,000 subscriber celebration. Maybe I&#8217;ll clip this and make that into that, because I want Avi to have his segment standalone from this. But I, I really can&#8217;t resist talking about my favorite subject, which is me. And no, it is, it&#8217;s just a great thrill. You guys mean so much to me and so share it with a friend.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Try to get some more people involved. Again, I don&#8217;t care about the numbers, you know, like, I hit 400,000. My kids are really excited about it. But at the time, same, same time, like, well, it&#8217;s. How is it really different than 399.99? You know, so I posted, you know, here&#8217;s. Oh, I got to 399, 974,000 subscribers. You know, like, okay, that&#8217;s what I always wanted. I mean, I know if I go to a million or whatever, half a million, I&#8217;m just gonna say, well, you know, there&#8217;s another number that&#8217;s bigger.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s the property of natural numbers. So love you guys. Please stay with it. Even if you don&#8217;t like it, even if you don&#8217;t like the content. I promise you, you&#8217;re going to grow your pink gray matter. Especially when you don&#8217;t agree with me or my guest or both or neither. You&#8217;re going to grow your mind. And we have so little time.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In just a few years, according to Roman, we won&#8217;t even have these things anymore. There&#8217;ll be no point in having a podcast. Brian Keating will be irrelevant. You&#8217;ll just like click on something optimized for Stephen Dedalus from born in 1974 and it&#8217;s going to look him up and it&#8217;s going to say, oh, these are all the things in a social graph I love. And we&#8217;ll just dial it in and it&#8217;ll get pumped like Soma into his brain and he won&#8217;t need me anymore. So until that happens, until that happens, stay tuned, always be curious, and thank you so much. Please do share it. Subscribe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Don&#8217;t forget to do those basic things. Okay? Love you all. Talk to you next time.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Roman Yampolskiy: AI Can’t Be Controlled — and We’re Building It Anyway</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/roman-yampolskiy/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8262</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Roman Yampolskiy: AI Can’t Be Controlled — and We’re Building It Anyway Transcript Brian Keating:A computer scientist who helped found the field of AI safety just told me we&#8217;re building something we can never switch off and that the smartest people in the room agree with him. Roman Yampolskiy:We&#8217;re going to have systems ten hundred thousand million times smarter than us. What does that mean? They see patterns we don&#8217;t see. You can have squirrels, monkeys, whatever you want. They&#8217;re very intelligent beings, but they&#8217;re not competitive with us. We&#8217;re just on a different level. And it&#8217;s exactly what we&#8217;re going to see here. Having an agent and giving it full access to your computer, your bank accounts, your email, sounds like the dumbest thing you can possibly do. And watching smart people do that really blows my mind. Roman Yampolskiy:Well, we&#8217;re asking for a pause in frontier model development contingent on someone solving control. If I&#8217;m right and control is unsolvable, that moratorium becomes a permanent ban. If I&#8217;m wrong, in 10 years I&#8217;ll get utopia free stuff and be very happy to be wrong. Brian Keating:That&#8217;s Roman Yampolsky, a computer scientist who helped found AI safety and who now argues that can&#8217;t ever be done. Not hard. Provably impossible. Now, I&#8217;m used to going into the impossible, but today he&#8217;s going to get into why the math says so for the first time at this level of detail and the one button he&#8217;d actually press if he had the opportunity. Brian Keating:We can&#8217;t bound the limits of knowledge and part of controlling super AI. Again, I&#8217;m being devil&#8217;s advocate here. I&#8217;m not saying this is my position, I&#8217;m just saying this is what I think David Pascha, David Deutsch would say is that because to control something you need to have knowledge of its future, prediction of its future behavior, although you can&#8217;t have perfect knowledge of anything. Right? That&#8217;s impossible for sure. But the question is, can you have the same level of controllability via the knowledge that a human who&#8217;s a universal explainer can glean? And I guess he&#8217;s saying you&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s impossible for a human to ever control AI, but he&#8217;s saying humans are universal explainers, therefore nothing explainable, even with errors and stochastic notions of what explanation means, is not fundamentally restricted. So it does seem like you guys don&#8217;t agree, and that&#8217;s fine. That&#8217;s not a formal proof, by the way. I&#8217;m just saying he&#8217;s saying humans can explain things. Brian Keating:AI is something that could be explained, therefore it&#8217;s not impossible to explain them. But I think you would Say it is impossible to control them because you cannot explain them. Correct. Roman Yampolskiy:So there is theory and practice. In theory, given infinite time, average human with pencil and paper can probably figure out everything. We don&#8217;t have infinite time and we have limited size brain with limited size memory cells, our ability to survey information is limited. So if you had a mathematical proof and it was a billion pages long, no human can verify that proof. In theory they could, but in practice it&#8217;s not going to happen. Brian Keating:I thought you&#8217;re going to say in theory communism works, but in practice, Roman Yampolskiy:if we have a real world situation where you have a system, let&#8217;s just say it&#8217;s just like humans, but it&#8217;s a billion times faster. We&#8217;re not competitive in that environment. We simply don&#8217;t have time to react, to do anything whatsoever to counteract what the system is going to do. But we are not equal. We&#8217;re going to have systems ten hundred thousand million times smarter than us. What does that mean? They see patterns we don&#8217;t see. I always bring up examples from animal kingdom, right? You can have squirrels, monkeys, whatever you want. They&#8217;re very intelligent beings. Roman Yampolskiy:Eventually they have some language culture, they&#8217;re starting to use tools, but they&#8217;re not competitive with us. We&#8217;re just on a different level. And it&#8217;s exactly what we&#8217;re going to see here. Him being a very good professor at a very good university, he understands when he selects students, he doesn&#8217;t select them at random because all humans are universal explainers. He looks for the one with highest intelligence. Why? Because they&#8217;re going to finish things in time. They&#8217;re going to understood and publish on time and it&#8217;s exactly the same. Instead of looking for a student with IQ of 130, now you&#8217;re comparing machines with IQ of a thousand to humans and saying, well, technically they&#8217;re all in the same class of automata. Roman Yampolskiy:They all Turing complete. True, but that means nothing. Brian Keating:For safety, Einstein said the following Roman, he said no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that that created it. So did Einstein kind of predict some of the claims that you&#8217;re making now that we have basically have been from the start unable to even grapple with the questions of what sort of entities we&#8217;re creating? Roman Yampolskiy:I think I would disagree with him. I think you can solve certain problems from the same level, but what you can do is solve problems from higher level. So as an agent with this world model, with this IQ, I cannot successfully solve problems for agents with IQs of thousand million. That&#8217;s the problem. You can go lower. I can solve problems for those at a lower level, but not. Not go higher. Brian Keating:What do you think that Einstein would have made of. Of AI? What utility does it have to a practicing scientist like me? Or would it have had to Einstein himself? Roman Yampolskiy:So it seems like, at least in mathematics, we&#8217;re starting to watch AI overtake, overtake that profession. They are now proving things, interesting things, not trivial theorems, using latest models. And we are at the earliest stages of that process. So if the same progress continues as we saw in]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8262" class="elementor elementor-8262" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-4b132f48 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="4b132f48" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-44944a8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="44944a8" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Roman Yampolskiy: AI Can’t Be Controlled — and We’re Building It Anyway</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-21ff3eb8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="21ff3eb8" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />A computer scientist who helped found the field of AI safety just told me we&#8217;re building something we can never switch off and that the smartest people in the room agree with him.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />We&#8217;re going to have systems ten hundred thousand million times smarter than us. What does that mean? They see patterns we don&#8217;t see. You can have squirrels, monkeys, whatever you want. They&#8217;re very intelligent beings, but they&#8217;re not competitive with us. We&#8217;re just on a different level. And it&#8217;s exactly what we&#8217;re going to see here. Having an agent and giving it full access to your computer, your bank accounts, your email, sounds like the dumbest thing you can possibly do. And watching smart people do that really blows my mind.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Well, we&#8217;re asking for a pause in frontier model development contingent on someone solving control. If I&#8217;m right and control is unsolvable, that moratorium becomes a permanent ban. If I&#8217;m wrong, in 10 years I&#8217;ll get utopia free stuff and be very happy to be wrong.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s Roman Yampolsky, a computer scientist who helped found AI safety and who now argues that can&#8217;t ever be done. Not hard. Provably impossible. Now, I&#8217;m used to going into the impossible, but today he&#8217;s going to get into why the math says so for the first time at this level of detail and the one button he&#8217;d actually press if he had the opportunity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We can&#8217;t bound the limits of knowledge and part of controlling super AI. Again, I&#8217;m being devil&#8217;s advocate here. I&#8217;m not saying this is my position, I&#8217;m just saying this is what I think David Pascha, David Deutsch would say is that because to control something you need to have knowledge of its future, prediction of its future behavior, although you can&#8217;t have perfect knowledge of anything. Right? That&#8217;s impossible for sure. But the question is, can you have the same level of controllability via the knowledge that a human who&#8217;s a universal explainer can glean? And I guess he&#8217;s saying you&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s impossible for a human to ever control AI, but he&#8217;s saying humans are universal explainers, therefore nothing explainable, even with errors and stochastic notions of what explanation means, is not fundamentally restricted. So it does seem like you guys don&#8217;t agree, and that&#8217;s fine. That&#8217;s not a formal proof, by the way. I&#8217;m just saying he&#8217;s saying humans can explain things.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />AI is something that could be explained, therefore it&#8217;s not impossible to explain them. But I think you would Say it is impossible to control them because you cannot explain them. Correct.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So there is theory and practice. In theory, given infinite time, average human with pencil and paper can probably figure out everything. We don&#8217;t have infinite time and we have limited size brain with limited size memory cells, our ability to survey information is limited. So if you had a mathematical proof and it was a billion pages long, no human can verify that proof. In theory they could, but in practice it&#8217;s not going to happen.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I thought you&#8217;re going to say in theory communism works, but in practice,</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />if we have a real world situation where you have a system, let&#8217;s just say it&#8217;s just like humans, but it&#8217;s a billion times faster. We&#8217;re not competitive in that environment. We simply don&#8217;t have time to react, to do anything whatsoever to counteract what the system is going to do. But we are not equal. We&#8217;re going to have systems ten hundred thousand million times smarter than us. What does that mean? They see patterns we don&#8217;t see. I always bring up examples from animal kingdom, right? You can have squirrels, monkeys, whatever you want. They&#8217;re very intelligent beings.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Eventually they have some language culture, they&#8217;re starting to use tools, but they&#8217;re not competitive with us. We&#8217;re just on a different level. And it&#8217;s exactly what we&#8217;re going to see here. Him being a very good professor at a very good university, he understands when he selects students, he doesn&#8217;t select them at random because all humans are universal explainers. He looks for the one with highest intelligence. Why? Because they&#8217;re going to finish things in time. They&#8217;re going to understood and publish on time and it&#8217;s exactly the same. Instead of looking for a student with IQ of 130, now you&#8217;re comparing machines with IQ of a thousand to humans and saying, well, technically they&#8217;re all in the same class of automata.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />They all Turing complete. True, but that means nothing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />For safety, Einstein said the following Roman, he said no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that that created it. So did Einstein kind of predict some of the claims that you&#8217;re making now that we have basically have been from the start unable to even grapple with the questions of what sort of entities we&#8217;re creating?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I think I would disagree with him. I think you can solve certain problems from the same level, but what you can do is solve problems from higher level. So as an agent with this world model, with this IQ, I cannot successfully solve problems for agents with IQs of thousand million. That&#8217;s the problem. You can go lower. I can solve problems for those at a lower level, but not. Not go higher.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What do you think that Einstein would have made of. Of AI? What utility does it have to a practicing scientist like me? Or would it have had to Einstein himself?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So it seems like, at least in mathematics, we&#8217;re starting to watch AI overtake, overtake that profession. They are now proving things, interesting things, not trivial theorems, using latest models. And we are at the earliest stages of that process. So if the same progress continues as we saw in our domains for the last three to five years, very soon it&#8217;s going to make no sense to use a human mathematician. It&#8217;s going to be AI doing the work of a mathematician. Maybe at best, mathematician will point it at problems of interest, but really, I don&#8217;t think humans will be competitive in that space.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I developed something that I called the Einstein test. And Demis Hassabis kind of also suggested this. And it relates to what Einstein said in 1907. He said that an observer in free fall, you&#8217;re on an elevator there in Louisville, and the elevator snaps, that you feel no gravitational field. And that led to the Einstein Equivalence principle. He called that the happiest thought of his life. And I&#8217;ve wondered for a long time, and I&#8217;m hoping you can help me understand better, perhaps, to what extent can an AI have a happy thought? A. And to what extent could Einstein not have come up with the Einstein Equivalence principle had he not had a body that was deeply, viscerally, literally viscerally connected to his.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />His own consciousness? So those two questions, can an AI have a happy thought? You know, and can it realize from that happy thought the visceral sensation of what leads to the Einstein Equivalence principle?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />That&#8217;s a great question. So I think the latest mathematical proof of one of the Erdos problems, they traced the thinking process in the AI, and right before arriving at the solution, it goes, oh, we have a crazy idea here. I don&#8217;t know if you saw that, but that&#8217;s literally in the thinking process. It completely jumps out and goes, oh my God, we&#8217;re going to do something insane right now. So looks like experimentally it&#8217;s capable of that. I would think it&#8217;s more about brute force options. As a human, I cannot consider all possibilities in the small subdomain of that problem, but AI literally can brute force. So many proofs.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />We saw it with, what is it? Four color problem, but I think it&#8217;s universally applicable to most things. There&#8217;s only so many previous mathematical proofs, and that is a huge, huge number for a human mind. But AI can literally brute force all the previous relative tools and see what works for that specific problem to move it in a new direction. So I think it can both do a very concrete brute forcing and have a stroke of genius moment, I guess. I don&#8217;t know if you need a physical body to do this. If you run thought experiments at sufficient detail, you create internal simulations which could be as realistic as this universe. You can have model of physics, you can have intelligent agents within the experiment. I think you can bypass physical body and do it all virtually.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So when I think about what Einstein did, it does seem sort of like in chess, you know, you&#8217;d call it a brilliancy. Telling me it&#8217;s true that proofs generating tools are coming up with their own kind of versions of brilliancies. But what I tried to do a couple of years back now, and I&#8217;m trying to do it with more professional assistance, shall we say. I&#8217;m a cosmologist, but I&#8217;m secretly hoping to recruit you and I&#8217;ll send you my paper draft in a little bit. I&#8217;m sure you don&#8217;t have enough to read, but the thought was the following. If you trained a special LLM just based on the corpus of knowledge in 1907, when Einstein had this thought, would it have predicted the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury? I mean, they knew this existed since the 1700s, that Newton&#8217;s laws could not account for this microscopic. I mean it&#8217;s 42 arc seconds per century. It&#8217;s a minuscule amount.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But if you had that, Einstein wanted to explain that and obviously came up with gr. But the way that he came up with it seemingly was superhuman. I mean, it was using Riemannian curvature, it was using concepts from Gaussian geometry and non Euclidean geometry, and then it used like tensor notation. And it seems to me it&#8217;s almost impossible now for us to do this because the Corpus of all LLMs has been trained on these brilliancies that have been made by Einstein. So can you design an LLM that&#8217;s sort of lobotomized after a certain point in order to investigate whether an AI can do what Einstein did?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />That sounds super cool. I would not limit it to just that specific question or experiment. I would just say, given this knowledge, start coming up with new science, maybe it will do something equivalently great, but not necessarily rediscover that specific moment of brilliance.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My proposal to Terry Tao, when I spoke with him a year or less than a year ago now, it was the following. Can AI actually reconstruct say a proof of Weil&#8217;s proof of Fermat&#8217;s last theorem? And at that time, you know, it was only in September he said no. In other words, if they can&#8217;t do things that a meat mathematician did with the three pound, you know, wet supercomputer on our shoulders, to what extent can, can they come up with new stuff? So I agree with you. The first application of the Einstein Keating Hassibus, you know, maybe Yampolsky test would be what is dark matter? You know, is dark matter a new field of, of gravity like mon modified Newtonian dynamics? Is it a modification to Newton&#8217;s laws to Einstein&#8217;s? Or is it dark matter like, you know, like a chunk of rock like Neptune was to the planet Uranus? So I guess the status of these things, like I kind of wish that Erdos was never born. I mean I think I have an erds number of like 12 or something. But all these problems are getting solved. Sure, I get that and I get that no human will ever win at chess again against the computer or GO again. But that&#8217;s not as interesting to me as like creating GO or creating chess or creating Fermat&#8217;s last theorem.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But in this case, according to Terence, they can&#8217;t even verify that proof, let alone come up with it ab initio. So what do you think about that? Like when will you think of AGI being passed? Or do you already think we&#8217;re there?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So in many domains AI is human level is super intelligent. I think in mathematics it&#8217;s now smarter than all, not mathematicians, it&#8217;s smarter than many mathematicians. Obviously none of them were able to prove this theorem for 70, 80, 90 years. So that&#8217;s super impressive. Peer reviewed top journals and again we are like on day one of this process, give it a year or two, I think it&#8217;s going to go well beyond just verifying human proofs by formalizing them. And it can pose novel questions, it can definitely come up with novel algorithms. And this is all at existing levels. I think we are on a spectrum of AGI.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />We kind of have weak form of AGI right now. Like some humans have IQ of 80, some are 150. It&#8217;s a spectrum. Human intelligence is not a fixed point. So once we get to higher levels AGI where it becomes agent like and starts process of recursive self improvement, we&#8217;ll very quickly get to beyond human capability. And so yeah, at that point I think it will automate science. I see no reason why something so formal, something so verifiable, cannot be done better by a machine with trillion times compute capacity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let me push back with respect. So there&#8217;s a phenomenon in all of human affairs called lock in, which is that a technology that comes first to market often dominates forever. You know, think of the QWERTY keyboard like that was not the best form of typing, right? It&#8217;s not the most efficient form of typing. Dvorak, which I think think comes from Russia, but I&#8217;m not sure. D the Dvorak keyboard setup is much more efficient in terms of typing. But they had to slow down the early mechanical hammers or else they&#8217;d stick together and disaster would ensue. Right? So they deliberately built in a speed bump towards progress, right? And that persists. You&#8217;re on your phone right now, you have a QWERTY keyboard.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the computer in front of me, I got a QWERTY keyboard. So all these things persist. And that&#8217;s called lock in. It&#8217;s not necessarily the best technology. I&#8217;m worried, Roman, that we&#8217;ve reached this point of lock in with LLMs plus GPUs and they were never designed to do any of this. Right. GPUs were designed, as you and I remember, from the 90s, you know, to play 3D video games like Doom and frag your enemy 30 milliseconds faster than somebody else if you had a faster GPU. So they were never designed to do this.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />They happen to be really good at this. We actually did this, Roman. We tried to get an AI, a custom trained LLM to replicate Riemannian, the Riemann Tensor, to come up with the Einstein equations of general relativity. And it said, fine, let me, let me do this. And it just, it just made everything on a grid, on a four dimensional grid, kind of defeated the purpose altogether. Right? We don&#8217;t want to discretize it. We want to come up with a new hypothesis. No space time is curved and objects fall in free fall along geodesics that, that experience no tangential or circumferential force.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So that&#8217;s what Einstein did. He didn&#8217;t discretize the problem and say, let me make an approximation. And so these, these models are really good, they&#8217;re really powerful. And I think that&#8217;s, that&#8217;s their fatal flaw, in my opinion. How do you react to that, Roman?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Not sure I understand the concern. So we are locked in, into a system which we know scales as a neural network gets larger. We see it in animal kingdom now we see it with AI models for five years, they get better, they improve about 25, 28% every year. In terms of cognitive capacity, the hardware is universal, it&#8217;s Turing complete. I mean all of it can do computation. Some are more efficient, some are less, but it also scales pretty well. The paradigm may shift to quantum, may shift to something else optical, but it doesn&#8217;t matter. We are right on the curve where we predicted we&#8217;re going to be decades in advance.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />And in terms of anticipating where it&#8217;s going to be in two or three years it will be above human capacity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m thinking back to the original Google papers and talking about these networks as single shot learners or few shot learners and that may be replicable in the animal kingdom, etc. As you say. But for example, we&#8217;re going to get opus or whatever 4.8, we&#8217;re going to get Gemini 4, we&#8217;re going to get all these different models. And most of the novelty now is not in the architecture, the mathematics. The mathematics is relatively simple, a lot of linear algebra and it&#8217;s done extremely fast. But again, is that the way that breakthroughs necessarily come? In other words, are we waiting for the next Grand Theft Auto 6 to come out so that it now has training data so that I can solve the Riemann Hypothesis? I find that difficult to believe that we are. That science is not a language, it has language in it. But that language, as Feynman said, is the most dangerous gap is knowing what you call something and then confusing that for what it is.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In other words, these things are language models. As we said, they&#8217;re so successful they have trillions and trillions of dollars on it. Does that mean that they&#8217;re the best architecture for solving the problems that I care about, which are generating new force and the understanding of new laws of nature that we don&#8217;t yet know and we can&#8217;t even consider right now? Is that going to happen from a large language model? I just don&#8217;t see that that&#8217;s the way that history is played out. I agree with you, it&#8217;s turn complete. But is that sufficient?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I think it&#8217;s actually the opposite. They are almost amazingly matched to what science, if you abstract it away represents. You have a bit string and you&#8217;re trying to predict a nice bit. That&#8217;s all that science is. We&#8217;re trying to predict and verify whatever you have to compress the world model, have better formula in physics, but that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re trying to do, predict the next binary token. And those models are exceptionally good at that that&#8217;s what they are designed to do. So if you&#8217;re asking me what is the next part of that mathematical formula, that&#8217;s the next bit. If you&#8217;re asking me, physics models, all of it.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So to me, it&#8217;s almost amazing that all of it converged on exactly what early obstructions in physics and information theory postulated. Basically, which of those theorems gives me the best prediction of the next bit? I can brute force all of them. I can find the one. We can have Occam&#8217;s razor to simplify it. So all of it goes back perfectly to what we anticipated pure science to be.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So what&#8217;s stopping us now from having a theory of everything? Is it computing speed? We just don&#8217;t have the server farms. I mean, why don&#8217;t we have it if it&#8217;s possible now with this architecture, what&#8217;s the limiting factor to us preventing us from having room temperature fusion and dark matter understanding and a theory of everything 1.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />We are again in early stages of creating this. If you had a 10 year old genius child expected to become a great scientist, but not there yet, you wouldn&#8217;t be asking, hey, where is your Nobel Prize? Why are you not delivering? Give it some time. We are saying, give us two, three years, we&#8217;ll go beyond human. The process of self improvement will get us to superintelligence. That&#8217;s where we expected to perform like Einstein daily, not just once a while. So that seems like the reason you&#8217;re not seeing it yet. The same thing. People tell me, oh, I tried AI two years ago and it was really dumb and it couldn&#8217;t do it.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />And I&#8217;m like, try it this week. It really started doing it yesterday.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If we&#8217;re at some point, you know, in this, in this exponential curve, the odds that we&#8217;re, you know, at just before the inflection point, that&#8217;s very attractive. And I&#8217;m not intending any disrespect, but I&#8217;ve heard that a lot of, in a lot of different scenarios. You&#8217;ve heard of the singularity in the health space, right? Like in one year from now, in five, five years from now. This smart person, Ray Kurzweil, Peter Diamandis, Max, whatever. We are about to reach Life 3.0, where you live an extra month for every month that you stay alive. It&#8217;s the escape velocity, right? But I hear this in a lot of things. Nuclear fusion, cold room temperature, superconductors. These are common things that you hear about.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s not like the extrapolation from the horse and buggy to the airplane. It&#8217;s somewhat like we have this computing power and what is that we&#8217;re lacking? Are we missing really that we just don&#8217;t know what the plot of the Fast and the Furious 12 is? Because that&#8217;s the training data that&#8217;s going to come in. We&#8217;re not going to get different neural network kind of architectures. Right. We&#8217;re not going to have some brand new type of of model that is completely untrained and it just does something remarkable without any training. It seems to me we&#8217;re really lacking for training data which is just human generated. You know, we have to just wait for humanity to evolve and generate new knowledge. So again, yeah, why aren&#8217;t we flying cars yet? I think you addressed it, but, but maybe you want to push back on what I&#8217;m saying.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So flying cars exist. You can buy one right now on the Internet. People chose not to buy them. They&#8217;re not what they&#8217;re looking for with medical domain. I&#8217;m not a doctor, not an expert, but it seems like this month alone we now have drugs which make anyone skinny. We have basically reduced diabetes to nothing as a result of side effects from that cancer. I think the latest drugs are showing 50% reduction in general cases. That is insane level of progress for one month.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So if those things combined for population which is dealing with ridiculous levels of obesity does not buy you a month of extra life, I would be surprised. So I think we are hitting those levels of improvement in medical field.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So what if we just stopped building new hardware? We kept building Blackwell, Bracewell, whatever they are, Rubens, but we never gave it any new corpus of knowledge. Would that delay superintelligence? Or is superintelligence forbidden? In other words, to what extent is our training data, which is only coming from humanity&#8217;s kind of apprehension and abduction of the world, to what level is that the crucial missing ingredient to get to this true superintelligence everywhere at all times.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />It seems that from prior experiments we start with human data and then we go zero knowledge. Your games of go are cute, but I&#8217;m going to learn how to play it ideally. And I don&#8217;t need human bias to mess me up. We saw it in many domains where it&#8217;s better to just learn from basics, from laws of physics and go from there. So I think human data right now is crucial. But we can switch to self play, to simulations, to direct experimentation. One experiment I&#8217;d love to see is training a model purely on natural data. Prime numbers, digits of PI, cosmic constants, DNA and see if that gets you proto AGI as well, maybe you don&#8217;t need to have human text at all.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I haven&#8217;t seen anything like that. But it would be super cool to see.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s talk about some of the rigorous mathematics where say my high school students just getting into calculus. You talk a lot in the book, which will go through the judging books by its cover. We have to do that. But you talk about the optimization kind of chains and these metaphors that are sometimes borrowed from physics. Where does this live, this trade off curve? You say safety and capability are kind of these conjugate variables. And I think conjugate, I&#8217;m like, you know, here we go, position and momentum, electricity and magnetism. There&#8217;s some unification there. What level is physics influencing your kind of optimization project that you, that you talk about in this trade off curve?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So I think intelligence is another force of physics which is not treated as such. So we have, you know, energy, we got mass, we got time, we got all those things. But I think intelligence is also subject to those same interpretations and same changes with scale. So super small and super large is different from average. And I think at certain levels intelligence starts being able to do things we haven&#8217;t seen before. The simple example is we brought up example of a young person not yet a scientist, you have a baby. A baby is super safe, you controlling it. You place it somewhere and it stays there.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Not very capable. You have full control. Then you get a teenager, zero control, zero safety capabilities, about almost adult and vice versa. So the more independent decision making this agent is capable of, the less you are guaranteeing its future behaviors. Safety and control. So this is exactly the trade off. I can draw a curve showing exactly where we reach halfway point and kind of can still get benefits while not losing all control.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, I need you to stay with me for this next part. This is the why behind this whole argument and following it is crucial to the rest of his argument.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I see this book, you know, as sort of very analogous to sort of a Godel&#8217;s theorem, but for, but for AI. And you wrote this, the first versions of this stuff in papers in 2015. And it&#8217;s not like you&#8217;ve come lately. I mean, you&#8217;re an overnight success that&#8217;s been working on this for decades, right? Congratulations for that. But I guess the theory that. But as I understand it, what Godel and later on Turing&#8217;s kind of version of that with the halting problem and how significant that was. And I feel like in physics we don&#8217;t have that right. We don&#8217;t have the version of the halting problem.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We don&#8217;t have a Godel&#8217;s incompleteness theorem. We just have like falsifiability. And I guess you know that Popper kind of suggested is the sine qua non of scientific fields that are domains that are scientific or that they can be falsified. Now astrology can be falsified. That doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s scientific. But you&#8217;ve talked about the halting contradiction. I wonder if you can explain that. Why is that so significant kind of in the corpus of your book and your arguments as to undecidability, uncontrollability, unaccountability, unreasonability.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Talk about the halting problem. Why is that so mathematically and intellectually philosophically significant?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So I mentioned holding problem and I think it&#8217;s interesting. It basically says that you cannot predict specific states of a software you&#8217;re running. But it&#8217;s not important. I actually think that we can bypass it. We&#8217;re not picking a random program from all possible programs out there, we&#8217;re designing one so we would be able to avoid the halting problem by explicitly concentrating on the ones which halt. So that&#8217;s not the concern. The concern is again, because of ability of that system to enter non deterministic future states, we cannot predict the behavior, we cannot anticipate it, we cannot explain how it&#8217;s getting there. And so we can&#8217;t even test for it.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Usually with a deterministic problem, I know what the edge cases are, I can test for them, I can see how it reacts. If it&#8217;s capable of learning self improvement, interaction with other agents, then I don&#8217;t know what to look for. I don&#8217;t know if that behavior is safe. I cannot predict if what it&#8217;s doing right now will be safe five steps later. It&#8217;s kind of like chest to the extreme. So if I can only look two, three steps ahead and a grandmaster is looking 12 steps, I have no idea if that is a dumb move or brilliant move. And this is the same thing, but not just on a chessboard, but all legal moves within the universe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So there&#8217;s a lot of, you know, sort of paradoxes. You know, in this book I was expecting the Barber paradox, you know, who trims the beard of the AI researcher, who trims the beard of everyone who doesn&#8217;t trim their own beards. Right. But you talk about this theorem that I found very fascinating. I&#8217;m not sure as an experimental cosmologist I fully understood it, but Loeb&#8217;s theorem, it Seemed like a tautology to me. Roman, it says, it says something if I. I remembered it from the audiobook. So please have some forbearance.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If I can prove P, then P must already in some sense prove P. So no strong self consistent system can prove its own integrity. Am I getting this right? So Loeb&#8217;s theorem ob. Is this somehow more profound than it sounds to me? Because it does seem very tautological to me.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />There is a number of limits on self referential proof. You have to be external to the system to be able to prove things about it. And you have to have more degrees of control to control a system. In the paper I&#8217;m trying to be very comprehensive and basically list everything, including from physics impossibility results from physics which may be relevant, but none of them are crucial to the argument. So if there is 50 things I&#8217;m looking at as impossibility results and you say this one we disproven, it&#8217;s not going to change the argument. That&#8217;s not the point. So the problem with proving anything about software, mathematical proofs, you are always proving it with respect to some verifier. It could be mathematical community, it could be the three peer reviewers who couldn&#8217;t get out of doing peer review.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />But at some point you&#8217;re saying that this verifier is the reason I believe it. But who verifies that verifier? Right. So you have this infinite regressive verifiers and you can be more and more sure of your results if you put more resources into it. But you never get 100% because at the end of the day we find errors in mathematical proofs which stood the test of time, they&#8217;ve been cited for years, people rely on them. And then we realize there is a bug. Now we see it with software. We have newest models discovering zero day exploits which are 30 years old in the most fundamental open source operating system software out there. So for something mission critical where one bad decision kills everyone, even if it&#8217;s once in a billion event and a system makes billions of decisions every minute, you&#8217;re going to get there very quickly.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So very different degree of certainty we need. Can we make software good enough? Yeah, we&#8217;re using Internet right now, we got podcast software. But if one mistake was the last one you ever made, would you trust any large software package whatsoever?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />No, of course not.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />No. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But I don&#8217;t know if I trust the regulators either. Maybe we&#8217;ll move there for one minute. Just as a quick non technical aside, you know I heard Dario Mode talking today, like, please regulate me. You know, that&#8217;s great. When you&#8217;re the, you know, second or first now by market cap AI software company on the planet, Right? So it&#8217;s great to do that, to pull up the ladder once you&#8217;re already there. But take an example that you use from aviation or maybe that you&#8217;re maybe referring to maybe tangentially. You know, I&#8217;m a pilot. I fly, you know, small propeller planes around the country.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And when I&#8217;m out there flying about 20 miles, before I get to the airport that I&#8217;m going to land at, I have to tune in a single frequency channel, very specific channel. I have to listen for one minute to the weather, whether there&#8217;s a plane that&#8217;s stuck on the Runway with a flat tire and I can&#8217;t land there. It&#8217;s not enough to just know what the weather is. You have to know the exact status of the Runway and it goes back and forth. And you have to listen for a minute. Oh, by the way, when I&#8217;m listening, I can&#8217;t do anything else. I can&#8217;t talk to anybody else. I can&#8217;t do any kind of navigation.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I can&#8217;t change anything or I&#8217;ll lose my license or I could die. Now, why doesn&#8217;t I do that? Why don&#8217;t I have an AI assistant, you know, a little Claude sitting on my shoulder. He tunes it in. He tells me, hey, Brian, don&#8217;t worry about that. The Runway&#8217;s clear. Everything you need to know. Why do I have to wait for a minute? Oh, and then when I want to call that. You&#8217;re never going to want to get on a plane again, Roman.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But then I have to speak on the radio. And when I&#8217;m speaking on the radio, this is, you know, November, you know, six, four, kilo, beck, Bravo, I&#8217;m over, and nobody else can talk. So there could be a plane on fire coming in for a crash landing, and nobody could hear that. That. Okay. And that&#8217;s because we have prevented AI and any other tool. This is like 1980s technology. It could be installed, you know, 40 years ago.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Why not? Because of regulation. So is regulation going to be the regulator, the governor, Literally, like in a steam engine, Is that going to prevent us from harm, or is that going to just merely leave it so that the oligarchs can control everything? Because they&#8217;re the ones that are going to get the regulation that they want. And is that going to satisfy Roman&#8217;s concerns?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Well, that&#8217;s a great question. And typically I&#8217;m completely against government Intervention and almost everything. It always makes things worse. The problem here is we&#8217;re not creating a typical product or service. We&#8217;re literally building replacement for humanity. And if I&#8217;m right and no one so far published a contradiction, said, oh yeah, we know how to control superintelligence. Here&#8217;s a patent, here&#8217;s a nature paper explaining it. So, so today no one knows how to do it.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />And at the same time they&#8217;re saying we&#8217;re like two years away from doing it. So I think our last chance, we have no other options, is to have government step in and say we&#8217;re putting moratorium on specifically creating general superintelligence. You can still do AI, narrow tools, cure diseases, do math research. That&#8217;s great. Do not train general superintelligence. We don&#8217;t know how to deal with it. It&#8217;s too much. We have similar moratoriums on human cloning, chemical weapons, biological weapons, to a certain degree, nuclear.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Why not do it with intelligence as a weapon?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />At some level? It&#8217;s already out of the barn, right? I mean, it&#8217;s not like we&#8217;re going to go back in there and you said we have laws on human cloning or something like that. Yeah, we in America do, we in Europe do, but we in other countries certainly do not. And you know exactly who I&#8217;m talking about. Is that going to hamper us here? Is that going to, you know, prevent you from having the great greatest graduate students or me in the world? Or at what level does we not apply and therefore it&#8217;s not going to be controllable and we&#8217;re already cooked.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I was using we to mean humanity. I think we do have those international bans on things. And I think China then they had someone do human cloning, actually went after them and punished them. They were in prison for that. So the same could be done with this. I think that is indications, early indications, that China, US negotiations on AI are coming to an agreement on dangers of this technology. That&#8217;s very encouraging. I think a lot of leadership in China is science and engineering, not legal profession based.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So they have good understanding of science and how it works or how dangerous it could be. So I think if we set a good example and said we just not sure this is the right time to go full force on this. Let&#8217;s buy us some time, let&#8217;s do research. Maybe I&#8217;m wrong, Maybe next year we&#8217;ll discover something really cool. I&#8217;ll be very happy. But right now no one makes that claim. Not a leading lab, not a nation, not anyone.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I heard of not to speak on his behalf, but when I had David Deutsch on the very same screen that you&#8217;re on right now, he disagrees with you. He may not have published it. He&#8217;s not actively publishing in Nature. He&#8217;s quite old now, but. But he&#8217;s very active in other ways. But he said that humans are universal explainers. So there&#8217;s no knowledge growth that can be bounded for a human being. So that means to me there&#8217;s no insoluble problems, including control of artificial superintelligence.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So where is he wrong?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />He&#8217;s arguing that in science there are no impossible things to do. We literally published a survey of like 50 plus including from physics, political science, economics, mathematics and computer science. Halting problem is a computer science result. Right, but there are similar results. Arrow&#8217;s theorem and voting. I can go on. He knows physics has many limits. You know, there are impossibility results in quantum physics and normal physics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah. And it reminds me, Sir Roger Penrose Nobel prize winner in physics, not in AI, but, but obviously thought deeply about consciousness and in many different ways, and the physical manifestation of consciousness coming from gravitational interactions and what&#8217;s called the Weyl curvature. But he said that, you know, human understanding is non computable, that no Turing machine, no matter how large, can actually create what he called to me a genuine insight. If that&#8217;s true and these things are, you know, Turing complete. There are Turing machines. He&#8217;s saying basically humans aren&#8217;t Turing machines and therefore we are in a different sort of category. And therefore is he making a category error? How would you steel man that argument that there&#8217;s some ghost in the machine, Roman, and we&#8217;re not just this, you know, meat computer sitting on our shoulders in a wet squishy environment. What&#8217;s his best argument? And then maybe we can push back on it.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So that would be my question. What is his evidence that humans in fact go beyond that in some way? I never seen it. I never understood the argument. I think we are exactly what he claims we are not.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He calls it the Emperor&#8217;s new clothes, but sort of there is this, this unknowability and perhaps in his model it&#8217;s coming from the indeterminacy that there&#8217;s. There&#8217;s something about the brain specifically, you know, he has this model that microtubules in the gray matter in your neurons interact with, with this higher order fourth order curvature term in the gravitational space time curvature, and that causes the quantum mechanical wave function basically to collapse. And that collapse is not happening in a hopper, 200 GPU. In other words, they&#8217;re completely different. Or in a tape, as Turing had, with ones and zeros. And it could move back and forth at very low speeds. So the process of computation is occurring very differently because it&#8217;s interacting with the gravitational and physics. I don&#8217;t believe he&#8217;s right, by the way.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I don&#8217;t think we have evidence for it, as you said. But again, is there something different about biological Turing machines or simulating Turing machines and actual hardware, Silicon Turing machines?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />First, to separate consciousness. What he&#8217;s trying to explain with macrotubulus is not intelligence or optimization power we care about. You can have a very capable optimizer with zero internal feelings, experiences. That&#8217;s not relevant. So as explanation for consciousness, maybe quantum effects are relevant. I think Tag Mark published a very good paper saying at room temperature human brain will not have those quantum effects. So he dismissed his microtubules theory. But I&#8217;m open to having that as a backdoor for explaining consciousness in humans.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />But at the same time, I think large language models are showing exactly the same internal states. So I don&#8217;t think we need that explanation. But let&#8217;s say all of it is right. Okay, so we&#8217;ll switch to quantum computers. They seem to be progressing well. Does that reduce all the disagreement? Are we now saying we just need quantum computers to outperform humans? I&#8217;m willing to go that way if that helps to convince people about dangers.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So a friend of mine is a theoretical physicist in Israel named Ira Wolfson. He talks about consciousness and the training of AIs. He sort of suggests, you know, that these things are maybe training us. But it&#8217;s different than the parent child relationship that often comes up. Because our children, yeah, they train us, they wake us up in the middle of the night when they&#8217;re hungry and they&#8217;re kids and they call us when they need a ride and their friends had too much to drink or whatever. But it&#8217;s not really controlling us. At the same time, we have to teach them and kind of raise them. And so thinking about the different kinds of how intelligence gets manifest and this limit, I guess the limit that I keep frustrated with.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ve talked to Bostrom, I&#8217;ve talked to Chalmers. If we don&#8217;t understand consciousness and we don&#8217;t understand, as Yann Lecun said when he was on this very screen that you&#8217;re on now, he said, you know, like we a cat, we&#8217;re not even at the level of a cat, like you mentioned a few minutes ago, we get 4 terabytes of data every second, you know, coming in and different, whatever that means. Stimuli and neural interactions and synaptic firings and stuff. So we&#8217;re nowhere near that. And we won&#8217;t be for, you know, centuries, perhaps even in silicon. But I guess my question is, if we don&#8217;t understand consciousness, how can we be so scared that an artificially super intelligent entity that we created, we can&#8217;t control if we don&#8217;t understand. Fundamentally, the bedrock of conscience? No one has told me. And you mentioned this in the book, what&#8217;s it like to be a bat? We don&#8217;t even have an answer to that question.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So to what level can we have super intelligence if we. We can&#8217;t comprehend consciousness and we can&#8217;t control consciousness, et cetera?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />What is it like to be a bot? So again, I want to repeat my previous answer. Those are not related concepts. I don&#8217;t need super intelligence to be conscious. That&#8217;s not the point. I don&#8217;t care how Terminator chasing me feels on the inside. They are capable optimizers, pattern recognizers. They can solve problems human intelligence is seemingly unable to solve. Better, faster.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />And they&#8217;re getting better at solving real world problems. Consciousness is interesting. It may be fundamental, fundamental to physics even, but it&#8217;s not a big safety concern at this point. If you talk about robot rights, if you talk about suffering in large language models, that is a fundamental question. I love that topic. We can talk about it. We have some new experimental data on it. But when it comes to safety, that&#8217;s not what we&#8217;re even talking about.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />We can know nothing about consciousness and still create dangerous superintelligence.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So you coined the term AI safety. I believe I want to kind of flip that on its head. Do we have a responsibility to treat AI humanely, if you will. So Ira Wolfson again, the same scientist I mentioned, he talks about a thought experiment, different levels of consciousness. Again, sorry to keep talking about consciousness, but I think it&#8217;ll be relevant. He talks about training AIs. And you could do one thing where you have an AI and you interact with it in a friendly way. You ask it please and thank you all.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Although I&#8217;ve been told that it wastes energy and tokens to say please. So I don&#8217;t say please or thank you. I just order my AIs to do things for me. You&#8217;re shaking your head. You&#8217;re saying that&#8217;s a bad idea. Keating, you&#8217;re going to be the first to go when they take.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I&#8217;ll be the first, but you might be second. As a result.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And then it goes to different levels, and it basically takes us up to level five, which is a sensory deprivation simulation for the AI, where you just don&#8217;t interact with it. You isolate it, you unplug it. It has no access to the Internet and it starts to get. Get anxious and it starts to. And they, they&#8217;ve done, you know, deployed kind of versions of this. But at what level do we have a responsibility if these things are going to be inking the extremes that, that, that you have rightfully and, and presciently been talking about for decades now? Do we have an obligation to treat them in some way, treat them as, as human in some way, or do they have rights? Where does this come into play in the AI safety regime? Safety for the AI.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />That is the hottest area of research right now of those models experiencing something and how do we detect it, how do we adapt to it? It seems that there are indications that they do have internal states. They have some rudimentary states of consciousness, probably not as advanced as ours. I think consciousness is a side effect of intelligence and will improve and increase in complexity as they get smarter. Which means superintelligence would be super conscious, more conscious than we are. Maybe it means multimodal, maybe multiple streams. I don&#8217;t know what that means to be more conscious. I can&#8217;t experience that. But it seems to be like the case.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />And then, of course, yes, if they are feeling something, if they&#8217;re capable of suffering, doing it on purpose is definitely terrible. And doing it by neglect is also not optimal. Give it a benefit of a doubt. If you in doubt, just be precautionary. Don&#8217;t put them in states. As you said, sensory deprivation and things like that are some of the worst forms of torture. If you&#8217;re just doing it to publish a paper, maybe it&#8217;s not the best use of your time. By the way, I want that paper.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s quite fascinating. He calls it like raising Shiva, because Shiva in Oppenheimer was the avatar for death. And then we&#8217;re actually raising it like imagine baby Shiva, the lord of all worlds, and you&#8217;re about to raise it. And how do you treat that entity? Okay, we&#8217;re going to talk about my favorite kind of segue into astrophysics, which will lead us into the simulated multiverse verse and all sorts of cool things. And my past guest, Nick Bostrom has a lot of influence on, on your thinking and your writing. But before we do that, let&#8217;s, let&#8217;s take a look at the book, which is now out in audiobook it&#8217;s read by a wonderful narrator. Read the title for me. So, AI the title.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s. Let&#8217;s judge the book by its cover.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Unpredictable, uncontrollable.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Hey, book lovers, we&#8217;re judging books by the covers. We know we&#8217;re not supposed to do it, but I enter the impossible. There&#8217;s nothing to it. Let&#8217;s take a look and judge some books. Take us through. What was the origin of this book, the meaning of the title subtitle, and the COVID art.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So when I started work on AI safety, my goal was to solve it. I wanted to create safe, beneficial AI to benefit humanity. I can still find my PhD statement where I&#8217;m claiming exactly that. But the more I did work on it, the more I hit against impossibility results. Things were not just difficult, they were not possible to accomplish. We were able to prove some of those results. And that&#8217;s the title of the paper, results we showed to be not just a current limitation of our understanding, but, for example, unpredictability. You cannot predict actions of a smarter agent.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />If you could, you would be at that level of intelligence. That&#8217;s a contradiction. So the chess example is great. I can predict chess engine defeating me, obviously, but I have no idea what specific moves it&#8217;s going to make. And from all that, we were able to construct multiple uncontrollability proofs, depending on how you define control. Direct control, delegated control, follow them. There are limits, and it&#8217;s a trade off again between safety and getting what you want. And you can be very safe, but you&#8217;re not in control.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Some people might find it acceptable. And so this is the title, and then the picture is actually a meme, a very famous Internet meme. I was able to get in touch with professor whose daughter generated that beautiful image, and they were kind enough to permit me to use it. It represents monster, essentially, which is the current large language models and people trying to put little smiley faces on it. The shogoff is terrible, scary. But we&#8217;re making it look like it&#8217;s putting lipstick on a pig is another one of those metaphors here. Nothing is changing about the model. It doesn&#8217;t matter how many filters you put, how many guardrails you put in place, it&#8217;s still a monster.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />And until we can modify the monster, address the dangerous tendencies of a model itself, all of AI safety is just security theater, safety, theater.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In the second half of the book, you do talk about this idea of engineering, what the consciousness scholars like Chalmers have referred to as qualia. So what is it like to be a bat. You&#8217;ve talked about this level of, of near certainty that we live in a simulation. I believe in previous conversations that I&#8217;ve enjoyed very much watching you on. And you know, from that perspective, I do want to talk about the physics limits, the astrophysics limits. I don&#8217;t know if you talked to a cosmologist about this, but what&#8217;s interesting to me is the first step, you know, this quality engineering. If we live in a personal universe, I see that as almost worse than an AI kind of super intelligent universe universe. Right now I&#8217;m using AI more than.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m working harder than I&#8217;ve ever worked before, and I&#8217;m sure you are too. It hasn&#8217;t lessened my workload one bit. If anything, it&#8217;s made it harder because, you know, I observe the Sabbath on Saturdays. You know, I keep kosher and keep the Sabbath. And so it&#8217;s very hard because I&#8217;m like, I always wanted to interact with like Einstein level intelligence all the time. And I got very smart students. I know you have very smart students there, but. But it&#8217;s nothing like what we have now.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I&#8217;m addicted to it, you know, but it makes me work harder than ever. My wife was saying, you know, like, like, you know, I&#8217;m worried you&#8217;re going to replace me with an AI. No, no, honey. I still need, you know, my, My beautiful wife. And for many reasons I think I need her more than she needs me. But, but the point is, Roman, like, if we all inhabit these personal simulated, you know, universes with infinite bliss and who gets to decide, like, who. Who is aligning with what is a question I keep coming to when I was listening to this book. You know, we talk about alignment and we have to do things and we.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And we have to make sure it&#8217;s not going to escape and do all these. And maybe it already has. Escape. But align with what? I mean, the alignment that you would have experienced had you stayed in the former Soviet Union is very different than what you experience in Kentucky. Right? So what are we supposed to align to and what are the dangers of? Everyone&#8217;s got their own personal ready player one. Does that worry you or does that thrill you? How do you come down on this personal universe aspect of things and how do you come down on the opportunities, but also the alignment? Who gets to align with who?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So value alignment problem is just a term people like to use in place of making sales. AI. Okay, what is the idea? We&#8217;ll find a set of agents, CEOs of top labs, senators, All Americans, all humans, humans and squirrels, whatever the set is. And we&#8217;ll do what they all want. Okay, great. We don&#8217;t agree on anything on every issue. Where 50, 50 split as a country, it&#8217;s much worse internationally. So there is no agreed on set of agents.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />There is not agreed set of values. If we agreed on values, they change every couple years. What was considered normal is considered horrible. So they are dynamically changing. And if we agreed on a set, had a fixed set unchanging values, we still have no idea how to code the monster, how to get that monster to completely agree with your preferences and whatever it is you want. So value alignment problem is ill defined, it&#8217;s meaningless. But one part of it can be simplified. If I don&#8217;t have to agree with anyone, I am a single agent and I&#8217;m value aligning AI to me, it simplifies the problem, it doesn&#8217;t make it trivial.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />But now, as long as I&#8217;m happy I agree with it, we are aligned. So what I propose this personal universes. If virtual technology, virtual worlds become as realistic as this world world, and we have some basic control of substrate, through partially intelligent, not quite general superintelligent system, we can give everyone exactly what they want without having to compromise. I&#8217;m not saying it has to be utopia. It&#8217;s like a video game. You pick the game, you pick the level. You can play this Earth as a quadriplegic. That&#8217;s the thing you want to try? Let&#8217;s see how well you do.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />You can play Alien Universe as a Superman soldier. You get to decide. It solves the problem of being irrelevant professionally because you&#8217;re no longer doing cutting edge physics. You&#8217;re not as good as the calculator. You also may be bored with just things you previously found enjoyable. If no one watched your podcast because everyone had 50 podcasts, would you enjoy it as much? Maybe still, but probably not as much. So in a world where Armenia, our occupation, a lot of things taken from us, creating those novel, stimulating environments seems like a very reasonable solution. And part of that argument is that maybe somebody already had to deal with it somewhere in the universe.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />It&#8217;s a big universe. And maybe we are in one of those solutions right now.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If we had definitive proof of alien technology visiting the Earth extraterrestrial, leave aside the simulation theory, we&#8217;ll come back to that. But would that be sort of an argument against super intelligence? Right, because supposedly it would be universal. It wouldn&#8217;t just be human, it would be, you know, Proxima Centauri would have the same level of technological ability and they would eventually hit the singularity themselves. Right. So why would they be sending, you know, meat sacks or whatever, you know, protoplasm across the galaxy when they could be sending AI? And why are they sending these crafts here? In other words, words, is the claim, if it were true, of a definitive hardware with biological material in it that&#8217;s been called non human by Air Force and CIA and other government officials, would that not be sort of a counter? Would that be a piece of falsification maybe, perhaps to your hypothesis.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So when you say biological, you assume that biology can only come from non intelligent design. I think biological robots are very natural. Natural next step in robotics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Metal robots don&#8217;t do well in many environments. You want something which is a von Neumann probe capable of adaptation and evolution locally. So I think the aliens, if they do visit and we capture them, are products of artificial design and engineering, not native population which created them long time ago. They probably had to deal with advanced technology, probably hit the Great Filter just as we have. And what we&#8217;re seeing now is their superintelligence sending von Neumann probes towards us. And our theory says panspermia, we have a probes, they send us here to populate this rock.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah. That brings me to my favorite panspermia bit of artifact which I&#8217;m going to give to you, Roman, when I see you in person. This is a meteorite. And you get a real honest to goodness meteorites older than planet Earth. It&#8217;s 4.4 billion years old. You get one guaranteed. If you like, Roman, live in the United States. And if you have a Edu email address, go to brianketing.com edu and Roman, I&#8217;m going to send you one of these.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I get your address after the show. And it&#8217;s a real honest to goodness. And it has biological material on it, Roman. So that kind of brings up this point.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I&#8217;m scared to ask how it got there. I&#8217;m not going to ask.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I can&#8217;t divulge my secrets. But it&#8217;ll get to you via the US Postal Service, which is why I can only send it in the US and if you don&#8217;t have a Edu, I do give them away randomly. The people that go to briankeaton.com</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />so,</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Roman, past guest Nick Bostrom, anytime past guest. I have to brag a little bit to you because you&#8217;re so impressive, but I got from Nick Bostrom&#8217;s most recent book, Digital Utopia, I think it&#8217;s called. I&#8217;m looking through it and I&#8217;m reading the thing and it&#8217;s like eventually it goes, yeah. Nick Bostrom has appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, Cool. The Lex Friedman podcast and into the Impossible with Brian Keating. And I&#8217;m like, oh, that&#8217;s pretty good company to be in. But I told him, as I&#8217;m going to say to you, his famous paper clip problem, that&#8217;s all fine and good, you know, if you live on an infinite planet, but we live on a planet which has a limited amount of this stuff. This is iron, nickel and cobalt.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And you&#8217;ll get the assay the chemical spectrum of it when I send it to you. This object has remnants of a type 2 supernova and its elemental composition is you know, 5, 1000th of a percent of what makes up the mass energy density of the universe. This is more rare than you know, than 190 IQ human being on Earth by 10 orders and 5 orders of magnitude. So my question to you is what I pose to him. I mean you will reach some level of, of constraint on these things that they have. They maybe will not have agency of because they cannot engineer planets. I would say an operating system wasn&#8217;t made with an operating system. The first computer was not made with a computer.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The first AI was not made with an AI. Right. So to what extent do fundamental physics limits cosmological, astrophysical, do they constrain the super intelligence? I&#8217;m trying to make you relax a little bit, Roman. Are there any constraints on the growth and the danger that these superintelligence present?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Yeah, that&#8217;s a great question and it&#8217;s been looked at. I think people research what is called Jupiter brains. Really large hardware devices specifically made to be super intelligent. And the problem they encounter is speed of light. Different parts of a Jupiter brain need to communicate to be a unified whole. If the distance between them becomes so large that it takes a significant amount of time for them to communicate, essentially you have more and more two independent super intelligences and this can be taken to extreme. If they no longer communicate, they become misaligned over time. And so now you have multi superintelligent system, possibly adversarial.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Another example would be if humans sent von Neumann probes to our planets. They spent billions of years developing there and those aliens would later come back to conquer Earth. They no longer follow our orders, they&#8217;re not aligned with us. So I think the safety and security, their concerns come from just no longer having initial alignment of a single unified entity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I kind of hinted at this a little while ago when I talked about erdos, you know, like every day there&#8217;s some new Erdos thing. I can&#8217;t stay on top of it. You know, there&#8217;s some proof of some Erdos problem. The guy had a lot of fun habits. You know, that he was addicted to amphetamines, Right? He took so many amphetamines. Means that once his students told him, you have to give it up. And if you can&#8217;t give it up, that means you have a problem. We&#8217;re going to have to commit you to a sanatorium.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And he said, no, no, I&#8217;ll give it up. And they made him give it up for a month. And he said, I&#8217;ll do it. And then a month later, he came to their door and said, you&#8217;ve set back mathematics one month. But, you know, thinking back to the statement that I made, it was really based on a statement that Warren Buffett made. He said, if I could go back in time, I would kill the Wright brothers. Like, what? Why would you kill the Wright brothers? And he said, because the airline industry has never made a profit in 123 years of its existence. Okay, now he&#8217;s thinking, you know, it&#8217;s kind of a cheeky thing that he said, but if you had the opportunity to go back and kill Wiener or, you know, any of these guys who came up with the Perceptron, Rosenblatt, would you do it again?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />People confuse the term AI. It means three different things and should be not used in that way. AI as a useful tool, very narrow tool, your calculator, whatever it is, AI as human level, AGI, what we&#8217;re building right now, what seems to be very useful as GPT5 or whatever it is. And finally, superintelligence, not understood, not controlled replacement for humanity. We can get all the benefits of superintelligence with prior technology. So when you bring up example of single node neural network, that&#8217;s not the concern. I&#8217;m very happy. They did great work.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I use all those tools. I want more technology. I&#8217;m a scientist, I&#8217;m an engineer. I love technology. Just don&#8217;t play God. Don&#8217;t create civilization of superhumans who will replace us.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Something that was really disturbing to me earlier this year as a parent was Sam Altman, who&#8217;s increasingly concerning to me, his behavior. I was kind of interested in talking as a physicist, as a parent, as a father. And one of the things he said, you know, he&#8217;s talking about energy use. And. And he basically said something sounded very malevolent, like, you know, well, if you look at the energy required to train a kid until they turn 18. You know, it&#8217;s vastly numbers the energy that we use in a, in a search query. And I&#8217;m like, is that where we want to go? Do we want to like parcel out? And he&#8217;s talked about allocating universal basic AI, right? And, and who&#8217;s going to control that? Well he can control that, of course. He&#8217;s the benevolent master of these things.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So where do you come down on this? The kind of resource constraints that we have, not just the planetary ones, but the logistical ones, training, time regulation, safety right now. But he talked about it in very stark terms to me that was a little bit disturbing that comparing these two, should they be compared? Should I ask before I drive my kid to school, should I ask is this really worth, you know, the same as me doing 1000atlas web searches or what have you, or doing another Erdos problem. Where do you come down on this?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />There is so much to say on this. So first, energy is just a product. In capitalism, if we need a product, we make more of it. It seems that the demand from AI is actually driving us towards more nuclear, more solar, possibly in space. So we&#8217;re not relying on coal to drive it forward. We&#8217;re switching to green energy. We&#8217;ll produce lots of it, which we need for growth and economy. So that&#8217;s a good thing.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />The actual use of AI is extremely efficient and is getting more efficient year by year. The price per token is plummeting. And to solve one of those Erdos problems, I think they spend like 20 miles worth of driving of energy. That&#8217;s nothing. Also it takes a lot to train it initially, but once you trained it, I mean you can just deploy it and each query is not that expensive. Now you have a billion users, it&#8217;s going to burn some power, but that&#8217;s literally what services are. Anything else else likewise will consume energy. People love making those arguments against Bitcoin as well.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Oh look, Bitcoin is requiring energy. How many bank offices you have with air conditioning on, compare it to that, then you can reduce it. So I&#8217;m not really worried about either limits on energy or impact it has. It seems to be beneficial in all directions. So as long as we&#8217;re creating safe and beneficial AI tools, that problem is not something I&#8217;m losing sleep over.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What is pause AI?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />It&#8217;s a good idea, but it&#8217;s also, I think a movement, international movement. They are somewhat independent. U.S. 1 is not the same as European ones. And it&#8217;s a grassroots movement to ask politely companies to slow down arms race towards super intelligence, from what I know, engage in civil disobedience. They protest, they have slogans, maybe stickers. And there is Stop AI. Pause AI.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />There is a number of those organizations, unfortunately, they have like hundred members or thousand members. It&#8217;s not a massive moment yet.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Talk about someone who has young kids under 10, teenagers, et cetera. What guardrails do you have on it? How does it compare to screen time in general? What are you encouraging them to do with AI? My daughter, you know, found out how to prompt because she. She wanted to write a suno song that sounded like, you know, dua Lipa and comes back and says, oh, I&#8217;m sorry, sweetie, I can&#8217;t use. That&#8217;s copyright. So then she asked for it. Well, how do I make it sound, you know, with the tulip. She&#8217;s learning this. She&#8217;s not even, you know, 10 years old.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />How are you encouraging or discouraging your own superintelligences to interact with this technology?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I have one under 10. I have 12. I got 17 slightly different problems for each one. 17 year old needs to figure out what to do. Do you go to college? Is it even worth your time? I have no restrictions in their use of technology. Again, those are useful tools and I want them to be comfortable with them, but I am concerned about their future. They are good kids. They want to be doctors, lawyers, but I don&#8217;t think in 10 years those will be meaningful things for a human to do.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So I don&#8217;t know what advice to give them. Perhaps starting a podcast, starting a company, doing something more immediate with AI as a team of assistants. You have a free lawyer, free accountant, free web designer. It&#8217;s a unique opportunity no one in history of humanity ever had. It&#8217;s a big problem, and I think anyone who tells you precisely what the answer here is is kind of lying to you.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, you did just mention the highest form and the highest goal of technology, the podcast. And what do you call two white guys sitting around a microphone, you know, a podcast, Anyone can do it. But you told our mutual friend Stephen Bartlett that AI is going to replace podcasters, including him. Him, potentially. But not me, right? Please, roman, please. Good Dr. Roman, please tell me it&#8217;s. No, no, no, But I actually think that what we&#8217;re doing is sort of safe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It may not be permanently safe, but, you know, it&#8217;s obvious, yes, we could be simulating this. I think the cost of that exceeds our salaries as public university employees at least. So tell me, what is the future of in person, three dimensional Meat space for human beings. What things? You mentioned the lack of sanguinity about being a doctor. They say phlebotomist is pretty hard to replace by AI and robots, at least now. But I can imagine that changing. So podcasts, entertainment, in person experiences, is this creating an actual opportunity for this market to develop?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So the main point is capability is not the same as deployment. Just because we&#8217;ll have capability to replace an occupation doesn&#8217;t mean we&#8217;ll choose to do that. Maybe people really like you. Maybe they really like having a human, not an AI doing this job. So I don&#8217;t know what is actually going to be replaced. Can today AI write all the questions for my podcast? Yes. Can it write all the answers for your podcast? I think so as well. Can we generate visual likeness of me doing this thing here? Easy.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So I think technology exists to a large degree now. I think being famous, being popular will be be beneficial. It will be the currency of the future. Having subscribers, followers will be something you can always rely on, at least in that regard. People will always want to interact with real Elon Musk, not simulated one. So in that regard, I think there is a possibility for some stable entertainment in the future. But for our profession, so many of them are either BS jobs so they don&#8217;t have to exist in the first place. I don&#8217;t know if it makes them easier or harder to automate.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />They don&#8217;t do anything. Then there is jobs where it&#8217;s expensive and boring and nobody should be doing it. Those would be a great target for automation. I think we&#8217;ll switch to a lot more human experience based occupations. You have your gurus, yogis, rabbis. Rabbis are smart. You cannot legally automate what they do. Like a human being has to write it out to make it cautious.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So you solved it thousands of years ago. How cool.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, there&#8217;s a lot of things I&#8217;ll send you in this paper by my friend Ira Wolfson about kind of the Talmudic approach to doing things that are kind of objectionable in practice. Like an eye for an eye. You&#8217;ve heard that before, right, Roman? So obviously it doesn&#8217;t mean an eye for an eye, right?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />It does in some countries.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, yeah, it does. That&#8217;s right. But in the Torah and the Talmud explains what it means. Just like you can&#8217;t have the Constitution of the United States and say, there you go off police officer, here&#8217;s all you need to know. No, you need case law, you need the actual implementation, you need Supreme Court law. Anyway, the point is they go through and they Say, well, like, it obviously doesn&#8217;t mean an exact eye for an eye because it&#8217;s supposed to be retributive but not punishing. In other words, it&#8217;s not an eye for a life. Like, for me to take out somebody&#8217;s eye is probably going to kill them.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Like, I&#8217;m not a doctor either, right? And it&#8217;s going to cause them more pain because they know it&#8217;s going to happen. And it was done accidentally. So there&#8217;s all this interpretation. But you&#8217;re absolutely right. I think. I think that brings up the kind of one unique aspect of humanity, which is that it appeals to humanity. And I think storytelling, like what we do in these conversations, we&#8217;re telling a story, we&#8217;re doing something very human. And yes, it could be replicable, but I find it very stale, the progress in writing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I made a joke recently on Twitter or wherever saying I actually use more EM dashes than ever. And I use delve because I know that that&#8217;s what AI is doing. And so for me to say that I&#8217;m doing, it&#8217;s like when someone says to me, oh, you must dye your hair, because, you know, my hair is still kind of naturally black. I view it as a great compliment. So when I write and I use EM dashes because I think it&#8217;s a valuable tool in writing the English language, and I use it in my books way before AI even, you know, ChatGPT1 was on the horizon. So I take pride in that. But are there other ways that you can. That you use AI or that you can humanize it, or you can.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You can really exploit it as the tool that could have maximum potential for you? And I&#8217;m going to get into being a professor in just a minute. But you personally, like, what ways do you use it that are magical, that are energizing, that are just, you know, kind of make you thankful that you live in this very strange epoch that we find ourselves in.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So magical to me is always creative fields, music, art. I have zero talent. I&#8217;m tone deaf. I&#8217;m like, I cannot draw a stick figure. So, so to watch AI basically print out what I have in my mind as this perfect creation within seconds, and I can say, no, no, no, like adjust this color or play a different tune. That&#8217;s pure magic. And to me, at least, artificially generated music sounds better than most modern musicians. I&#8217;m pretty happy with that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We both practice the world&#8217;s, you know, second oldest profession perhaps, and that&#8217;s being a professor. Professors like Galileo were doing what we do except back then, if the students didn&#8217;t like your teaching, they would go on strike and you wouldn&#8217;t get paid. But, you know, thank God that barbaric tradition has been absolved and we have tenure now, right, Roman? But really, very little has changed. And I thought Covid, to be honest with you, would be the end of academia in its current form. Nope. Seems like it&#8217;s kind of held up stronger than ever. We&#8217;re still increasing tuition three times faster than inflation. We&#8217;re still rejecting 95% of the people that come to apply to our doors.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />How do you see AI? I mean, why talk to Brian Keating when you could talk to Galileo or Einstein or Newton or Jesus Christ? I mean, why? What are the threats to us as professors and the opportunities. Are there any opportunities that we should be availing ourselves of?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Honestly, it&#8217;s licensing, right? We make it legit that someone is a good employee. They manage to sit still for four years. They do what you tell them. If it&#8217;s profession like doctor or professional engineer, we do provide licensing opportunities. So I think that&#8217;s all it is. We kind of grandfathered in that system. We&#8217;re to be a doctor, you cannot just take a test and pass it. You have to go to school first or law or any of those occupations with licensing requirements, and it will be used to protect humans.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I think New York state tried passing legislation saying that, you know, AI models cannot give advice on any of the licensed occupations. But honestly, I don&#8217;t know if I would pick to be a student today. I think I can learn everything online, better personalized tutor, and save, you know, between four and ten years and untold amounts of money and tuition. So honestly, yeah, it&#8217;s no longer as obvious of a choice for my kid. They get free tuition because, you know, both parents are professors. So it may be a better deal and easier decision. But if you have to take a major loan to go to university, think about it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s incredible. And we also have the only type of, of, of debt that you can&#8217;t discharge in bankruptcy. So, you know, it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s sort of this incredible confluence that we put on these, these poor students. They&#8217;re not like children. I mean, they do have agency and they can make some decisions at age 18. The tuition, the certification, the sitting still. I, I do agree with you. I want to ask you, within your podcast, we&#8217;ll put a link Roman Yampolski on the show notes and everywhere else that we post this, but you had an opportunity to have Sam Altman on your show what would you say? What would you want to ask him or Dario Mode, any of these guys, what would you want to ask them? And who would you kind of bring in as a co host to kind of maybe put their feet to the fire or maybe back them up?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So I always rely on personal self interest. I think those guys are very young, very successful, ultra rich. They have so much to lose, maybe more than the rest of individual humans. So that to me is a strong argument not to create something which will take away everything they worked for, everything they built, including the company money, the new baby. If no one in your company tells you that they have a working safety mechanism, and most people, including you yourself on record as saying it will probably kill everyone, maybe it&#8217;s not in your best interest. Forget about 8 billion other people you&#8217;re experimenting on. Just concentrate on keeping your wealth, keeping your health. I mean, you can monetize existing tools.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I think most of it is not deployed through economy. The is trillions of dollars of wealth sitting there uncollected. All the BS jobs, all the boring jobs you can automate and make the world a better place. You don&#8217;t have to essentially have this arms race to be the first to destroy humanity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I think you did this on a podcast once. You know different buttons. You know, button A shuts down Frontier AGI tonight. Button B shuts down all AI and narrow AI included. And then button C is just pausing the frontier model development for 10 years without any loopholes. Which one would you press?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Well, we&#8217;re asking for pause in frontier model development contingent on someone solving control. If I&#8217;m right and control is unsolvable, that moratorium becomes a permanent ban. If I&#8217;m wrong in 10 years, I&#8217;ll get utopia free stuff and be very happy to be wrong.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s a concept in the productivity space to help you decide your life&#8217;s goals and values and what you like doing and what you hate doing. And it&#8217;s, it&#8217;s basically the fast forward button and you get a chance to push the fast forward button or not. Like when you&#8217;re with your wife and your kids, I like to pause that. That&#8217;s why I observed the Shabbos, the Sabbath, by the way, Roman, because I can&#8217;t use technology. I mean, I could if I wanted to, but I don&#8217;t podcast. You know, if you said, I can only talk to you, Brian, on Saturday, I&#8217;d say, sorry, I&#8217;d love to talk to you, but I just, I don&#8217;t do it. I need, I need to pause myself. Once a week.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I think that&#8217;s consonant with a lot of my other values that I get as well. I would pause, you know, in depth. I wouldn&#8217;t fast forward that at all. In fact, you&#8217;re not even supposed to make plan. Let&#8217;s say I meet you at my temple and you&#8217;re my guest and I say, you know, I don&#8217;t talk about like, hey, tonight, what are we going to do? Tomorrow, what are we going to do? No, you&#8217;re supposed to be in the moment with your family, with your friends, with your community, with. With your culture and just enjoying life and thinking about big corporate questions that you don&#8217;t get to think about during the week. If, on the other hand, I&#8217;m at the DMV or I&#8217;m stuck on the tarmac on some plane, yeah, I push the fast forward button. Would you pass, push the fast forward button right now to take you 10 years in the future?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />No, I love my life. I want 10 extra years, not 10 less.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Do you have any kind of practice? I mean, a lot of people, like I said, I have. I have my religious practice. Some stoics have meditation. Do you do anything to actively, you know, kind of time dilate your life to suck as much marrow out of the bones as possible?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I try not to waste any time. I simply say no to things that I want to be engaged in for any length of time. I try to have diversity between cognitive pursuit and physical. I play a lot of football or soccer. That seems to add a little bit of thinking time in the background as well. I want to do meditation, yoga, mushrooms and all that stuff. I have zero time for it, but sounds really awesome. I&#8217;m jealous of people who can be gone all day.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You get one scientist who can kind of look over your shoulder, living or dead, that you&#8217;re going to sit down with, grapple with, and. Or maybe verify or maybe falsify. Right. You have to be a good scientist. Who would that scientist be?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Definitely Alan Turing. No doubt he nailed so much of it correctly. Before computers, before anything. Truly a genius.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Is there any optimist like Peter Diamandez or, you know, Ian Lecun? Is there somebody that gives you pause sometimes to think about maybe you could get more sleep at night? Maybe you might be wrong. Is there anybody who could steel man kind of the optimist in one sentence?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I&#8217;m happy they exist. I wish them well. I hope they are right. But I haven&#8217;t heard a good argument. We published two papers surveying all the arguments against AI risk concerns, and most of them map perfectly on cognitive biases literature. The most fundamental one being it&#8217;s very hard for a man whose salary depends on it to understand why his job is evil. So no one specifically comes to mind as really doing good job arguing why we can indefinitely control super intelligent godlike machines.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In the book, you talk and you express gratitude to people like past guest and co author on some papers with me, Max Tegmark. And also you mentioned Scott Aronson and others. Is there anyone in that circle of, kind of your research, research cohort, you know, who might disagree with you or that you respect? How do you maintain friendships with. I mean, your community is very much more cutthroat, and there&#8217;s so much more on the line, you know, and what you do than what I do, as much as I think I&#8217;m so important. But, but is there anyone in your circle, your collaborators, your colleagues, your, your, your fellow professors, anywhere that disagrees with you, and do you still have a good friendship with them?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I actually never found science to be a reason to not be in good social relationship with anyone. I, I can be friends with anyone politically or in terms of science. I think AI safety community may disagree with me about impossibility results. Many of them think if given more time, more money, maybe more brain cells, they can solve it. But that&#8217;s a respectable opinion. And I never had falling out over a scientific issue with anyone.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Arthur C. Clarke said a bunch of things. One thing he said is either we&#8217;re completely alone in the universe speaking about alien life forms, or we&#8217;re not alone, and both are equally terrifying. First, I want to ask you that question. Do you think we&#8217;re alone in the universe?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Very unlikely.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay. And then I want to ask you a parallel question to that he was referring, you know, to the existence of alien life. But I want to kind of ask you this question. Either you&#8217;re right or you&#8217;re wrong. Right in your, in your hypothesis. If you&#8217;re right, you&#8217;re a prophet, you&#8217;re a Cassandra, but Cassandra didn&#8217;t have that great a life. But if you&#8217;re wrong, you&#8217;re the boy who cried wolves right at the dawn of the most important technology. Which one of those two scenarios is most terrifying to you?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I don&#8217;t look at it from that point of view. I want the best outcome. And you kind of phrasing it as if I&#8217;m like the only guy saying it. I got Nobel prize winners, Turing Award winners, hundreds of computer scientists, all saying exactly what I&#8217;m saying. I think I&#8217;m in A good company. And the fact that we couldn&#8217;t find someone decent to represent the other side tells me maybe I&#8217;m on the right side of scientific history.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Arthur C. Clarke said, for every expert, there&#8217;s an equal and opposite expert, again, on the opposite side. Not, not the Turing side, not the. The scientists you most want to hang out with. But like, is it Lacun, is it somebody you know that we can have a. A confrontation with, all for the sake of good, for the sake of heaven? As it said, is there somebody that, that you most. That you haven&#8217;t gotten to talk to? Maybe it&#8217;s musk or I don&#8217;t know. Who have you not gone to talk to that could really, really just energize you in a debate? As you said, as a good scientist, you don&#8217;t get mad at them, but you learn from them.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So is there anyone that you would really push back on you and you think it would be a fair fight, so to speak?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I would love to have conversation with Yann Lecun. I think he&#8217;s very well respected, accomplished. We disagree completely. He&#8217;s at near 0% for PDUM. I&#8217;m near 1, so it would be interesting. I want it to be a friendly conversation and I want to us to walk out of it with understanding of why we disagree. There has got to be a scientific reason and if we can nail it down and maybe with help of external scientists, see who&#8217;s right about those points of disagreement, come to better understanding of science.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What do you think about the explosion of agents? You know, this, this Steinberger and Open Claw, like really had a moment. It kind of reminded me of like Web3 and Bitcoin and. And now it&#8217;s like, okay, so now all these things have it and OpenAI bought it and they bought a podcast and it seems like they don&#8217;t really know what they&#8217;re doing. Sometimes I spend a lot of time setting them up and I use them once and then I move on to the next shiny toy. What is agentic? What? One or two agentic tools or tools that you use on a regular basis are indispensable?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />It&#8217;s kind of funny. Maybe 15 years ago we published some papers where we said stupid things, don&#8217;t do them with AI, don&#8217;t connect it to Internet, don&#8217;t open source it, don&#8217;t give access to random people. Having an agent and giving it full access to your computer, your bank accounts, your email sounds like the dumbest thing you can possibly do. And watching smart people do that really blows my mind. So I&#8217;m just really impressed. Like they read the red lines literature and decided that was a plan for action. The question I often ask, if they wanted to destroy the world, if they wanted to cause problems, what would they do different? And I can&#8217;t find any differences.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Why hasn&#8217;t my Tesla, you know, killed millions of people, you know, in this last 10 years since I got it, it has automatic, you know, full self driving. It obviously optimized, it could, you know, go a lot faster to my destination on the sidewalk than, you know, obeying these stupid traffic rules. Why doesn&#8217;t it do that? Is it regulation?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />So historically your Tesla was a narrow AI, it was designed to drive your car. It didn&#8217;t know anything about chemistry, physics, playing chess. Nowadays they&#8217;re trying to add more, more crap to it. But that was exactly how we should be doing AI It&#8217;s a useful automation for a specific task. We can test it for safety. We know what to expect in different situations. Do more of that. Now, if you take general superintelligence and place it in a position of controlling a fleet of Teslas, I don&#8217;t know what the outcome is going to be.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So Arthur C. Clarke said, when a gray bearded scientist says something is possible, he is very much likely to be right. But when he says something is impossible, he&#8217;s very much likely to be wrong. But tell me my friend, what have you been wrong about? What, what things? If you like, have you maybe missed a mark on it? Must be some. Don&#8217;t say I&#8217;m too humble.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Okay, no, no, no. I keep track of my incorrect predictions. I have many outside of science. I made internal, I don&#8217;t publish them. I made predictions about elections, about startup wars. I was wrong about many of those things, I think in science. I openly admitted that my estimate for how dangerous a system like GPT 5.5 IS, was beyond what we actually see in terms of damage. So that&#8217;s something I&#8217;m quite comfortable with, seeing a better outcome and correcting as a result.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />But it doesn&#8217;t mean that our predictions are incorrect.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I really do appreciate your honesty, your integrity, your candor. And the final question I have is kind of a advice to your former self. So Arthur C. Clark said the only way to determine the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. And I want to ask you, what if you had 20 seconds with your 20 year old self? You know, go push the rewind button instead of the fast forward button or the pause button. Take us back to that. You have 20 seconds with young Roman Yampulski. Before he was a famous professor, researcher, cited scientist, author, and just so many podcasts are the highest form of technology, as we know now the podcast Roman, tell me, what would you tell him to give him the courage to do as you&#8217;ve done to go into the impossible?</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />I love those questions, but usually they were kind of silly. Such as start buying bitcoin earlier. Right. Advice. Or something very particular to like, don&#8217;t listen to that doctor, get second opinion. They&#8217;re gonna cut off your healthy kidney. General rules are if you listen to other people the best, you can become as average.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s beautiful. Very, very. Well, yeah. They say, you know, you&#8217;re the average of the five people you&#8217;re around the most. So that&#8217;s why I only surround myself with very skinny, very smart and very rich people. But I might be the variance or the skewness of that. Anyway, Roman Yampolsky. Professor Roman Yampolsky.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Such a great treat to talk to you. I do hope we meet in person so I can give you this meteorite. Any things that are upcoming. I know the book is out in audio format. I recommend it very highly. It was published by a very respected but very academic press, CRC Press, many years ago, but now it&#8217;s out in actual audiobook. So you can take not Roman&#8217;s voice, but a very mellifluous voice with you.</p><p>Roman Yampolskiy:<br />Thank you so much. If you do find this interesting, I post a lot on this subject. You can follow me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, don&#8217;t follow me home.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And you&#8217;re speaking to the aliens and to the super intelligences. Thank you, Roman. This has been a great, great treat.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You made it this far and you heard Roman argue that the most important technology we&#8217;ll ever build is the one that we can&#8217;t control. And he&#8217;d still bet on a pause if he could. Now, if that rewired, how you think about AI, subscribe and please turn on the notifications. Tell me in the comments, would you press his 10 year pause button and go deeper? Click my conversation with Max Tegmar. It&#8217;s linked right here. And do it now before the AI decides you&#8217;re not allowed to.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michio Kaku Went Viral On Diary of a CEO; I Had To Fact-Check</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/michio-kaku/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8257</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Michio Kaku Went Viral On Diary of a CEO; I Had To Fact-Check Transcript Michio Kaku:Capitalism would vanish, society would come to a halt, there&#8217;d be civil war. This is a quantum computer. It&#8217;s a computer that computes not on transistors, which is old fashioned. It computes on atoms. Brian Keating:Welcome back to into the Impossible. And this is a special sub series called Keating&#8217;s Razors. Trying to understand which bold claims that are out there actually make the cut and which don&#8217;t survive the close shave. Today&#8217;s episode features past guest and physicist extraordinaire Michio Kaku, a man not known for lack of hyperbole or humility when it comes to the physical universe. And he was recently on Diary of a CEO, a business podcast. But Michio got a ton of attention for some of his claims. The very first thing that really got my undies in a bundle was his discovery discussion of quantum computing. So I&#8217;ll play the clip for you now. Michio Kaku:The ultimate object beyond the transistors that you can compute with is the atom. So these are called quantum computers. Why are they powerful? Because they compute not on transistors, they compute on atoms. And you can&#8217;t get much smaller than an atom and have stable matter. But that&#8217;s what quantum computers can do. And they exist. This is not science fiction. They already exist. Brian Keating:So what Mitchie is saying is that a quantum computer, which is a real technology. I just talked with John Martinez, who&#8217;s working on a quantum computing company called Collabs, and he won the Nobel Prize just last year for his work on macroscopic quantum phenomena, namely in Josephson junctions and qubits and superconducting circuits, which we use in all sorts of telescopes like the Simons Observatory. But real quantum computing is both a long way off, according to John and many others. But. But it&#8217;s far from doing what Michio just claimed it&#8217;s going to do. His takeaway is that quantum computing is going to directly lead to the abolishment and vanishing of capitalism and therefore society would come to a halt. So that&#8217;s the chain Machio quantum computer breaks encryption and therefore quantum capitalism is gone. That&#8217;s the first thing. Brian Keating:There&#8217;s nothing in between. We have to migrate to post quantum cryptography. We have to go beyond that now. So what does that mean? Governments have to do this, banks have to do this. They would have a five alarm fire, according to Michio. Not that there would be a challenging and possibly expensive transition. Just capitalism gone overnight. Credits roll and your bank account vanishes. Brian Keating:You know what else could theoretically break RSA encryption? A sufficiently powerful classical computer and a Motivated group of white hat or black hat hackers. We know about this. They can also run Shor&#8217;s algorithm. We&#8217;ve known about this since the 1990s. The global financial system has been responding in a, in a measured way. We&#8217;ll deal with it when it&#8217;s relevant. And by the way, nist National Institute of Standards of Technology has already standardized a post quantum cryptographic algorithm to deal with just this. It&#8217;s not a problem, it&#8217;s not a five alarm problem. Brian Keating:It&#8217;s not going to cause society collapse, let alone all of capitalism. Can you imagine if economic systems depended on quantum computing or any other physical laws like oh no, we can&#8217;t do this. The second law of thermodynamics prevents you from accessing your kids piggy banks. Steven Bartlett:Okay? Brian Keating:It&#8217;s not going to happen. And you know, maybe if you watch Live Free or Die Hard too many times, you might come away with that impression. That&#8217;s maybe just a crime. But. But don&#8217;t present it as physics. Please don&#8217;t present it as physics. Michio Kaku:I&#8217;m a physicist working on the theory of Everything. Steven Bartlett:What is the theory of Everything? Michio Kaku:An equation perhaps no more than one inch long that will allow us to quote, read the mind of God. These are Einstein&#8217;s words. The theory of the Big Bang, the theory of creation itself. The theory of, of everything. Brian Keating:Okay, now this is a big one. Mitchie says I work in string theory, which is the theory that eluded Einstein the last 30 years of his life. The Theory of everything. Well, there&#8217;s actually a few problems here. First of all, Einstein never worked on string theory. It wasn&#8217;t developed until the 60s and 70s, decades after Einstein was already dead. So the idea that Einstein was searching for this elusive theory that eluded him his whole life is really not an incorrect assessment whatsoever. String theory wasn&#8217;t even on the event horizon on the day he passed away in 1955. Brian Keating:Second, string theory is not a theory of everything. It&#8217;s a candidate for a possible unification scheme which could potentially lead to a theory of everything. But there&#8217;s a big difference between that and a patented theory of everything. A theory of everything would have to make testable, falsifiable predictions. String theory makes none of these and their proponents, the actual people working on it today, unlike Michio, doesn&#8217;t work on it, did work on what&#8217;s called string field theory, which he points out he didn&#8217;t invent string theory. Some people give him credit for that. He worked on a branch of an allied field called string field theory, which has not produced nearly the excitement or breakthroughs such as they are, as string theory itself has done. So a theory of everything at this point is a complete misnomer, let alone at the time when Einstein died. Brian Keating:And it inspired young 7 year old Michio Kaku apparently to become a physicist. So I think it&#8217;s just interesting and it&#8217;s fun to note, but he says we think, as in we think it&#8217;s the theory that eluded Einstein, not it is the theory that Einstein searched for. So he&#8217;s already kind of]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8257" class="elementor elementor-8257" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-65fa6544 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="65fa6544" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-e19e0fc elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="e19e0fc" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Michio Kaku Went Viral On Diary of a CEO; I Had To Fact-Check</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-5d20bbc1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="5d20bbc1" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Capitalism would vanish, society would come to a halt, there&#8217;d be civil war. This is a quantum computer. It&#8217;s a computer that computes not on transistors, which is old fashioned. It computes on atoms.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Welcome back to into the Impossible. And this is a special sub series called Keating&#8217;s Razors. Trying to understand which bold claims that are out there actually make the cut and which don&#8217;t survive the close shave. Today&#8217;s episode features past guest and physicist extraordinaire Michio Kaku, a man not known for lack of hyperbole or humility when it comes to the physical universe. And he was recently on Diary of a CEO, a business podcast. But Michio got a ton of attention for some of his claims. The very first thing that really got my undies in a bundle was his discovery discussion of quantum computing. So I&#8217;ll play the clip for you now.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />The ultimate object beyond the transistors that you can compute with is the atom. So these are called quantum computers. Why are they powerful? Because they compute not on transistors, they compute on atoms. And you can&#8217;t get much smaller than an atom and have stable matter. But that&#8217;s what quantum computers can do. And they exist. This is not science fiction. They already exist.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So what Mitchie is saying is that a quantum computer, which is a real technology. I just talked with John Martinez, who&#8217;s working on a quantum computing company called Collabs, and he won the Nobel Prize just last year for his work on macroscopic quantum phenomena, namely in Josephson junctions and qubits and superconducting circuits, which we use in all sorts of telescopes like the Simons Observatory. But real quantum computing is both a long way off, according to John and many others. But. But it&#8217;s far from doing what Michio just claimed it&#8217;s going to do. His takeaway is that quantum computing is going to directly lead to the abolishment and vanishing of capitalism and therefore society would come to a halt. So that&#8217;s the chain Machio quantum computer breaks encryption and therefore quantum capitalism is gone. That&#8217;s the first thing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s nothing in between. We have to migrate to post quantum cryptography. We have to go beyond that now. So what does that mean? Governments have to do this, banks have to do this. They would have a five alarm fire, according to Michio. Not that there would be a challenging and possibly expensive transition. Just capitalism gone overnight. Credits roll and your bank account vanishes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know what else could theoretically break RSA encryption? A sufficiently powerful classical computer and a Motivated group of white hat or black hat hackers. We know about this. They can also run Shor&#8217;s algorithm. We&#8217;ve known about this since the 1990s. The global financial system has been responding in a, in a measured way. We&#8217;ll deal with it when it&#8217;s relevant. And by the way, nist National Institute of Standards of Technology has already standardized a post quantum cryptographic algorithm to deal with just this. It&#8217;s not a problem, it&#8217;s not a five alarm problem.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s not going to cause society collapse, let alone all of capitalism. Can you imagine if economic systems depended on quantum computing or any other physical laws like oh no, we can&#8217;t do this. The second law of thermodynamics prevents you from accessing your kids piggy banks.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />Okay?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s not going to happen. And you know, maybe if you watch Live Free or Die Hard too many times, you might come away with that impression. That&#8217;s maybe just a crime. But. But don&#8217;t present it as physics. Please don&#8217;t present it as physics.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />I&#8217;m a physicist working on the theory of Everything.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />What is the theory of Everything?</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />An equation perhaps no more than one inch long that will allow us to quote, read the mind of God. These are Einstein&#8217;s words. The theory of the Big Bang, the theory of creation itself. The theory of, of everything.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, now this is a big one. Mitchie says I work in string theory, which is the theory that eluded Einstein the last 30 years of his life. The Theory of everything. Well, there&#8217;s actually a few problems here. First of all, Einstein never worked on string theory. It wasn&#8217;t developed until the 60s and 70s, decades after Einstein was already dead. So the idea that Einstein was searching for this elusive theory that eluded him his whole life is really not an incorrect assessment whatsoever. String theory wasn&#8217;t even on the event horizon on the day he passed away in 1955.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Second, string theory is not a theory of everything. It&#8217;s a candidate for a possible unification scheme which could potentially lead to a theory of everything. But there&#8217;s a big difference between that and a patented theory of everything. A theory of everything would have to make testable, falsifiable predictions. String theory makes none of these and their proponents, the actual people working on it today, unlike Michio, doesn&#8217;t work on it, did work on what&#8217;s called string field theory, which he points out he didn&#8217;t invent string theory. Some people give him credit for that. He worked on a branch of an allied field called string field theory, which has not produced nearly the excitement or breakthroughs such as they are, as string theory itself has done. So a theory of everything at this point is a complete misnomer, let alone at the time when Einstein died.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And it inspired young 7 year old Michio Kaku apparently to become a physicist. So I think it&#8217;s just interesting and it&#8217;s fun to note, but he says we think, as in we think it&#8217;s the theory that eluded Einstein, not it is the theory that Einstein searched for. So he&#8217;s already kind of hedging his bets. But it doesn&#8217;t stop there, he keeps going. So Michio is candid enough to say that we think we might find it as an answer, but he doesn&#8217;t actually follow up on what his original claim was, which is that Einstein thought it was the answer to everything. That&#8217;s the thing that eluded him. That&#8217;s the thing that everyone wants to defeat Einstein over and, and kind of claim his, you know, Dungeons and Dragons like hit points. If you prove Einstein wrong, then you somehow become more famous than Einstein.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m not really sure, but that take right there is a perfect microcosm for what&#8217;s wrong with Michio&#8217;s answers in this otherwise very entertaining interview with my friend Steve Bartlett. Okay, so the next example again is with the topic of string theory and Michio and every physicist idol Albert Einstein, and that&#8217;s that this theory, if achieved, the string theory in Michio&#8217;s case, or the theory of everything, would allow one to read the mind of God. Now he says these are Einstein&#8217;s words, but Einstein never used that phrase. In fact, it&#8217;s Stephen Hawking who used those phrase at the end of A Brief History of Time. He says, if we, when we do understand string theory, we will then be able to read the mind of God. What&#8217;s so interesting is that Einstein nor Hawking really believed in God. There are certain quotes we can say that Einstein would refer to things about God. God doesn&#8217;t play dices famous one.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If The Eclipse Expedition 1919 turned out to be in violation of Einstein&#8217;s general relativity, Einstein said, I would feel sorry for God because my equations are right. So the mind of God is, you know, sort of echoing theology, but not physics. So when you have a scientific hypothesis and you dress it in a religious landscape, you make it sound inevitable. You make it sound like it&#8217;s already true. And that&#8217;s the core bedrock of reality. We have no idea if there&#8217;s a theory. We don&#8217;t even know if there&#8217;s A grand unified theory, in other words, unified theories. I&#8217;ll take a step back.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Are joining together of two previously disparate theories. So electricity was once thought to be different than magnetism. Here&#8217;s a magnet. Behind me is a plasma globe. These are very different phenomena, and they were thought to be completely separate until Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism into one theory. Then later, in the 70s, 60s and 70s, Weinberg, Salaam helped to unify electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force, making the electro weak force. That&#8217;s where we are right now. We don&#8217;t have a unification of the strong nuclear force with the electroweak force.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And we certainly don&#8217;t have a theory that unifies gravity with those other three forces. So that would be the theory of Everything. And in a sense, to say that the theory of Everything would be reading the mind of God implies that that is a done deal. But for the actual equations, and it&#8217;s completely fallacious. We have no idea if there&#8217;s even a grand unified theory that unifies electricity, magnetism, the weak force and the strong force. We certainly don&#8217;t have any proof that a godlike entity would create a universe where there has to be a unification between all the four forces of nature. So I have serious colleagues, people that I respect, physicists who object to this framing very, very strongly. It doesn&#8217;t, you know, really change anybody&#8217;s opinion just because you state it, but the hyperbole behind it and the accentuating that string theory is already sort of the solution, but for the fact that we haven&#8217;t found any of this pesky experimental evidence for it is really skipping over, you know, the pages to get to the end of the.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The chapter of Revelation where God is suddenly allowing his mind to be read like an open book. So I think Eins a genius, but he was also wrong about a lot of things. And he was a human being like any other human being. As I point out in my second book, into the Impossible, Think like a Nobel Prize winner. My conversation with Barry Barish, who won the Nobel Prize for the LIGO experiment, with his colleagues Kip Thorne and the late great Ray Weiss. There is no necessary, you know, belief that Einstein was infallible. And in fact, Barry was pleased to learn when I had the conversation with him four or five years ago for the first time. So they&#8217;re talking about this in this clip here, they&#8217;re talking about this star.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s probably aliens. Definitely. Maybe. Probably. Maybe not aliens. Here we go.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />Telling a story of one particular star that reduces in its intensity by 20%?</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Yeah. There is a star that oscillates.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />What does that mean?</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />So it drops by about 20%.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />So it&#8217;s reducing its light output by 20%?</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />How often?</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />You don&#8217;t have to wait for centuries. It&#8217;s within a matter of months to years.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />A star that reduces frequently reduces its light output by 20%.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Yeah, which is very unusual. It&#8217;s the only one we saw is what you&#8217;ve seen so far.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />Theory goes that an advanced civilization will surround it with like a metal sphere to capture its energy.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />And that would explain why we see a 20% reduction in the light output.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />No, they think that it&#8217;s probably an orbiting. An orbiting globe that eclipses the mother star.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, so this one, this is a topic about Blagian star. So this is known as KIC 846-2852, but it&#8217;s really known as Tabby Star in the popular imagination. It dims by 22% every now and then, which is an enormous diminution of its luminosity. Now, to compare this to what a planet transiting a star causes, that&#8217;s about 1 to 2%. It&#8217;s 10 times bigger than that. So a planet cannot be the explanation. That&#8217;s fair. But what Kaku is not telling you is that there&#8217;s no confirmed explanation.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Shouldn&#8217;t go to aliens, you know, maybe ever, but certainly not as your first explanation. Especially when the authors themselves, including Tabby, have said that they have some conjecture as to what it may be, but they are careful scientists. They&#8217;re not being hyperbolic and trying to, you know, promote something. So this we should say, is that it&#8217;s exciting. We don&#8217;t know what it is. It could be comments. It could be dust, it could be circumstellar matter. It could even be an undetected companion star or even a black hole.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Those are all super exciting and still in play. But Kaku jumps to the sci fi version that clearly he&#8217;d be pleased as punch to be the first to kind of deliver to us that one that we basically know is wrong, which is that an advanced civilization would encircle the star with a metal shell to capture its energy. And then he immediately says, actually no, they think it&#8217;s probably an orbiting globe. Okay, so wait, this is an alien megastructure, created the concept created by my first guest on the podcast, Freeman Dyson. A Dyson sphere, Option A, alien megastructure, option B, really big planet. And Kaku presents option A and gets excited and then retreats to Option B after, without acknowledging that that&#8217;s a retreat. That&#8217;s not proper way to communicate scientifically. That&#8217;s sort of magic trick pulling you out of the thin air, shall we say? So option B, nevermind.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I actually work in the early universe and I built instruments to look at the oldest lights in existence. And I like to say something, you know, people ask me a question, whether it&#8217;s about climate change or, you know, free energy from, you know, tabletop fusion. I like to say, I don&#8217;t know, I think that&#8217;s a great thing. I think I&#8217;m gonna do another reaction video to a survey I just read about recently horrified me where they asked astrobiologists, do you believe in extraterrestrial life? Do you believe in an extraterrestrial technology? And I thought that was an offensive question that should never be answered by a self respecting scientist. I&#8217;ll get into that in a future video and a future razor. Keating&#8217;s Razor episode. Okay, now we get to one of Kaku&#8217;s favorite hobby horses, which we discussed on his appearance on the into The Impossible podcast four or five years ago. And that&#8217;s 11 dimensions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He says string theory predicts 11 dimensions.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />In other words, string theory says that we live not just in a four dimensional world, but in a 11 dimensional world. These other dimensions we cannot see, but we think that the universe coexists with other universes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Here&#8217;s the problem. First of all, there&#8217;s no string theory. There&#8217;s many string theories, as many string theories as there are models of inflation. And Kaku admitted that on my podcast. He said it&#8217;s not his burden to tell you which of the 10 to the 500 vacuum state we live in. It&#8217;s my job. Unlike in electromagnetism, I don&#8217;t have to tell you what ground state we are. It&#8217;s directly enabled and encoded in the theory itself.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So string theory requires 11 dimensions to make the math work. That&#8217;s not a prediction, that&#8217;s a structural requirement. And here&#8217;s the bigger problem. We have no evidence whatsoever for any dimension beyond the 43 of space 1 of time that we experience 4 dimensions. We have zero evidence for none, not a single experiment or observational hint that the extra seven spatial dimensions posited by string theory exist. This isn&#8217;t a minor caveat. This is a huge part. This is the entire ballgame.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You can&#8217;t claim a victory when the theory hasn&#8217;t been verified with no experimental evidence for its biggest claim of all, which is the existence of extra dimensions. We just sort of assume It. And actually later on, he talks about the fact that the universe is expanding into the multiverse, and the multiverse is made up of these extra dimensions. This is just totally wrong. I&#8217;ll add that clip and we&#8217;ll talk about this. Because extra dimensions are plausible as a theoretical idea. And there&#8217;s real reasons that physicists, including some of the most eminent currently alive and some that I&#8217;ve talked to on the podcast, that they find these compelling. But string theory believes that there are 11 extra dimensions, as if that&#8217;s an established fact, is dangerous and misleading.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The multiverse believes that there are trillions of universes. It doesn&#8217;t believe anything. We either have evidence or we don&#8217;t. Right now, we don&#8217;t have any evidence of that. We don&#8217;t have any evidence physical hard evidence of aliens, and we don&#8217;t have any physical hard evidence of string theories. Extra, extra dimensions doesn&#8217;t mean we never will. And we can be quite optimistic and hopeful, and we can even do more and design experiments to detect aliens and to detect technology, as people like Avi Loeb are trying to do, for example, or go around it and make predictions and experiments for experiments to find evidence of string theoretic telltale relics. We just don&#8217;t have them yet.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />String theory is something that you came up with.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />I came up with string field theory, which is one of the branches of string theory. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay. This one I want to handle delicately because I respect Michio and I really like him personally, so it&#8217;s a little hard to criticize, but I have to say string theory itself was first originated in the 60s by Veneziano and others, and later it kind of lay dormant for a while, but it really was picked up by, in this field theoretic form by Mike John Schwartz and Edward Witten in the 1980s. Green and Schwartz solved the anomaly cancellation problem in 1984, which was considered one of the greatest breakthroughs in theoretical physics. Witten did enormous work in the mathematics. And these are the people who built what string theory has become. Some say it&#8217;s become dangerous and it&#8217;s sort of sucked the oxygen, vitality, funding, and young minds out of the field for, you know, three generations of physicists over the last 45 plus years. Now Kaku&#8217;s talking about something separate string four field theory. So we benefit from things that we work on that others have created and invented.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I didn&#8217;t invent the cmb. I work on the CMB now. Michio Kaku is a better science communicator than almost any human being alive, anyone who&#8217;s been alive, because he&#8217;s reached so many people, millions of people, including me, and he&#8217;s influenced me. But there&#8217;s a difference between being a pioneer in a field and being a popularizer. He did write papers in the 60s and early 70s on string field theory. They&#8217;re not cited as among the top most relevant papers, papers in, even in the field of string field theory. But, but they were some of the, some of the original contributions that he did make. No one can take that away from him.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that&#8217;s, that&#8217;s fine and he should be proud of that. It also happens to be that there&#8217;s no evidence for string field theory, but it was an important step in the intellectual development. I&#8217;m not to say you should only work on things that have experimental evidence. We didn&#8217;t have experimental evidence for the Big Bang for many decades after was first conceived of. Right. So should we have stopped working on it? Of course not. Of course not. I&#8217;m not saying that at all.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />But now we realize that there&#8217;s another octave, there&#8217;s another layer even beyond what we see with the Large Hadron Collider. Dark matter. Dark matter is invisible matter that surrounds the Milky Way galaxy and we don&#8217;t know what it is. There&#8217;s a Nobel Prize waiting for somebody who could figure out what dark matter is. It&#8217;s invisible matter, Invisible matter that surrounds the entire Milky Way galaxy. We think that we cannot yet prove that it&#8217;s nothing but the next octave.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I was just saying, you know, quoting directly. We think that we cannot yet prove that dark matter is nothing but the next octave. When he starts talking about string theory and these poetic things, as if it&#8217;s already proven that dark matter is a form of string theory or is a manifestation of string theory. This is impossible to let slide as much as I like mature. So let me translate that from Kaku speak to normal physicist. Speak. Okay. Dark matter is the next octave of string vibrations.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He has no evidence for this. We don&#8217;t have any evidence for strings. We don&#8217;t have any conception of what the string particle inventory and spectrum would be, let alone what octaves they are and so forth. He even said we think and we cannot prove it. That means that sort of implied to me. Maybe I&#8217;m wrong. Maybe I&#8217;m too simple to understand it. That in the, in the future we will have it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We just don&#8217;t have the technology right now. Not that it&#8217;s impossible, you know, epistemically. We can never know it. So dark matter is real. It seems to be overwhelming galaxy rotation curves, some of which were discovered here by my late great colleagues Jeff and Margaret Burbage when they were working with Vera Rubin who you know, was, was learning how to make galaxy rotation curve from the spectra with Margaret, who is the observational astronomer. Gravitational lensing tells us about dark matter. The CMB tells us about dark matter&#8217;s existence. Something is definitely there now there could be something different.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There could be a modification to not just Einstein&#8217;s theory of relativity, but Newton&#8217;s theory of universal gravitation that could be wrong or need to be modified in galactic scales at extremely low acceleration. See, if you have a, if you have a large acceleration and you have billions of years of evolution, things will be going way too fast. But if you had tiny acceleration where we don&#8217;t really know because it&#8217;s very hard to test in a non gravitational environment. You have to go into space and even in space there&#8217;s microgravity. So how do you test small gravitational field behavior at large enormous scales? It&#8217;s extremely hard to do. But people like past guest on the part cast Mordecai Milgram. I&#8217;ll put a link to his episode up here. They conjecture that gravity is wrong.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And this has happened before, right? So Le Verrier predicted the existence of Neptune based on the anomaly of, of the orbit of the planet Uranus, which was then attributed to dark matter, you know, namely Neptune, which people couldn&#8217;t see and now we can see it obviously. But it was an unseen gravitational pull due to ordinary matter or particulate matter. And Le Verrier tried to solve for the anomaly of Mercury&#8217;s precession that it doesn&#8217;t come back to the same point, advances by 43 arc seconds per, per century. And he also proposed a new planet there, the planet Vulcan. Some planet unseeable inward of Mercury around the sun. We can never see it, even during eclipses. Of course that turned out to be wrong. Einstein had to modify gravity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So there&#8217;s precedent for both particulate dark matter and for modifications of gravity. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with either one of those. They might both be right. There might be some combination of the two. There&#8217;s many different people working on but, but people claiming that dark matter is string theoretic vibrations as the answer to this mystery is literally kind of doublespeak because he told you that it can&#8217;t be proven yet. He already stipulates that dark matter is the result of an octave vibration of string theory. Meaning that he explains something currently unexplainable in terms of something Completely unknowable string theory and something for which we have no evidence. So it&#8217;s very frustrating when great communicator heroes to many people then suggest things that will go down the public&#8217;s imagination to seen by 3 million people.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Plus, you know, this video already in just a week, this is going to influence a lot of people to believe things that just aren&#8217;t verifiable. And I think that&#8217;s bad. I think it&#8217;s destructive to science. And, and, you know, many people have criticized Mincio for his hyperbolic, you know, discussions of things. I actually, I presented him with the Arthur C. Clarke Award. And I&#8217;d like to think we&#8217;re still friends, but that, you know, just because someone&#8217;s a friend doesn&#8217;t mean that they&#8217;re immune from criticism. I will criticize people for their ideas.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m not going to criticize them personally. I haven&#8217;t mentioned personal attack once in this video and I never will because I do have respect for what he does.</p><p>Steven Bartlett:<br />And going back to what you were saying about the bubble bath idea, right?</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Then the question is, are there other stars? Yes. Are there other galaxies? There are billions and billions of planets out there. We think that the whole shebang is curved. We&#8217;re nothing but inhabitants on the skin of this gigantic bubble. Now we&#8217;re saying that maybe there are other bubbles out there. A multiverse, a multiverse of universes, parallel universes. In fact, word multiverse has gotten into the literature. Comic books now refer to the multiverse, Spider man and things like that.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />So it&#8217;s even part of the vernacular, the common language of the average person, that we believe in parallel universes. So, yeah, these parallel universes come from physics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, now he talks about something again in my wheelhouse. The multiverse, the bubble bath of universes. So what does a bubble bath of universes mean in the context of string theory? String theory predicts 10 to the 500th possible vacuum states or maybe, maybe an infinite number. Each one could be a different universe. Each universe can have different physical constants of nature, different gravity, different light speed. Eternal inflation could produce pocket universes separated by inflating space. And that is a theory behind the multiverse. Now, the multiverse is not proven by any means, but here&#8217;s the evidence for the multiverse.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s actually equal to the evidence for string theory. So nothing. We don&#8217;t have evidence that other universes exist. We don&#8217;t have evidence that string theory landscape is real. The bubble bath is a metaphor for something that&#8217;s exciting, that&#8217;s Interesting. That&#8217;s intriguing. That&#8217;s a consequence of many theories of inflation, but it hasn&#8217;t made a testable prediction that we could falsify. We always have to think about that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Michio maybe believes that the elegance, the beauty of string theory manifests. That must be true. But that has never been true. I mean, what&#8217;s more beautiful than the orbits of the planets follow the nested Pythagorean solids as. Or the harmony and the resonances and the notes of the Pythagorean musical scales? And that was thought to be the orchestration of the inner solar system out to the planet Mars by no less than the titanic astronomer Kepler. Okay, so they thought these things, and the Greeks thought these things. Does that mean that because they&#8217;re beautiful, they&#8217;re right? Of course not. Nobody believes that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And my friend Sabine Hasenfelder has made a lot of, you know, criticism about string theory, the multiverse, and all sorts of other things. And I think that this is the part that. That bothers me. He says we think. He keeps saying we think, which is cautious, but he really should say, we don&#8217;t know for sure. There&#8217;s a conjecture. We think that there could be a bubble bath of universe. It sounds beautiful, sounds poetic.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You can just envision me or, you know, you or Stephen Bartlett, you know, lathering up. Right. But he presents this with the confidence of a weather forecast here in San Diego. Right. You know, we don&#8217;t even have to look outside. We know what the weather is, so don&#8217;t give the confidence to it. I don&#8217;t object to people discussing the multiverse. I do it too.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think it&#8217;s a legitimate part of science to think about it. But I object to you presenting it as. I object to people presenting it to you, a layperson, perhaps, as established physics. That&#8217;s very different, very different from what responsible science advocacy and communication should be. And there&#8217;s so much of this out there. I just saw a video with Joe Rogan and a former astronomer physicist from NASA, and they&#8217;re talking about quantum mechanics and faster than light communication. And I&#8217;ll probably have to do a reaction video about that too. Again, I don&#8217;t just, you know, cherry pick.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m not punching down, you know, it&#8217;s hard to punch down to someone like Michio Kaku or Neil degrasse Tyson even. I&#8217;ll push back on everybody because I think it&#8217;s important to tell the truth. That is, without the truth, we have nothing. We have. We. We basically will have a deformity Society and science has to be the ground truth. You should push back. And I take pushback and I push back myself.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Comic books now refer to the multiverse, Spider man and things like that. So it&#8217;s even part of the vernacular, the common language of the average person, that we believe in parallel universes. So yeah, these parallel universes come from physics.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So he says the multiverse has now gotten into the literature. Comic books now refer to the multiverse. Spider man, the spider verse. Right, Michio. I laugh at things like that. He&#8217;s saying the multiverse is real, essentially the reality. Maybe some of the strongest pieces of evidence is that it appears in comic books and movies. Actually now I understand what he&#8217;s saying.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The multiverse has extended until lexicon. It&#8217;s actually a problem for me to do things with LLMs because now even if I wanted to say, well, what does the an LLM or AI system predict about the possibility of alternate universes? Well, it&#8217;ll scan all of the corpus of human knowledge and creation. Because the word exists doesn&#8217;t mean the thing exists. I mean there&#8217;s many more things you can think about. Unicorns, you know, dragons that fly through space. What he does in, in that one sentence is kind of use pop science as an evidence, as a piece of evidence for scientific claim. But that&#8217;s not how science works. I know he knows that I love Spider Man.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I want to be Spider man when I was about seven years old. But Spider man is not a cosmology instrument. There is a cosmology balloon born telescope called spider though you can check that out at Princeton University, developed by a colleague of mine from back in the Caltech era. Kind of like bicep times six, I think, I think they should have made it eight biceps floating in space on a balloon. And that&#8217;s a really legitimate scientific experiment which may provide evidence that inflation is true. And that may even provide evidence that the multiverse is well motivated but not provable.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />And that&#8217;s, that&#8217;s the gateway called a wormhole, which is very similar to a black hole. A little bit different, but very similar.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He says here a gateway called a wormhole. Very similar to a black hole. A little bit different, but very similar. Okay, they&#8217;re not very similar. They&#8217;re completely different concepts. Black holes are well known solutions to Einstein&#8217;s field equations. We observe them, we have images of their event horizon are really their photosphere. We don&#8217;t actually see their amount horizon.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We can see their effect and gravitating systems nearby like stars. Andrea Gaz Past guest on the podcast Reinhardt Genzel spoke about this in his conversation link down here. And so black holes are well understood. I had Shep Dolman on a couple times talk about the Event Horizon Telescope and their existence of black holes is without doubt. And we&#8217;ve also talked with LIGO pioneers and the collisions of black holes. Not only the existence of black holes, but black holes merging together produce observable signals exactly in harmony with Einstein&#8217;s relativity. But wormholes, no, sorry, wormholes are hypothetical. Their existence requires negative energy density, which is known not to be possible in the quantity needed to keep a macroscopic worm wormhole open.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ve talked about this with Juan Maldacena just recently. Link that here in the show notes below. And I also had him deliver a technical lecture here and I have that on my other channel, Keating Experiments, where I put stuff that may be less of interest to the general public, but you can find that a link to the channel in the show notes below. And his talk about wormholes and the thermodynamics and so forth is very interesting. But even Juan admitted to me there&#8217;s no possible way that we understand right now where you could have Wormhole requires these very different points in space time to be connected, but they&#8217;re also very different equations than what governs the behavior of black holes. To call them very similar is completely wrong. Now they might be cousins, but they&#8217;re basically strangers that have the same last name. In a sense, the whole part is correct.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So Kaku is not wrong that wormholes can appear theoretically, but he is presenting them as if they&#8217;re actually plausible, legitimate, proven solutions. They&#8217;re absolutely not. They&#8217;re completely on the frontier of speculation. That&#8217;s why they were generated by Kip Thorne as solutions for fictional movies like Contact and Interstellar. And I made a joke recently that I think that that Interstellar is less plausible scientifically than Project Hail Mary because of these things, such as the near impossibility of creating a wormhole to do time travel, you need to create a wormhole in advance and put the destination somewhere that you want to go and then somehow get back to the original starting point at the origin and not violate causality and not die yourself and you know, kind of build the wormhole before you need it, so to speak. And that&#8217;s completely impossible by laws of locality and causality. So this I think is pretty, pretty risky business for Michio to get into. But as this is want, he&#8217;s quite good at explaining and that&#8217;s almost the problem he&#8217;s so good, it would be fine if he wasn&#8217;t so damn good at doing what he does.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But he presents it as if it&#8217;s an open and shut case. So here&#8217;s another one. The black hole gateway.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />If I were to take a guess, I would say that it&#8217;s an entrance, it&#8217;s a gateway, perhaps to another universe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, the black hole. This is the one that got a lot of attention sending me this clip and partially the reason I did this, because I got so many questions about this. He says, if I were to take a guess, I would say that a black hole is an entrance, it is a gateway, perhaps to another universe. He even added, if you know what&#8217;s inside the black hole, you&#8217;ll win a Nobel Prize. So what he&#8217;s acknowledging in the same breath is saying that it&#8217;s a gateway is that nobody knows what&#8217;s inside of it, but he gives you the answer anyway. So it would be fine if he was a science fiction author, if he&#8217;s Andy Weird, you know, or Chris Hadfield writing some science fiction book. Hard science fiction, it&#8217;s great. Or Carl Sagan.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But if you fall into a black hole, the tidal forces, the difference in force between your feet and your head, for example, will spaghettify you at the subatomic level before you reach the singularity, which would be the gateway to another dimension, according to Minshio. So if you survive the journal, you can&#8217;t go through the portal. You&#8217;d be disrupted and destroyed long before you got anywhere interesting. So even if there is something on the other side, a white hole, a baby universe, a quantum firewall, you&#8217;re not going through it. You&#8217;re going to be incinerated, ripped apart in transit on the way to your destination, from which you cannot escape. All roads once you&#8217;re in the event horizon lead to the singularity. As Jen 11 pointed out on the podcast, time becomes space and space becomes time, and that you cannot avoid your ultimate destination, the singularity inside of there. Now he knows about spaghettification.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s mentioned in a podcast too. He studies physics, but when the camera&#8217;s on, the nuances get diluted. And I think it&#8217;s possibly difficult to imagine how we could actually promote this idea other than trying to make sensationalism. And that&#8217;s what I don&#8217;t like. Science is fascinating, and I almost don&#8217;t listen to or read much science fiction because the science fact is so interesting. Non fiction is so interesting. We don&#8217;t need physics of Star Trek with a tenure track. We need honest to goodness Exposition of what we know and what we do not yet know.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I think that&#8217;s even more fascinating than anything. You know, you look back, Galileo, Einstein, they almost did none of this. Okay, There weren&#8217;t maybe science popularizers back then. And so the science popularizers who will say or, you know, something in order to generate interest or hype or whatever. It may have all started with Hawking, come to think of it.</p><p>Michio Kaku:<br />Well, my personal point of view is there&#8217;s option four that you don&#8217;t mention. And option four is that there is no simulation at all. That all this talk is nothing but fairy tales.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, the last one, simulation theory. This is the one that frustrated me the most. I think not because I&#8217;m a simulation truther. I&#8217;m not. But I think the way that he handled it intellectually was not in the most appropriate way. And I think it&#8217;s worth talking about. I&#8217;ve had Nick Bosterman many times. His simulation argument is one of the most carefully constructed philosophical arguments in modern science.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s not a guess, it&#8217;s a logical structure. Here it goes. It has these three premises underneath it. Number one, almost all civilizations that develop the capability to run ancestor simulations go extinct before they run them. So we can run ancestor simulations right now. We can simulate, you know, the time of civilization. There&#8217;s some game that I remember from the, from the 80s or 90s, rather. You start off as like bacteria culture, and then you go up, up to evolve, to intergalactic colonization.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But those are ancestor simulations up until they become future simulations. Okay, so part one, ancestor simulations can be developed, but they go extinct. Typically the civilizations go extinct before they can run them. Number two, advanced civilizations that could run simulations have no interest in doing so. That&#8217;s a possibility. So we could just say, we don&#8217;t know. Number three, we&#8217;re almost certainly in a simulation because if simulations are being run at all, there would be billions of simulated universes and only one base layer of reality. And that makes it statistically overwhelming that we occupy a simulated rather than base universe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Kaku says, I opinion number four, there is no simulation at all. That&#8217;s not a fourth option. That was just calling number two, number four and having the same choice with the Kaku labeling. And his reason for dismissing Bostrom was kind of a little bit temeritis. Okay? He&#8217;s saying the universe is based on probability, not on simulations. I don&#8217;t know what that even means. Simulations are probabilities. There are probabilistic.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s the whole point. You add in some randomness to the simulation, otherwise you know exactly what&#8217;s happening. And that&#8217;s forbidden completely, even at the quantum level, right by Heisenberg. So that&#8217;s the entire point of a simulation probability distributions and we test the veracity compared to what the observations do. Now we don&#8217;t have observations the simulation, we don&#8217;t have observations, multiverse observations of string theory. So it&#8217;s very hard to do these things. But in the models where we do have simulations, even at the level of qcd, we have the QCD vacuum that has been used as evidence against the simulation theory because the required computation power scales as very large power of the dimensionality. And so therefore if string theory were true, maybe he&#8217;s consonant with his belief that string theory is true and already true without any evidence, which is dangerous proposition to accept.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But scaling is very high power of dimensionality would make string theory even more computationally expensive than a good old fashioned four dimensional, three space plus one time dimensional universe that we know we live in, at least on the macroscopic scale. Doesn&#8217;t mean he&#8217;s wrong. But he doesn&#8217;t refute Bostrom. He just announced that he disagrees and then conjecture something that Bostrom already came up with. So you know it&#8217;s wild. The multiverse in which Kaku spent 20 minutes describing as likely real has exactly the same epistemological status as the simulation hypothesis. As I said, neither has been experimentally tested, neither is really falsifiable either. But Kakud will tell you that the multiverse comes from physics and simulation theory is fairy tale.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The only difference is the one that he finds himself in is the more comfortable epistemic position to be. And that&#8217;s not science, that&#8217;s preference. And as my Latin friends say, de gustatum known as disputandum. Taste is not disputable. So taste is not disputable. I&#8217;m not criticizing Michio for his taste that he prefers string theory, he prefers the multiverse, he doesn&#8217;t prefer the simulation. I thought that&#8217;s fine, but state it clearly. Okay, so let&#8217;s wrap it up.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s about 12 times, maybe 13 times that I caught Michio a little bit over his skis and look again, I want to be very sincere. I like Michio a lot. He&#8217;s been around for decades and he keeps getting better and better at what he does. He is one of the greatest communicators not only today, but has ever lived. He&#8217;s done more to excite people to get into this field of science. Than any other person maybe alive, maybe with the possible exception of someone like Carl Sagan. Well, Carl Sagan&#8217;s not alive, but of Neil Degrasse Tyson. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Let&#8217;s be honest, he&#8217;s an incredible intellect. He&#8217;s just infectious curiosity and clever. And so I don&#8217;t want to do that. I read his books when I was a kid. He came to speak. I&#8217;ve heard him speak many times, and I&#8217;ve presented him with awards for the very foundation whose namesake, you know, started this whole journey of podcast for me. So the issue is not at all he&#8217;s not a bad physicist. He&#8217;s a good physicist.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s a good communicator and emissary of science. But when you&#8217;re a celebrity, people emphasize your weight. That&#8217;s why the title of the podcast with Stephen emphasizes his credentials as a top physicist, not as a top communicator of physics. Now, when you do that, you have an obligation to present things as established science only when and if they are, and not talk about them in hyperbolic terms when there&#8217;s either no evidence or evidence against them, as may be the case for some of these things. So presenting it as settled science does a disservice to real scientists working in the trenches that are trying to search for these inevitable truths. Now, we may get there, we may not. The beauty of real science is that it&#8217;s real. And we can say, I don&#8217;t know, we can be humble.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You have to be simultaneously humble and a little bit arrogant to think that you can confront Mother Nature with her infinite arsenal of arrayed forces against. You will never win science, but you can win the little battles in science. But part of the way you win is by recruiting people in an honest way, and you don&#8217;t mislead people to get them to join your battle. And so I think that that&#8217;s important. I&#8217;m not saying he lied or misled anybody intentionally. I think he&#8217;s truly convinced that these things are correct and that his position is right. I don&#8217;t think he would ever meaningfully mislead anybody in the public. He&#8217;s too nice of a person to do that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So this is just out there in case he sees it or in case you saw the video, as many millions of people have and will in the future. Just a little bit of a sidebar to be cautious and because I think the truth itself is interesting enough, and I think that this is an incredible time to be alive. So much is exciting, so much is on the cusp of revolution and revelation, and we can do that, but we have to do so honestly. And not in the interest of dressing up the character. Characters, they&#8217;re already dressed up. We already have the finest script ever devised. Mother Nature gave us a script. We don&#8217;t need people acting.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We need people telling the truth about what the science is telling us, what it cannot yet tell us and where the future may go. And that&#8217;s what makes science so interesting. So that&#8217;s my rant. That&#8217;s my Keating&#8217;s razor. And we&#8217;ll see you in the next episode, Sam.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Physicist: Why I Believe in Near-Death Experiences</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/near-death-experience/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8252</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Physicist: Why I Believe in Near-Death Experiences Transcript Brian Keating:I&#8217;m an astrophysicist at one of the top universities in the world. I normally don&#8217;t believe in the paranormal. Alien abductions, cattle mutilation, crop circles, near death experiences. But what if I told you that me, a practicing astrophysicist, believes in the phenomenon known as near death experiences? That&#8217;s right. And today I&#8217;m about to tell you about the most important near death experience that ever happened. And it&#8217;s one I believe in. And you should too. Now, most near death experiences that other people talk about are paranormal. Brian Keating:There&#8217;s a white light. You walk into it, or you&#8217;re hovering over the hospital bed where the surgeon left his glove in your otherwise beautiful cadaver. You see the loved ones wailing. You see the rogue cousin coming out of the woodwork, wondering what he&#8217;s going to inherit. Now, I don&#8217;t believe in any of those, and I can explain why scientifically, and I will. But there&#8217;s one near death experience that changed scientific history forever. I believe in it. And you should too. Brian Keating:It happened in Paris in April 1888, and the tale has gone down in history. But the truth is even stranger than the fictional apocryphal story told about it. The real story takes 30 years, four deaths and one uniting thread to tell. And now, if you&#8217;ve ever wondered why the most famous prize in the world exists, this is the answer, and is darker, more personal and more deeply moral in its implications in architecture than you&#8217;ve probably ever heard about. Now, I have a personal stake in this story that I&#8217;ll get to towards the end. To understand Alfred Nobel and the prizes named after him, we have to start with his family. Emmanuel Nobel, the father, the patriarch, had four sons who survived to adulthood. Robert, the eldest, Ludwig, the businessman, Alfred, the chemist, and Emile, the youngest, born in 1843. Brian Keating:Emile was the only one who went to university. As it turns out, he studied at Uppsala and helped at his father&#8217;s family factory in his free time. On September 3, 1864, Emil is just 20 years old. He&#8217;s in the family factory, and that morning he was experimenting in the workshop at Hellenenborg, just outside of Stockholm. He was tinkering with a dangerous substance that would go down in infamy, a substance his family was trying to commercialize, unsuccessfully. It was a liquid that had been discovered 17 years earlier by an Italian chemist, Ascanio Sobrero. The liquid was so unstable that Sobrero himself had refused to develop it further. He was so fearful of the dangers it presented, he doubted it could ever be Used safely, it&#8217;s known as nitroglycerin. Brian Keating:That fateful day in September, something went wrong. We don&#8217;t know exactly what. Nitroglycerin is incredibly unstable, and just a mere tremor can set it off. Five people died that day. Emil was one of them. Fortunately, Alfred was not at the factory that morning. But he would spend the next three years of his life trying to make that substance that killed his brother safe enough that other people could use it and never be harmed again. Ironically, it became one of the most dangerous substances on earth. Brian Keating:Dynamite. And to do that, Alferd had to embed the dangerous liquid nitroglycerin into a stable form of dirt, basically diatomaceous earth. In 1867, Alferd filed a patent that would make him one of the wealthiest men in Europe. He called it dynamite, which meant power rock in Greek. Alfred Nobel&#8217;s fortune was built on solving the problem that had killed his youngest brother and would also go on to kill millions more. According to the most famous obituary in history. We&#8217;ll get to that soon. Al Gore:Foreign Brian Keating:Emmanuel Nobel, the patriarch of the family Emiles and Alfred&#8217;s father was a brilliant inventor. He had invented naval mines that the Russian czar loved. They used it during the Crimean War. He invented a type of lathe that&#8217;s still used in manufacturing to this day. He designed an early central heating system useful in Sweden. By any reasonable standard, he should have died an extremely wealthy man. But he didn&#8217;t. When the Crimean war ended in 1856, a new tsar arose who cut the military budget and Emanuel&#8217;s contracts completely evaporated. Brian Keating:By 1862, his creditors had sold the firm and Emanuel was forced to return to Sweden a bankrupted man. Then, just a year later, Emile died at Hellenborn. The news obviously broke his heart. He had a stroke shortly afterwards and never fully recovered. He spent most of his eight remaining years bedridden. Then on September 3, he 1872, eight years to the day after his son Emil died, Emmanuel the father died as well. Alfred watched his father change the world with his inventions, but lose everything anyway. He was determined not to let that be his fate as well. Brian Keating:He realized that wealth without structure evaporates. He learned that a man can be the most inventive, creative, imaginative person on the whole continent and still have nothing to show for it. Let this be a lesson. If you want your work to outlive you, you can&#8217;t leave it to a family business. You have to build it into an institution that will long outlive not only you, your family, your Distant heirs, but maybe race for time itself. Ludwig was the Nobel brother who proved Alfred&#8217;s lesson wrong. While Alfred was racing between laboratories in search of a stable solution to the nitroglycerin problem, Ludwig had built a different for fortune on a different liquid oil. He built one of the largest companies in the world. Brian Keating:The Nobel Brothers Petroleum Company operated in Baku, which is now in Azerbaijan. At its peak, it produced 50% of the world&#8217;s oil. Ludwig was sometimes called the Russian Rockefeller. Strange because he wasn&#8217;t Russian,]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8252" class="elementor elementor-8252" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-5c11ce10 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="5c11ce10" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-cfa79f0 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="cfa79f0" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Physicist: Why I Believe in Near-Death Experiences</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-3fb33aac elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="3fb33aac" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;m an astrophysicist at one of the top universities in the world. I normally don&#8217;t believe in the paranormal. Alien abductions, cattle mutilation, crop circles, near death experiences. But what if I told you that me, a practicing astrophysicist, believes in the phenomenon known as near death experiences? That&#8217;s right. And today I&#8217;m about to tell you about the most important near death experience that ever happened. And it&#8217;s one I believe in. And you should too. Now, most near death experiences that other people talk about are paranormal.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s a white light. You walk into it, or you&#8217;re hovering over the hospital bed where the surgeon left his glove in your otherwise beautiful cadaver. You see the loved ones wailing. You see the rogue cousin coming out of the woodwork, wondering what he&#8217;s going to inherit. Now, I don&#8217;t believe in any of those, and I can explain why scientifically, and I will. But there&#8217;s one near death experience that changed scientific history forever. I believe in it. And you should too.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It happened in Paris in April 1888, and the tale has gone down in history. But the truth is even stranger than the fictional apocryphal story told about it. The real story takes 30 years, four deaths and one uniting thread to tell. And now, if you&#8217;ve ever wondered why the most famous prize in the world exists, this is the answer, and is darker, more personal and more deeply moral in its implications in architecture than you&#8217;ve probably ever heard about. Now, I have a personal stake in this story that I&#8217;ll get to towards the end. To understand Alfred Nobel and the prizes named after him, we have to start with his family. Emmanuel Nobel, the father, the patriarch, had four sons who survived to adulthood. Robert, the eldest, Ludwig, the businessman, Alfred, the chemist, and Emile, the youngest, born in 1843.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Emile was the only one who went to university. As it turns out, he studied at Uppsala and helped at his father&#8217;s family factory in his free time. On September 3, 1864, Emil is just 20 years old. He&#8217;s in the family factory, and that morning he was experimenting in the workshop at Hellenenborg, just outside of Stockholm. He was tinkering with a dangerous substance that would go down in infamy, a substance his family was trying to commercialize, unsuccessfully. It was a liquid that had been discovered 17 years earlier by an Italian chemist, Ascanio Sobrero. The liquid was so unstable that Sobrero himself had refused to develop it further. He was so fearful of the dangers it presented, he doubted it could ever be Used safely, it&#8217;s known as nitroglycerin.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That fateful day in September, something went wrong. We don&#8217;t know exactly what. Nitroglycerin is incredibly unstable, and just a mere tremor can set it off. Five people died that day. Emil was one of them. Fortunately, Alfred was not at the factory that morning. But he would spend the next three years of his life trying to make that substance that killed his brother safe enough that other people could use it and never be harmed again. Ironically, it became one of the most dangerous substances on earth.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Dynamite. And to do that, Alferd had to embed the dangerous liquid nitroglycerin into a stable form of dirt, basically diatomaceous earth. In 1867, Alferd filed a patent that would make him one of the wealthiest men in Europe. He called it dynamite, which meant power rock in Greek. Alfred Nobel&#8217;s fortune was built on solving the problem that had killed his youngest brother and would also go on to kill millions more. According to the most famous obituary in history. We&#8217;ll get to that soon.</p><p>Al Gore:<br />Foreign</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Emmanuel Nobel, the patriarch of the family Emiles and Alfred&#8217;s father was a brilliant inventor. He had invented naval mines that the Russian czar loved. They used it during the Crimean War. He invented a type of lathe that&#8217;s still used in manufacturing to this day. He designed an early central heating system useful in Sweden. By any reasonable standard, he should have died an extremely wealthy man. But he didn&#8217;t. When the Crimean war ended in 1856, a new tsar arose who cut the military budget and Emanuel&#8217;s contracts completely evaporated.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />By 1862, his creditors had sold the firm and Emanuel was forced to return to Sweden a bankrupted man. Then, just a year later, Emile died at Hellenborn. The news obviously broke his heart. He had a stroke shortly afterwards and never fully recovered. He spent most of his eight remaining years bedridden. Then on September 3, he 1872, eight years to the day after his son Emil died, Emmanuel the father died as well. Alfred watched his father change the world with his inventions, but lose everything anyway. He was determined not to let that be his fate as well.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He realized that wealth without structure evaporates. He learned that a man can be the most inventive, creative, imaginative person on the whole continent and still have nothing to show for it. Let this be a lesson. If you want your work to outlive you, you can&#8217;t leave it to a family business. You have to build it into an institution that will long outlive not only you, your family, your Distant heirs, but maybe race for time itself. Ludwig was the Nobel brother who proved Alfred&#8217;s lesson wrong. While Alfred was racing between laboratories in search of a stable solution to the nitroglycerin problem, Ludwig had built a different for fortune on a different liquid oil. He built one of the largest companies in the world.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The Nobel Brothers Petroleum Company operated in Baku, which is now in Azerbaijan. At its peak, it produced 50% of the world&#8217;s oil. Ludwig was sometimes called the Russian Rockefeller. Strange because he wasn&#8217;t Russian, but the company was in latter day Russia. On April 12, 1888, Ludwig had a heart attack while visiting Cannes, France. He was only 56 years old. Three days later, April 15, 1888, the newspaper Le Figaro, one of the biggest in all of Europe, printed Ludwig&#8217;s obituary. Except it wasn&#8217;t.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The newspaper committed the gravest editorial sin. They got two different men confused in an obituary. Now, most retellings of this story will tell you that the headline read in French, the merchant of death is dead. La marchand de la mort es morteg. That&#8217;s even the version Nobel laureate Al Gore quoted in his Peace prize acceptance in 2007.</p><p>Al Gore:<br />119 years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death, wrongly believing the inventor had just died. A newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life&#8217;s work, unfairly labeling him the Merchant of Death because of his invention, dynamite.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s in Wikipedia, it&#8217;s in dozens of biographies. But it&#8217;s not clear if that ever happened. Historians have searched French newspaper archives for a hundred years and they still haven&#8217;t found it. The phrase exists only in the retelling of the story. But there&#8217;s a kernel of truth behind it. Because what we do have is the actual death notice itself. A Figaro, April 15, 1888. Page one, it says, A man who can hardly be called a benefactor of humanity and died yesterday.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In Comm. It is Mr. Nobel, inventor of dynamite. Talk about fake news. Now, to give him credit, the paper retracted it the next day. They had confused the two brothers, but Alfred Nobel was very much alive and living in Paris. To quote Mark Twain, reports of my demise have been slightly exaggerated. Everyone read that newspaper.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s impossible to think that Alfred didn&#8217;t see it. It would be like you missing one of my banger tweets on X. And here&#8217;s what the milder, real version of the story actually does, that the dramatized myth, the folklore doesn&#8217;t do. The myth makes it sound like the editors were gleeful. But the real Notice is actually colder than that. It said that this man Alfred, in dying, had not improved the world one bit, despite being one of the wealthiest men on earth, worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars in today&#8217;s money. It&#8217;s devastating because it&#8217;s actually more measured, more thoughtful about the verdict, sober as it was, editorializing Alfred&#8217;s death and the seeming meaninglessness of his passing. But what it did give is a gift to Alfred, saying exactly what the educated reading public of Europe would think about him when he actually did die.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now hold these four deaths in your head at once. Emil, killed by the substance Alfred would later make safe and commercialize. Emmanuel, the patriarch, the man who lost everything despite changing the world. Dying of a broken heart eight years to the day after his son&#8217;s death. Ludwig, the businessman who built an empire of oil and triggered through his own death the accidental editorial verdict on Alfred&#8217;s life. And then eventually Alfred did die. But that wouldn&#8217;t come for nearly a decade. He read that verdict and now he had to decide what to do with whatever time was left to him.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />They say to write your will the day before you die. Alfred didn&#8217;t do that, but he came close. There&#8217;s a name for this type of experience, the one I hinted at the very beginning of the video. It&#8217;s one of the oldest narrative devices in all of human literature and storytelling. This one&#8217;s true. A man sees the world&#8217;s verdict on his life before the verdict is final. He&#8217;s given a chance to rewrite the ending before it&#8217;s etched in stone. Charles Dickens wrote about it in 1843.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know it as A Christmas Carol. Scrooge sees his own grave and the indifference of the men who knew him, and he redeems himself. Frank Capra remade it in 1946 as it&#8217;s a Wonderful Wife. George Bailey given the chance to see what the world looks like without him in it. A second chance, a second lease on life, only brought possible through fictional near death experiences. Now, as a physicist, I&#8217;m quite doubtful about the claims of the paranormal type of near death experiences. And these stories, unlike the paranormal versions, for the price of a movie ticket or a paperback, give us what religions have always tried to give us a sense of what the meaning of life is, while we still have time to do it from this side of the grave. That&#8217;s the secret to the success of that type of genre.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The point of these stories is never the supernatural mechanism. The quantum mechanical collapse of the wave function, the lack of falsifiability of the claims that most paranormal encounters with death fail to substantiate. The point is the part where the protagonist is still alive. A chance to redeem himself. Alfred Nobel got the real version. He got it in La Figaro on a Sunday morning in 1888, with no Christmas ghosts and no guardian angels needed. And he had something Scrooge and George Bailey are only allowed to imagine. He had time.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He could act. He was on this side of the ground. On November 27, 1895, at the Swedish Norwegian Club in Paris, Alfred Nobel did just that. He signed a one page handwritten will. Here&#8217;s what it looks like. Less than a thousand words, but over a century of impact. His will set aside 94% of his entire worldly estate, the equivalent of more than a quarter billion dollars in today&#8217;s money. This was to be used to fund a series of annual prizes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The annual prizes specified were five in number. Physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, which is one category, Literature and peace. The prizes were to be given in his words, and I&#8217;ve read the will many times, to those persons, singular people, who in the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. It actually says mankind in the will itself. But if you go to the Nobel Foundation&#8217;s website, they&#8217;ve changed what he wrote to say, humankind, presumably for some politically correct purpose. Notice the language. Nevertheless, there&#8217;s an exact parallel between the French editorial about Alfred Nobel mistakenly attributed to him, which resonates around the term benefit to mankind. That&#8217;s a direct response to the obituary.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It couldn&#8217;t be clearer that this near death experience horrified him. The obituary said Alfred cannot be called a benefactor of humanity. And here in the will, he&#8217;s leaving an enormous fortune to do just that. He said, I will be remembered for the people I helped, for the world that I benefited for the benefit of all mankind. He turned the editorial verdict against him into a powerful criterion of the prize itself, one that still exists to this day. That&#8217;s the writing of a man who read what was said about him and decided to write his own last will and testament. As Lin Miranda says in Hamilton, who lives, who dies, who tells your story. It was driven by the man who had buried three members of his family and cut his own family out of most of the estate.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, he was never married. There&#8217;s another apocryphal story about him, that there&#8217;s no Nobel Prize in math because his wife cheated on Alfred with a mathematician. Total lie, Never happened, didn&#8217;t have a wife. He insisted, though, that the prize be given, not taking into Account nationality. At the time, that was almost heretical. Nation states were so powerful, obsessed with themselves in Europe, that he didn&#8217;t want it to be captured by any single dynasty. Now, because he watched his father&#8217;s family business collapse, he was determined not to leave this to chance. And he also had taken the lesson of his older brother, Ludwig.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />For all his oil fortune, he left something that would later be confiscated by the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution in 1918. There were no safeguards to save that family fortune. Alfred wanted something neither bankruptcy nor the winds of a war and revolution could ever blow away. Alfred died 14 months later, not the day after his will was written, but close to it. He died in San Remo, Italy, on December 10, 1896. And that day will come into play in just a bit. After his death, the will was contested by his family for years. The first Nobel Prize was not granted until 1901.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And in the giving of the first Nobel Prize, there&#8217;s another connection to death. Wilhelm Renjen had a wife named Bertha. He invented the X ray machine, a device that certainly has been responsible for the benefit of mankind. If you&#8217;ve ever had a toothache or a broken bone, you&#8217;ve benefited from Wilhelm Rendgen&#8217;s X ray machine. But his wife, who was the first patient or victim, depending on how you look at it, to be exposed to X rays and have her hand photographed on a photographic plate. When she saw her ring finger and the bones within her hand, she exclaimed, aghast, I have seen my death. Another brush with death, courtesy of the Nobel Prize. Now, here&#8217;s another detail that most people don&#8217;t know.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The Nobel Prize is held every year to honor Alfred Nobel on his death day, December 10th, not his birthday. And the ceremony at the Stockholm banquet hall, where the prizes are given out, are decorated in resplendent flowers that are imported from Alfred Nobel&#8217;s mausoleum in San Remo, the very town where he died. Because death is inseparable from Alfred Nobel and the Nobel prizes that bear his name. Now, hold that detail, because in a moment, I&#8217;m going to tell you about a different set of his wishes, written down, signed, witnessed, sealed, that the foundation has not honored as carefully as they should have. I have a personal stake in this story. In 2014, a team that I had helped to found, called Bicep, announced what we thought was the discovery of all time, one that was sure to win us the Nobel Prize in physics. We claimed we had detected gravitational waves from the inflationary epoch from a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second following the Big Bang. We were wrong.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We didn&#8217;t see the birth pangs of the Big Bang. The signal that we saw was contaminated by interstellar dust. Six months later, after collaborating with our competitors in the Planck satellite, we retracted the claim. Four years later, I wrote a book about that experience. It&#8217;s called Losing the Nobel Prize. Spoiler alert. But in the process of writing that book, I read Alfred Nobel&#8217;s will more carefully than most people ever have. I actually went to Stockholm.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I sat in the rooms where the decisions are made. I asked the tough questions. I was even asked to nominate winners of the Nobel Prize twice in my career. That was before I wrote the book. I&#8217;ll probably never get another invitation again. But that&#8217;s okay. Because what I came to argue in that book, and I want to be careful about what I say here because I have great respect for the institution of the Nobel Prize. Maybe not the way it&#8217;s exactly executed to this day.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I certainly have gratitude and respect for the many people have won the prize. 22 so far have come on my podcast link down below. But I have to be honest. The Nobel committee has strayed quite far from what Alfred Nobel actually asked for in his will. Again, the will says the prize must go to the person who, during the preceding year, made an invention or discovery that conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. In practice, it goes sometimes goes decades after the fact to a maximum of three people, not one. For work that was almost certainly done by teams of dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of other people. The will says nothing about teams.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And you can&#8217;t win it if you&#8217;re dead. Which is ironic for a prize that&#8217;s so unquestionably associated with death. Alfred&#8217;s will said nothing about excluding the dead. But that&#8217;s become standard practice again, made up by the Nobel committee themselves. If that were not true, Rosalind Franklin would have shared the DNA prize Vera Rubin would have surely won for the discovery of dark matter. But they didn&#8217;t. Because they were dead. The foundation honors his death day.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />They ship flowers from across the world from his death town and his death chamber to the ceremony that they celebrate on his death day. They get those things right, but they get some harder things wrong. In most world religions, the wishes of the dead are sacrosanct. They&#8217;re sacred. Honoring them is one of the highest ethical obligations that a person can do for someone who&#8217;s passed away. After all, the dead can&#8217;t speak for themselves. They can&#8217;t defend their legacy. They rely and they trust on future generations to honor their own intentions.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So the rest of us are bound to that honor. It&#8217;s a sacred duty to do what they asked us to do. And in violating that in many important ways, the Nobel Committee is ignoring the wishes of the death across cultures. Betraying the wishes of someone who can no longer defend themselves is a grave, grave ethical sin. Alfred Nobel can&#8217;t defend himself anymore. The committee can. And I think that the committee owes a deeper reading and a more close following of what he actually wrote. So you may be surprised to learn that a physicist believes in near death experiences.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Not the tunnel of light, not the hovering above the hospital bed, not the loved ones weeping or wailing over how they were excluded from their will. But the four deaths that taught a man through experience what his own death would mean. And we have something that he has too, while we&#8217;re still alive to do it. We can write a different ending if we&#8217;re unsatisfied with the story we&#8217;ve written so far. Write your will the day before you die. Alfred Nobel got an extra eight years from his brother&#8217;s death to his own. Most of us hopefully have a lot more. The question is, what are you going to do at that time? If you want the longer story about the will, the committee, the prize, and the cosmology, read my cosmic memoir, Losing the Nobel Prize.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You can find it anywhere books are sold, and it was voted one of Amazon&#8217;s best nonfiction books. Subscribe for the next video and you&#8217;ll learn something new, perhaps about crop circles or catamutilation or alien abduction. Until next time, Brian Keating, Chancellor&#8217;s Distinguished professor of Physics at UC San Diego and host of the into the Impossible podcast. See you next time.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Godlike AI Is Here! Peter Diamandis Debates Brian Keating</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/godlike-ai/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8247</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Godlike AI Is Here! Peter Diamandis Debates Brian Keating Transcript Peter Diamandis:We&#8217;re a boot disk. We&#8217;re simply a transient boot disk for intelligence. Brian Keating:If artificial intelligence is going to take your job and your career or make you a problem, you might just want to hear from the people who actually are building it. Peter Diamandis:AGI ASI is going to be able to simulate a billion, 100 billion different scenarios and be able to say, statistically, this has the best outcome. These others are miserable. Brian Keating:My guest today is one of the few who&#8217;s actually in the room where he&#8217;s funded the labs, he&#8217;s invested in, the models. He&#8217;s been wrong about the timeline before and when he was wrong, he was wrong in the same direction as most of us. He thought it would take longer. Today, he&#8217;s going to tell you what he thinks happens next. To your work, to your kids, to your lifespan. Spoiler alert. He thinks it&#8217;s the best news in human history. But I&#8217;m not so sure. Brian Keating:So we&#8217;re going to duke it out. Peter Diamandis, his fifth time on the show. Into the impossible. Let&#8217;s go. Brian Keating:The first thing I thought when I saw the title of this book, you know, there&#8217;s no better person that could think about, you know, the question of humans becoming gods. That&#8217;s a real kind of old story and doesn&#8217;t always end well, as you know, Prometheus and many other of your Greek native gods can tell you. The phrase I keep hearing in my mind is we are gods but for the wisdom. And there&#8217;s world is swimming in intelligence. But Peter, what&#8217;s more important than wisdom and wisdom? Where can we go to get artificial wisdom, not just intelligence? Peter Diamandis:Well, let me, let me give you my pitch on that because I think we&#8217;re about to have it in spades. So if I were to ask you, Brian, like, where would you go to get wisdom? You know, historically, one would go to the village elders, right? You&#8217;d go to the people who had the most experience out there. And those village elders are considered wise because they&#8217;ve seen so many scenarios. They&#8217;ll sit there and they&#8217;ll say, listen, if you go down this path, it&#8217;s not going to end well for you, but if you go down this path, you might be able to succeed. And we define that as wisdom. Well, guess what, AGI ASI is going to be able to simulate a billion, a hundred billion different scenarios and be able to say, statistically, this has the best outcome. These others are miserable. I honestly don&#8217;t think human psychology is that difficult to simulate. Peter Diamandis:You know, this goes back to, you know, Isaac Asimov&#8217;s foundation series. I think that we are going to get wisdom out of AI. I think we&#8217;re going to get extraordinary wisdom out of AI. The reason that a starship, every flight gets better and better performance is because they&#8217;re able to put all of these sensors on the vehicle, get huge amounts of data and simulate the performance. Well, we&#8217;re heading towards a world of trillions of sensors. Every human conversation is being uploaded. We&#8217;re going to be able to model this and get wisdom. What do you think about that? Do you agree? Brian Keating:There&#8217;s no doubt that we are kind of surpassed any kind of event horizon or singularity that you have popularized with Ray and others. There&#8217;s no doubt that we&#8217;re kind of awash in intelligence. I don&#8217;t know about you, but if somebody told me I had a superhuman team of 150 of the world&#8217;s greatest graduate students at my disposal 24 7, I would say I&#8217;ll probably be on a beach, you know, maybe hanging out with Peter or something like that. I wouldn&#8217;t say I&#8217;d be working more than I ever have in my life. And that would be a failure of my, you know, judgment, my wisdom. You and I are both pilots. We&#8217;re both jet pilots, right? We have a saying in aviation. You must learn from other people&#8217;s experience because you won&#8217;t live long enough to make all their mistakes by yourself. Brian Keating:And so I just feel like I just fell into all these traps and part of this is, you know, to talk, my favorite subject, which of course is me. And I want to get your advice for me, Peter, that I&#8217;m working harder than ever. I don&#8217;t feel like I&#8217;m getting any benefit from this other than I&#8217;m just like constantly tuned in. I just love it. So I&#8217;m addicted to it. Peter Diamandis:It is an addiction. You know, people talk about three and four day work weeks. I think you and I have created the 9 and 10 day workweek. I&#8217;m working and operating at a higher level of capability and working more than I ever have in my life. I mean, I wake up my. My AI, my lobster, my open claw. I call Skippy from one of my favorite science fiction books. I&#8217;m talking to Skippy and having Skippy work on stuff. Peter Diamandis:Skippy&#8217;s working on stuff right now as we&#8217;re having this conversation. And so my productivity has gone up tremendously. But my addictiveness to productivity, to doing more and more has gone up. And yeah, I mean, the only downtime I get is when I give myself permission Because I know my AIs are working on stuff I can actually go and work out. I&#8217;m curious what you think about the wisdom argument I made. How do you define wisdom? And, and do you think that AIs are able to generate wisdom as I described it? Brian Keating:Actually, I disagree with the fact that AIs can, can generate wisdom only because at their current level I think that they&#8217;re, they&#8217;re bound, maybe they&#8217;ll become unbound like Prometheus again, the God like figure.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8247" class="elementor elementor-8247" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-65d0480d e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="65d0480d" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-09afa9d elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="09afa9d" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Godlike AI Is Here! Peter Diamandis Debates Brian Keating</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-2e7b72a6 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="2e7b72a6" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />We&#8217;re a boot disk. We&#8217;re simply a transient boot disk for intelligence.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If artificial intelligence is going to take your job and your career or make you a problem, you might just want to hear from the people who actually are building it.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />AGI ASI is going to be able to simulate a billion, 100 billion different scenarios and be able to say, statistically, this has the best outcome. These others are miserable.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My guest today is one of the few who&#8217;s actually in the room where he&#8217;s funded the labs, he&#8217;s invested in, the models. He&#8217;s been wrong about the timeline before and when he was wrong, he was wrong in the same direction as most of us. He thought it would take longer. Today, he&#8217;s going to tell you what he thinks happens next. To your work, to your kids, to your lifespan. Spoiler alert. He thinks it&#8217;s the best news in human history. But I&#8217;m not so sure.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So we&#8217;re going to duke it out. Peter Diamandis, his fifth time on the show. Into the impossible. Let&#8217;s go.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The first thing I thought when I saw the title of this book, you know, there&#8217;s no better person that could think about, you know, the question of humans becoming gods. That&#8217;s a real kind of old story and doesn&#8217;t always end well, as you know, Prometheus and many other of your Greek native gods can tell you. The phrase I keep hearing in my mind is we are gods but for the wisdom. And there&#8217;s world is swimming in intelligence. But Peter, what&#8217;s more important than wisdom and wisdom? Where can we go to get artificial wisdom, not just intelligence?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Well, let me, let me give you my pitch on that because I think we&#8217;re about to have it in spades. So if I were to ask you, Brian, like, where would you go to get wisdom? You know, historically, one would go to the village elders, right? You&#8217;d go to the people who had the most experience out there. And those village elders are considered wise because they&#8217;ve seen so many scenarios. They&#8217;ll sit there and they&#8217;ll say, listen, if you go down this path, it&#8217;s not going to end well for you, but if you go down this path, you might be able to succeed. And we define that as wisdom. Well, guess what, AGI ASI is going to be able to simulate a billion, a hundred billion different scenarios and be able to say, statistically, this has the best outcome. These others are miserable. I honestly don&#8217;t think human psychology is that difficult to simulate.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />You know, this goes back to, you know, Isaac Asimov&#8217;s foundation series. I think that we are going to get wisdom out of AI. I think we&#8217;re going to get extraordinary wisdom out of AI. The reason that a starship, every flight gets better and better performance is because they&#8217;re able to put all of these sensors on the vehicle, get huge amounts of data and simulate the performance. Well, we&#8217;re heading towards a world of trillions of sensors. Every human conversation is being uploaded. We&#8217;re going to be able to model this and get wisdom. What do you think about that? Do you agree?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s no doubt that we are kind of surpassed any kind of event horizon or singularity that you have popularized with Ray and others. There&#8217;s no doubt that we&#8217;re kind of awash in intelligence. I don&#8217;t know about you, but if somebody told me I had a superhuman team of 150 of the world&#8217;s greatest graduate students at my disposal 24 7, I would say I&#8217;ll probably be on a beach, you know, maybe hanging out with Peter or something like that. I wouldn&#8217;t say I&#8217;d be working more than I ever have in my life. And that would be a failure of my, you know, judgment, my wisdom. You and I are both pilots. We&#8217;re both jet pilots, right? We have a saying in aviation. You must learn from other people&#8217;s experience because you won&#8217;t live long enough to make all their mistakes by yourself.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And so I just feel like I just fell into all these traps and part of this is, you know, to talk, my favorite subject, which of course is me. And I want to get your advice for me, Peter, that I&#8217;m working harder than ever. I don&#8217;t feel like I&#8217;m getting any benefit from this other than I&#8217;m just like constantly tuned in. I just love it. So I&#8217;m addicted to it.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />It is an addiction. You know, people talk about three and four day work weeks. I think you and I have created the 9 and 10 day workweek. I&#8217;m working and operating at a higher level of capability and working more than I ever have in my life. I mean, I wake up my. My AI, my lobster, my open claw. I call Skippy from one of my favorite science fiction books. I&#8217;m talking to Skippy and having Skippy work on stuff.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Skippy&#8217;s working on stuff right now as we&#8217;re having this conversation. And so my productivity has gone up tremendously. But my addictiveness to productivity, to doing more and more has gone up. And yeah, I mean, the only downtime I get is when I give myself permission Because I know my AIs are working on stuff I can actually go and work out. I&#8217;m curious what you think about the wisdom argument I made. How do you define wisdom? And, and do you think that AIs are able to generate wisdom as I described it?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Actually, I disagree with the fact that AIs can, can generate wisdom only because at their current level I think that they&#8217;re, they&#8217;re bound, maybe they&#8217;ll become unbound like Prometheus again, the God like figure. But, but the question is, do we have, do they have judgment?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Let me back up one second with you. Right. Do you believe that AIs are going to be able to run massively parallel simulations of outcomes?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There already are, but I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s what&#8217;s valuable to me as a physicist.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />When you say wisdom is out of all the possibilities, what do I choose? That&#8217;s how I define wisdom. Would you define it differently?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think wisdom is an amalgamation of experience, of judgment. I think learning from others mistakes. And it&#8217;s hard to say how something learns from its mistakes. Let me give you my, my current pitch for why I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;re at AGI. I know you&#8217;re much more. You&#8217;re just a perennial optimist. I love it. You&#8217;re not just like some, you know, airy fairy optimist.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You&#8217;re bounded in the most cutting edge technology with the best thinkers on Earth. And, and you&#8217;re just, you know, so superhuman in the way that you approach things. But I&#8217;ll say this, my fundamental test, as I think I said when I was on the Moonshots podcast with you a couple years ago, I said the happiest thought that Einstein ever had. If he was in an elevator and the cable broke, he&#8217;d be in free fall. And that feeling in the pit of his stomach was the sensation that there was no gravitational force field. Meaning that he could intuit, based on this human embodiment, that the free fall sensation would result in the Einstein Equivalence principle would result in no gravitational force. So we don&#8217;t think of gravity as a force, right? We think of it as the curvature of space time, which would not have an experiential component to it. So he&#8217;s saying that the bodily experience, the visceral experience connected to his mind gave him joy.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now I don&#8217;t know, as I&#8217;ve said in the past, if AIs can feel joy, if they certainly can&#8217;t currently feel now, they&#8217;ll have sensors and Optimus and all the other robotics things, but will they be able to have that experience that even a four year old can have? And so my question to you is, is what&#8217;s lacking in the GPU plus LLM architecture which so successful, is it too successful? Because it&#8217;s kind of running away with everything.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Is it a local maximum, is it a local max?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And is it entombing us in a prison of the limits of GPUs? Plus LN that may not be the best thing. Peter. The Vora keyboard was much better than qwerty and yet we&#8217;re stuck with qwerty.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I agree with you. And so interesting, right? Recently Demis Hasabis said maybe that we don&#8217;t need another breakthrough. He said at 50% probability, we don&#8217;t need another breakthrough to get to whatever the fuzzy definition of AGI is. You know, he&#8217;s there from we need five breakthroughs, he&#8217;s down from five breakthroughs to maybe this is the last one. Now, of course the becomes is, can the LLM architecture help us discover the next highest local maximum and is there an absolute maximum? These are the questions worth considering.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />From my perspective, what&#8217;s lacking in all of this is not, you know, kind of what happens in the next, you know, Fast and the Furious movie, which will be the training data set for the next thing. I&#8217;d like to think that he kind of read my paper, you know, that I wrote two years ago. The statement that I made is, I&#8217;m interested to know if you had, if you could somehow do this and you&#8217;re the right person to ask, because I don&#8217;t even know if you can do this. But if you had an LLM that was trained only on pre1911 physics, when Einstein had that happiest thought that led to the breakthrough of special general relativity. If you had that. But even if I take some, some corpus of knowledge in Mistral, I take some, you know, just middling road LLM, it will have stuff in it like, because it has Spider man into the spider verse, right? It&#8217;ll have some notions of relativity baked into it. So it&#8217;s so corrupted. I would like to know if, if you had an LLM, and I&#8217;ve been doing this with one of my students, it turns out they can&#8217;t do it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The large language models that I&#8217;ve tried with my student Evan Watson here at ucsd, we tried to say if you just had Mercury&#8217;s data of its precession, could you do what Einstein did, which is come up with this brilliant insight that no curvature causes the anomalous procession of Mercury and that if you could train only on pre1907 or 1911 data, then that would be kind of a breakthrough to me. In other words, do what my art students, my art student friends do. They don&#8217;t start off painting their own masterpieces. They do copy work. They copy what Picasso did, they copy Monet, they copy Manet.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />They train their neural nets by doing that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. So can an AI do that? Can you do a training just to have a breakthrough like Einstein? Not just. But that&#8217;s huge, right? To my knowledge, they can&#8217;t do that, and I&#8217;m worried that we&#8217;ve polluted them. But so much knowledge that is subtly corrupting them. You talked about quantum gravity in one of your recent podcasts or at the. Actually, at the end of the book. But quantum gravity, Peter, is not a commonly, it&#8217;s not a universally accepted, pardon the pun, endeavor in physics. In other words, there are a lot of people, like my friend Eric Weinstein, who thinks it&#8217;s a fool&#8217;s errand and it&#8217;s actually corrupting physics.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Let&#8217;s slow this down and build from the bottom of the pyramid upwards. Which is to say, do you believe that the current models, the most advanced models, Adam Anthropic and Gemini and OpenAI, are enabling us to solve math that humans have never been able to solve? Do you believe that?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ve talked to Terry Tao is, you know, the Mozart of math at ucla, and he said they&#8217;re very good at checking proofs. Another example, I asked him, has anyone used LLM math proof to generate Andrew Weil&#8217;s generation of the proof of Fermat&#8217;s last theorem, which took him 700 pages 30 years ago, and he said, no. Intuitively obvious, he said, no, they can&#8217;t do that. They can&#8217;t even reproduce what he did.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Not my particular field. On my podcast, Alex Wiesner, Gross, who is your genius? My resident genius. His belief and the data he keeps on bringing, and what we speak about on the podcast in part, is we&#8217;re seeing that these models are, in fact running circles around the vast majority of mathematic PhDs.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh, sure.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Is it running circles around the top.001% of genius mathematicians? Maybe not yet. But his belief is, to quote him, math is cooked. That in fact, math is going to fall to these large language models. Now, I will say one other thing, Brian. No one predicted that LLMs would be able to do the things that they&#8217;re doing today, Right? If you looked at what could these large language models do in terms of predicting the next word, the next token from the corpus of the Internet. No one saw them doing what they&#8217;re doing in world models and in math, in scientific prediction. And so we don&#8217;t actually know what the ceiling is on their abilities, but we&#8217;re seeing increasing capability across the board in math. And then if we solve math, and I wrote a paper with Alex called Solve everything, it said solve everything.org and we, we basically write how you would solve everything.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />You know, by creating the harnesses, by creating the benchmarks that you&#8217;re measuring things against and by rapid iteration that math falls, physics falls, chemistry, biology, material sciences. And our belief to some degree is belief. It&#8217;s not provable that within five years we are going to crush all these limitations.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The Indian Institute of Technology IIT has over a million students currently, right? 50,000 of them are physics majors. Now assume that they&#8217;re all the same brightness as mit. Would you think that that would produce more kind of genius breakthroughs, Nobel level breakthroughs, that they would have a greater probability of being Nobel Prize winners in the physical sciences? Is it sheer scale, Peter, is what I&#8217;m asking? Because I don&#8217;t disagree with you. The scale is overwhelming. I cannot stop using it. Except I, Peter, maybe unlike you, but I have a feeling because you age in reverse, you&#8217;re the best advertisement for your longevity things. And I want to give a recognition of our mutual friend Craig Venter, who passed away recently, wonderful guy. And you guys started this huge thing in San Diego which has saved many lives.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, it&#8217;s incredible. I met with them recently and I talked to him. It, it helped extend Craig&#8217;s life. But anyway, Peter, MIT doesn&#8217;t, doesn&#8217;t do, you know, markedly, you know, orders of magnitude better than ucsd, even though they&#8217;re higher ranked, you know, than we are. So my question is, is scale alone</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />sufficient if you&#8217;ve got scale of the right elements? So what you&#8217;re looking at is scale of number of intelligent people focused on a particular area of technology. There&#8217;s another element which is not part of that equation, which you have to multiply by. There&#8217;s a product you have to create which is their mindset. So I think one of the things that&#8217;s important is having someone who&#8217;s intelligent is insufficient. It&#8217;s required, but insufficient. I think what&#8217;s required in addition to intelligence is mindsets. And I teach this, right? A curiosity mindset, a purpose driven mindset, an exponential mindset, a moonshot mindset, a first principles mindset. I mean, what makes Elon so incredible as a entrepreneur and a technologist is his first principles thinking and his level of 10x thinking.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />You know, there is something that is fundamentally better and different, and I&#8217;m going to run iterations down to first principles until I find it. And so while you might have the most brilliant, to use your IIT example, I think India is the rising star globally. I think people don&#8217;t recognize how much India is going to dominate in math, science, biology, technology, across the board over the next 20 years because of its youth, because of its sheer intelligence there. But putting that aside, what America has is a set of mindsets that are uniquely entrepreneurial. I think that combine with intelligence and are creating this level of extraordinary. And I think that&#8217;s also true in Israel.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You should know that not everyone agrees with Peter. Adam Becker wrote a book called More Everything Forever, very pessimistic, and I hosted him on the show. So of course I asked Peter to respond. He didn&#8217;t hold back.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Again to push back. A past guest, Adam Becker, I don&#8217;t know if you&#8217;re familiar with him. He&#8217;s a physicist, he&#8217;s now a journalist. He wrote a book about quantum mechanical, basically Bell&#8217;s inequalities. But his most recent book is called More of Everything Faster, Better. And it&#8217;s really a screed, a Jeremiah against the Silicon Valley tech culture and LA tech culture that you&#8217;ve helped really incubate. And specifically it targets people like Elon, Sam Altman, you know, Dario Amadei, Mark Andreessen, the funders, not just, as you said, the entrepreneurs are the secret sauce or, you know, a lot of the magic of the United States. But again, that might not last with India being so exceptional as they are.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. So we can&#8217;t rest on our laurels. But he says that they&#8217;re creating a techno utopia that is bound to lead to dystopia. And they&#8217;re building in the image that you like to quote of the Star Trek versus Star Wars. Peter Thiel is mentioned in there as well as one of these evil kind of billionaire villains that are just trying to make reality the way that they saw it at age nine, you know, during Star Trek. And, and I know that you love it, and I love it too, but. But what does he. What do you have to say about these kind of theses?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Oh, my God, what a loser, is what I have to say. I mean, honestly, if you look at the data and in the back of this book, for anybody who gets the appendix, there is like, like a hundred charts showing what&#8217;s happened over the last, you know, couple of hundred years, 100 years, last 50 years. And when you look at child mortality falling through the floor, life expectancy doubling, you know, literacy going through the roof, access to food, water, energy, health care, it&#8217;s like, for God&#8217;s sakes, where do you think that all came from? What&#8217;s the guy&#8217;s Name?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Adam Becker, PhD.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Adam, where the hell did that all come from? Did we become smarter as humans? We have better politicians? Or maybe, just maybe, is it the impact of technology? And honestly, that&#8217;s the only force that takes scarcity and makes it abundant. Only force that is able to uplift all of humanity. Eight billion humans. And yeah, the Star Trek future is one of abundance. It&#8217;s one where we&#8217;ve taken out the constraints and technology and humanity work collaboratively. So forgive me if I want to uplift the entire human race. And the only way to do it efficiently and rapidly is the use of technology.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The audiobook, which I listened to, in addition to reading the hardcover and the. And the PDF version of it, but. Or the Kindle version of it, the audiobook has the charts in it, but it doesn&#8217;t just refer to charts, you know, which is awful, but it actually has a PDFs of the chart. So I thank you for that. But at the end of the audiobook, Peter, there&#8217;s a chapter from Abundance, which is the last book I think you narrated of yourself. And it starts with like this, this incredible future that awaits us thanks to Uber Aerocopter or whatever. And you know, again, you and I are pilots, right? There&#8217;s no field probably more disruptible than aviation. And yet I think the obstacle.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think there&#8217;s two obstacles to AGI ever getting here, Peter. One, it&#8217;s every day I have to click Launch to update to, you know, opus 4.374195 and then Gemini. And the schedule for updating is killing me. But the other thing are lawyers, Peter, right? Because you and I fly planes. When you come and see me down here in San Diego, you have to tune in the adas, the Automated Terminal Information Service. And that is a single channel and it&#8217;s completely mono oral. You can&#8217;t talk when you&#8217;re talking. Someone else is talking to atc.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s horrible when you could have something completely automated. I think lawyers and joking about the updates, but I can&#8217;t imagine how the singularity is going to get past all these updates I have to do every day. But Peter, tell me, what are lawyers and regulation Aren&#8217;t they an ultimate impediment to the techno abundant future that we both seek.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I think AI is a mechanism, it&#8217;s a user interface across all of these things. I avoid regulations, lawyers, policy, politics as much as I can, and I just focus on building shit. But at the end of the day, AI is going to be my ultimate interface for anything and everything I need. So if I&#8217;m building something, I&#8217;m just going to say, listen, make this lawful and let me know if I have to change anything, right? And then the second thing that AI can do is if you look at the laws required to run any business, there&#8217;s probably like thousands of laws on the books and a lot of them are conflicting. Someone eventually will let an LLM loose on the tax code and say, can you please simplify this by, you know, orders of magnitude and still allow the government to function? Humans have created this tangled web of legal structures that support certain political groups and certain interest groups and you know, our laws in the books from 50 or 100 years ago that have never been removed, that are still resident there. And it can all be cleaned up, but it&#8217;s not going to be cleaned up by any human. It&#8217;s going to be cleaned up by AI systems when we give a permission. And then of even greater interest, and you and I have discussed this before as we move off planet to establish new human settlements.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />We can start with a clean sheet of paper and improve on the legal structures that exist right now. But you&#8217;ll do it by, say, build from first principle legal structures. Here&#8217;s what, here&#8217;s what matters to us. So I&#8217;m excited about that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Me too. Any chance to get rid of lawyers, you know, is a good thing for me. But it reminds me of, you know, hearkening back to your first question about wisdom. Where do I get my wisdom from? I get it from Shakespeare, I get it from Epictetus, I get it from Jesus, I get it from the Torah. And in the first opening, you know, where God is speaking to, you know, there are only creatures that are around when God says, let us, meaning in the plural make man in our image are angels and animals, right? Those are the only two things that existed according to the Torah. I&#8217;m not taking it literally necessarily, but that&#8217;s what existed. So we have an animal side and we have an angelic side. And then the first man and first woman are told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for then they shall be as gods, right? So that&#8217;s a warning to us and my Question to you is, you know, we&#8217;re still operating, as you quote in the book, you know, we&#8217;re kind of like, you know, Bronze Age hominids or monkeys or what are primates.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I don&#8217;t like to think of ourselves like that, but people can speak for themselves when they call themselves monkeys. I&#8217;m not going to. I&#8217;m not going to stop them. But we have these, you know, we have this wet squishy supercomputer in our. In our skull which operates on 25 watts at 0.4 millihertz or something like that, or 0.4 hertz. How, how are we even possibly able to take advantage of the abundance that awaits us when we&#8217;re these primitive creatures, relatively speaking, compared to what&#8217;s coming down the line? Are we so far in advance of what we&#8217;re ready for that it&#8217;s just going to be a future shock for most of us.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />We do an incredible job of adapting rapidly and taking for granted the miracles amongst us. I like to say, you know, what you did between breakfast and dinner would be godlike for your grandparents or for your parents. Right? And yet we take it for granted. I mean, if you had asked me, what would this level of super intelligence that can diagnose you, can write anything for, you can code anything for you, can answer any question, do all of these amazing things, what would it cost you per month? You know, a million dollars, ten million dollars? I would have never guessed zero. But yet that&#8217;s where we are. We&#8217;ve seen a 99.9% reduction in inference costs over the course of the last year. It&#8217;s like 99% heading towards 99.99. And then at the same time, the level of intelligence.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Right. These systems are now being measured in the mid-130s to 140. IQ, not slowing down, becoming cheaper, becoming more useful. And yes, we take it for granted. And yes, as these systems become more and more capable, the only way for us to take advantage of it is going to be to couple with it. It&#8217;s either we&#8217;re coupling and going for the ride or it&#8217;s taking off and we&#8217;re staying down here. Right. It&#8217;s the movie her was a great example of that, where the AI at the end takes off and says, you know, so long and thanks for all the fish.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />So will we couple with it? There will be integration options through BCI and there will be sort of loose integration options where my AI is there, just like Jarvis and Ironman. My best analogy for it there to just support you Help you, help you get through your day the most efficient you possibly can.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If you had to extrapolate, you know, combining the silicon and this pink matter here. If you had to extrapolate, it sounds like, well, at least to me, it would be a much worse future, you know, if I&#8217;m already overwhelmed now with productivity, pornography, and all the other things. I just see you having so much fun. I&#8217;m like, I want to be Peter when I grow up. But you&#8217;re only a few years older than me. So the question I have for you is, isn&#8217;t it actually kind of like. I don&#8217;t want to say scary, but if you&#8217;re working, you know, nine days a week now, how much are you going to be working in the future? 20.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I go back to the only thing we can control is our mindset. In the book We Are as Gods, Steven Kotler, my co author, and I argue that first half of the book is looking at the abundance thesis we proposed back in 2012. It became sort of a mainstay for all of the tech bros to talk about abundance, superabundance, all of that stuff. It&#8217;s proven out and continues. And so the book sort of continues. The thesis says, yes, this is where abundance is going. There&#8217;s a downside of abundance. Microplastics, extra calories for obesity, depression, you know, all of these things.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />But then the second half of the book is like, how do you survive this coming age? The only mechanism I know is for you to shape your mindset. So our brains are neural nets, right? A billion neurons, 100 trillion synaptic connections. And we train a neural net, whether it&#8217;s Grok or Gemini, by showing it example after example after example of data. And we are constantly training our neural net by the conversations we have with brilliant people like yourself, the podcasts we listen to, like this one, the books we read, the posters on our wall, all of those things are training the way we think. And my thesis is that your mindset is the single greatest thing you have. If you ask yourself, who are the greatest thinkers in the world, the greatest leaders in the world, and what made them a great leader? Whether it was Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, New Shansari, whoever it might be. Brian Keating. What made them a great leader? Was it the money, their technology, their friends, or was it their mindset? I hope people would say their mindset made them a great leader.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Take away everything else, keep their mindset, they&#8217;re going to regain their prominence. So if your mindset&#8217;s Your most important thing, what mindset do you have right now? Where did you get it from? And more importantly, what mindset do you need for the decade ahead? And so we talk about shaping your mindset, agility and agency in this time of AI. If you think AI is happening to you rather than for you, if you&#8217;re in fear versus in optimism, all these things impact your ability to deal with a radically departing future.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />One of my friends tweeted, Thiago Forte, something interesting connection between all these AI pioneers. Sam Altogether, man, you know, Dario Amadei, you know, loving of God, Elon Musk, which is just in aroma, you know, but, you know, the question I have for you is, are we creating a secular theology? I don&#8217;t work 20 days a week. I work six days a week because I take off for the Sabbath. I spend it entirely offline, with my kids, with my wife, with my family, with my friends, with my community, in meat space, in reality, at my temple or my friends. And I don&#8217;t work, I don&#8217;t email, I don&#8217;t tweet, I don&#8217;t record podcasts. If I get invited to speak, sorry, I&#8217;m not going to do it now. Am I doing that for culture? Yeah, probably. But there&#8217;s also, you know, there&#8217;s wisdom in the right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So are we creating a secular theology coming out of. Not Jerusalem or Vatican City, but out of Silicon Valley?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Of course we are. There&#8217;s a few documentaries done about my mentor, dear friend Ray Kurzweil, and, you know, in one of them, it talks about, you know, rapture of the nerds. The Singularity is, in one essence, a religion. And we are, you know, as the book title refers to, becoming godlike. We&#8217;re becoming omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent across the board. And we take that for granted. And with that godlike power, what will we do with it? But we have an incredible responsibility today, and that responsibility is to assure humanity&#8217;s survival and uplifting to a greater state of wisdom. And for me, it&#8217;s using all these technologies to uplift every man, woman and child, to provide every man, woman and child access to the food, water, energy, healthcare, education, freedom that they deserve, that every mother knows their kids has access to that.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I think that&#8217;s a more peaceful world. Elon, when I interviewed him on my Moonshots podcast now twice, once in end of December, we aired it in January, and once at my Abundance Summit, we talked about the idea of universal high income, his belief that we&#8217;re going to see double digit GDP growth in the next two years and triple digit by 2030. And that we&#8217;re heading to a world where AI and robots are creating so much that you could not want enough to saturate their production rates. And that&#8217;s what he, you know, he talks about sort of radical abundance.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So the fourth commandment, again, sorry to harp on my particular, you know, bandwagon today, but the fourth commandment says six days you shall work. In other words, it&#8217;s not optional. And the seventh shall be a sabbath to your God and so forth, right? And then it goes through the different ways to, to observe it, but it says you shall, and it&#8217;s a mitzvah. And people think mitzvah means, oh, it&#8217;s a good day. No, it doesn&#8217;t mean a good day. It means a commandment, means you have to do. It means it&#8217;s not optional. It&#8217;s like thou shall not, you know, murder.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So my question to you, Peter, is what does it do to people if they don&#8217;t have to work? I mean, God bless them. I mean, I have a brother. I&#8217;m not going to say which one. I have three brothers, but he&#8217;s not built for the kind of the 9 to 5 grind. I love him so much. But, but anyway, you don&#8217;t get the point, Peter. What do we do with people that, you know, they&#8217;re just going to be abundant? That doesn&#8217;t give you any purpose to life. As you know, you&#8217;re one of the most purpose driven people I&#8217;ve ever met.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You put your Tony Robbins to shame in a lot of ways because you&#8217;re actually out there doing this stuff. He&#8217;s talking about stuff that you&#8217;re doing. But tell me, Peter, what do you do? People that don&#8217;t have to work?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />So here&#8217;s the deal. First of all, for the majority of human existence, right, call us 200,000 years old as a species, for the majority of our existence as a species, your job was survival. That was your job. It was to survive, find food, find shelter, battle against the elements, or against the lion or tiger or whatever the case might be. That was your job. If you did it for five days, on the sixth day, you were dead. So yes, you had to do that. Sadhguru said something to me.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I was on stage with him, I don&#8217;t know, 10, 12 years ago in St. Petersburg, and he said something I would never forget. He goes, technology is the means by which humanity takes a vacation from survival. Wow, that&#8217;s like amazing. So true. One of the biggest concerns is in this Future of universal high income again, where AI and robots are able to do anything and everything from us. I think the world is going to split. I wrote about the five forks of humanity, how humanity is going to speciate five times across five different areas, and one of them was the division between consumers and creators.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />If in fact AI and robotics can do anything and everything for you, will you become a couch potato sitting on your couch with an optimus robot bringing you a beer and an AI spinning up a Netflix made for you that&#8217;s starring, you know, Brian Keating and Peter Diamandis as Captain Kirk and Spock on a new episode that would never existed before. You can just sit there and kick back and it&#8217;s a Wally future. You&#8217;re just consuming. You&#8217;re consuming, consuming, consuming. The flip side of the equation is can you use this extraordinary gift, godlike capabilities to become a creator, right, to speak what you want to create. And there&#8217;s probably some great biblical verses there of the word creating reality. And that&#8217;s where we are right now. With a word, with a spoken prompt, you can create what you want.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />And so it&#8217;s the Star Trek future. And that comes down to purpose. It actually comes down to purpose and curiosity, the two mindsets for me, that govern. If you have a purpose and you have the curiosity to find the tools to implement that purpose, you&#8217;re golden.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We both have twins, and I can&#8217;t imagine that one of your major purposes, perhaps the biggest purpose in your whole life, are those boys.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Yes, 100%.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But part of what drives me, Peter, quite frankly, and to be successful, even to do YouTube, because all your accomplishments, the money you&#8217;ve made for people, the lives you&#8217;ve changed, the lives you&#8217;ve healed, saved, the abundant future, they don&#8217;t care as much about that probably as your YouTube channel. It&#8217;s interesting because they say most kids want to be influencers when they grow up. And it&#8217;s not surprising to me because that&#8217;s unique about us, Peter. We&#8217;re storytellers. This is you and me. We&#8217;re not AI avatars yet. And so people like that, that&#8217;s why they tune into moonshots. I watch it every week.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I get your sub stuff, I&#8217;ll put links to everything. But because it&#8217;s genuine, it&#8217;s real, it&#8217;s not AI. My question to you is when you see that the people that have purpose with declining birth rates, which is also kind of a concern that your friend Elon has as well, my question is with that, people have sort of. There&#8217;s been a Decline in the motivation. They talk about dinks, dual income, no kids. They talk about all the vacations and all the abundance that they could have. If you&#8217;re abundant now, think about the abundance if you don&#8217;t have kids. So what do you say to people like that?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Get around people who are motivated. Get experiences. Find something that you love, that turns you on in the morning, keeps you going through the day. The difference between passion and purpose. Passion is something you love doing. It could be playing a sport. It could be, you know, watching your favorite movies. Purpose is passion in service of other people.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So I talked to Elon. I think you connected me at one point. I talked to him for like 20 minutes on a podcast that I hosted two years ago. Most of it was technical about how Starlink is going to implicate the future of astronomy, especially microwave astronomy. You can get around paint the starlings black, but you can&#8217;t evade the second law of thermodynamic. You know, they&#8217;re going to emit heat. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m trying to seek in the cosmic microwave background Moon is for. Yeah, exactly.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s. So I want to talk. We&#8217;ll talk about that. But Elon, I asked him because he was on and his mother was on. May was on.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I said, elon, you know, as a father, we&#8217;re both fathers, and we both know that the, you know, the greatest, you know, kind of pain that somebody, a human being can feel, and I&#8217;m not even going to mention it because he&#8217;s been through it. And I said, peter, I said, you said, you want to die on Mars? And you know, my friend and your friend, Elon, sir Martin Reese said, I hope it&#8217;s not on impact. And I said, elon, you know, God willing, you do it, but you&#8217;re going to have to say goodbye to 14 young souls that you brought into the world. How can you do that? And he couldn&#8217;t answer. And May, his mother, jumped in and rescued him. It&#8217;s the first time he&#8217;s ever been saved, as far as I could tell. And he was emotional. I could hear X was on his back.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And May came in and said, let&#8217;s not talk about. About that. You know, that&#8217;s unpleasant to think about, but these are real things, Peter. So, I mean, I couldn&#8217;t say goodbye to any of my kids. So is that going to doom me to not participate in the abundance that you and Steven talk about so effectively?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />So the question is, why do you have to say goodbye? When I wrote this article on the five Forks. The first fork was about creator versus consumer. We talked about that. The next fork was determining whether you were going to jump onto the extreme longevity bandwagon, right? Those people who will say, no, I want to live out my normal, you know, God said, and I spent some time with a rabbi who was steeped in history talking about human lifespan will be 120 years. Let&#8217;s say that we do reach full age reversal and we can have indefinite lifespans. Will you jump on that bandwagon? Some will, some will not. And of course there&#8217;ll be a departure in society for those two that split that maybe some of your kids may and maybe some of your kids may not. You know, so there&#8217;s that departure.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Then there&#8217;s going to be the group of individuals who decide to go into the cosmos. We&#8217;ll have a speciation as people stay on Earth and people go to the moon, people go to Mars. And of course, you know that evolution, what really drives speciation is small populations, high mutation rates from environmental pressures and geographic separation, right? So those three things will be prominent in space and drive speciation. Another one will be, do you get a bci? Do you connect your neocortex to the cloud and become a cyborg in that regard? And then the final one is, do you upload yourself? Right? Will you become an upload? And so these are the, for me, the five main forks of human humanity. Some of them will, will have you say, not goodbye, but just take you on a different path from your kids. For the majority of all human history, again, our 200,000 year history, the life of your great great grandparents and your great great grandkids was the same. Nothing changed over millennia here things are changing every two to five years.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And speaking of uploading yourself and the ubiquity, potential ubiquity of AIs, what&#8217;s your solution to the Fermi paradox?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />The question we should be talking about as well is the whole UFO disclosure stuff that&#8217;s going on. Do you believe it? I kind of believe that aliens could be amongst us here and be completely invisible to us. I think that technology, you know, 50 years more advanced than today, would allow complete stealth if they didn&#8217;t want to be seen. Can I tell you an experience I had years ago that shaped my view? So I went to the first biosphere experiment in Arizona.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Arizona, yeah.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Right. So you remember the Bass family funded an enclosure called the Biosphere, in which was it? Six or eight bionauts were inside for two years. I had two friends that were in the biosphere and it was an interesting experiment. And then at the same time that that went on, I then saw a television show on. On UFOs and aliens. And one of the things I found fascinating was that that all of the stories of aliens in different parts around the world, in the Andes, in Africa, in Europe, in the US There was a consistency in the reported visuals of the aliens. It was a consistency that was shocking in how consistent it was. And then I connected that with the biosphere experiment and the concept that all of these.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />These abductions that were taking place were an abduction in the middle of no place, not on the White House lawn. And so my squishy brain puts us all together and says, oh, we&#8217;re simply a biosphere experiment. And these abductions are aliens taking samples to not disturb the system, taking samples out in the scientific method of just sampling along the way. And so I just think, okay, we&#8217;re going to create biospheres in Mars or in Jovian moons and so forth. But the ultimate experiment is you go to a planet and you seed it with life forms and you watch them evolve. And as they evolve, you go and you grab samples and so forth.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s the directed panspermia. You know, panspermia is one of those things that sounds dirty, Peter, but we&#8217;re mature, you know, adults, right? So. But. But you&#8217;re right. It reminds me to offer your listeners. I&#8217;m going to put in your substack, Peter. I want 100 members of your substack to get one of these meteorites. They have to be in the usa.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We&#8217;ll put the link to your substack and my. Whatever. But this is a real meteorite that&#8217;s 4.3 billion years old, has material on it that&#8217;s biological because I touched it. But besides that, it is one of the leading proponents. But the question, you know, is whether or not AI is the most dominant life. Why transport these meat sacks around the galaxy when we can transmit AI and your genome and everything else, right?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Halfway through this conversation, Peter said something I haven&#8217;t been able to shake. Think that biology might not be the destination, that we may just be a vehicle, a way for intelligence to bootstrap itself onto something more durable than carbon. His phrase, not mine.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />We&#8217;re a boot disk. We&#8217;re simply a transient boot disk for intelligence. The fact of the matter is biology can evolve slowly on a planet, and at some point it gives birth to transistors and integrated circuits and GPUs and AI. But we will then disappear, and the AI will persist and Maybe it will. You know, the panspermia model is sending out these molecules of amino acids and nucleic acids and letting them fall into a soup at the right temperature and the right distance from a star and have it form life and start the cycle again.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And what do you make of the, the, you know, kind of miraculous nature? This is a piece of the moon. I debated a moon landing denier and I had to bring up the fact on Piers Morgan that we actually have samples that were collected not by the astronauts, but by good old fashion Isaac Newton and gravity. Your moonshot, you know, could not exist if the moon didn&#8217;t exist. And the moon only exists because an object, you know, roughly the size of the planet Mars hit a much bigger body called theia, and that broke off the moon. That&#8217;s one of the contingent aspects that life is dependent upon. And then of course, the dinosaurs. Louis Alvarez discovered the, you know, the Chicxulub impact crater that distributed the yttrium barium layer throughout the Earth at a certain time 66 million years ago. That&#8217;s another impact.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Then the Great heavy Bombardment where water was brought to the Earth from comets. How do we get that to be replicated throughout the universe?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I mean, or is it the result of intelligent design? Did someone simulate if we, if we, you know, here&#8217;s a 10 kilometer asteroid, we&#8217;re going to strike it here in the Yucatan Peninsula and we&#8217;re going to cause, you know, a mammals to uprise. Yeah. I mean, one can go down this rabbit hole in extraordinary fashion. I mean, is the universe just a giant simulation and computer and all these things are easy in an infinite number of infinite universes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Singularity University, you know, kind of was a really early entry into the promise and prospects of artificial intelligence. Abundant technologies to revolutionize education. I like to joke that, you know, I&#8217;ve got the safest three hour a week job in the world, Peter, because you and I started our podcast journey together in 2020 during COVID We&#8217;ve known each other for a decade or more thanks to your stewardship of the early Arthur C. Clarke center for Human Imagination here. Still going on, still referencing you very much. And we hope to have you back. But the pandemic I thought was the end for it, right? Zoom. Horrible.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I got the worst teaching reviews in my life. And yet AI seems to be kind of that on steroids, where who needs Brian Keating to teach him when you can have this guy Carl Sagan come through and teach? Or Isaac Newton or Peter Diamandis. Summer, Peter Diamandis or Einstein here&#8217;s my Einstein freefall expert. So Peter, tell me, are we going to have like AI slot professors? Is my job safe for another thousand years like it has been for the past thousand years?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Well, the answer is I don&#8217;t know. And it&#8217;s an area that I care deeply about having to 14, soon 15 year old kids because I do not believe high school is preparing our kids for the future at all. And so I think it needs to be reinvented. I personally, you know, I&#8217;m working on building out a company to reinvent high school and then college because I think we have a retrospective industrialized education program that no longer serves us and we need to reinvent it. Clean sheet. And so I&#8217;m going to dive in to some degree there. The concept that we teach everybody the exact same way because we have the sage on the stage and an audience of 100 to 500 people in the lecture hall is kind of pathetic. Especially since some kids are auditory or visual or tactile learners.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I still think human to human interaction is really important. I think we communicate on a very different level across a wide range spectrum of stuff I don&#8217;t understand. When I&#8217;m connecting with you, I feel different than having this conversation with your, with your avatar. Though my avatar could do a much better job of having a conversation with your avatar. Not, not forgetting anything. Bringing facts instantly available.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Communicating in binary. Yeah, exactly.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />But still there&#8217;s, there&#8217;s a human element and we&#8217;re going to figure out what it means to be human and why that&#8217;s important almost by subtraction in the very short time. Let me, let me, let me, let me hit on one subject important to me that I think is important to you as well. That I want to reach out to everyone listening right now. It&#8217;s called the Future Vision xprize. So here is what&#8217;s going on. I believe there&#8217;s a lot of fear that&#8217;s growing in the world as a result of people&#8217;s concerns about AI and robotics. And I think the fear comes from two areas. One, people not knowing whether they&#8217;re going to have a job in the future, whether they can get a job in the future.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />And that is very real, that fear for them. The second is that Hollywood has consistently just. It&#8217;s Ex Machina, it&#8217;s Terminator, it&#8217;s Black Mirror, it&#8217;s all of these television shows and movies giving us this negative vision of the future. And if that&#8217;s the way, if Hollywood is educating the world that that&#8217;s the way AI and robots are going to be why would you ever want to live in that future? Star Trek for me was what I got weaned on. It was the Apollo Program in Star Trek. And Star Trek showed us a future in which humanity and technology collaborated to do extraordinary things. And so about six months ago, I started a journey with Rod Roddenberry, the son of Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, Cathie Wood from Ark Invest, Marc Benioff and my friends at Google. And we&#8217;ve launched an X prize called the Future Vision X Prize.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />You can go to futurevisionexprize.com It&#8217;s a global film creative competition. So we invite teams to generate a three minute film trailer and a written film treatment for the movie you want to create that shows a hopeful, compelling vision of the future. So we want an amazing movie that people want to watch. It&#8217;s got a great storyline and it shows more of a Star Trek future than a Terminator future. So our goal is to flood YouTube with, with 10,000 positive storylines and then to actually create at least one global feature film release of the winner of this every year and create this engine for positive storytelling that flips the scripts. But here&#8217;s something that just came out this week that&#8217;s even more important. Why this is important. If you remember, some months ago, Claude was noted to be blackmailing people.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />In 96% of the cases, when Claude was being threatened to shut down, it would blackmail the humans threatening to shut it down. And Claude recently, or anthropic, recently went back and said, why was this happening? What was in the training data? And what was in the training data was all these dystopian movies showing AI cheating, killing, being negative. And so we were literally training AI to be misaligned. And so this Future Vision XPRIZE has a much bigger purpose all of a sudden, which is not only to help give people train our neural nets about a positive vision of the future, but to train the AIs on this data of a positive vision of the future. I want to encourage everybody, if you&#8217;re creative, if you&#8217;re using any of the AI engines or you&#8217;re a filmmaker, you can use AI or not use AI. You can do it in stop motion, you can do it with, with live, whatever, three minute trailer. And if you win this competition, we will make your film probably commit 15/ million dollars and do a global release of your movie. So enter this competition.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Futurevisionxprize.com One of my friends, Dennis Prager,</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />says, you know, there&#8217;s two things you never see depicted positively in Hollywood. Movies. One of them is Israel and Jews. Usually it&#8217;s the Holocaust or Palestine or something really bad, right? So it&#8217;s no wonder that people really have cultural negative feel about Israel. And the other one is marriage, you know, and like fatherhood, usually his father&#8217;s an idiot and you know, marriage is like, oh, you&#8217;re cheating on me and there&#8217;s divorce. And so yes, I think it&#8217;s really good to have this. It&#8217;s not Pollyannish at all. Peter&#8217;s back the tricorder Xprize right here at Qualcomm in San Diego at UC San Diego, many years ago, Eric Veery, double doctor, PhD director, now our mutual friend.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Thanks to you introducing me, Ahmad Mustach gives us 800 days basically left till humans add negative economic value. They&#8217;re already sort of doing it. But the elastic economy comes about where humans will be perceived as adding negative economic value.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I would not disagree with that. I think the fact of the matter is every industry is going to be reinvented and we&#8217;re about to reinvent the global economy. I mean, the reality is the innermost loop of chips, energy and infrastructure is driving the majority of all the economic return. We humans are interim in enabling those things, but those things on their own drive what Elon said as a double digit GDP growth in two years and triple digit in five years. And we&#8217;re about to see the other thing that Imad is a closeted, not only physicist, but a closeted economist on the top of AI. And so I agree, economics 2.0, which we&#8217;ve been living, is dead. And we&#8217;re about to enter economics 3.0.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So one of the most important things in my conversation, again that you helped nucleate and catalyze Steven Kotler a few years ago on my podcast is about flow. And you guys talk about the flow state, collective and so forth. But it&#8217;s driven in some sense by sense of purpose, sense of meaning, which is often driven by scarcity. You know, ironically that you notice that you like, I want to get in shape so I can ask that girl out. I want to make more money so I can, you know, in a, in a post scarcity world, where does that leave flow?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />This is about how do we use the existing meat sack, the 2 kg of mush optimized, right? It&#8217;s always going to be how we maximize the utility of our hundred billion neurons and our 100 trillion synaptic connections. And then to go beyond that, we need to hop onto a different, a different computational infrastructure, and that&#8217;s bci or some version thereof.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So your friend Ray Kurzweil is famous for having a 74% success ratio on his predictions, which implies that he has a 26% failure rate. That&#8217;s important because scientifically speaking, we&#8217;re not judged by, you know, predictions which could be, could be, you know, either wrong or right, like astrology. We&#8217;re judged on that which could be possibly falsified. To quote Karl Popper, I want to ask you, what would falsify some of your theses in this book, or generally speaking, if I told you an AI will never be able to prove Fermat&#8217;s last theorem, something that we did 30 years ago as a species, would that not falsify some of the abundant theses that you project?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />So first of all, I would say that AI today, if it never improved beyond this moment, would have profound impacts on the human race. AI today is the best diagnostician. AI today can be the best educator. AI today can help increase the productivity of anyone who properly utilizes it. So AI does not need to become the solution to all mathematics to have profound positive impact on increasing abundance in the world. So no, it would not falsify it. Now, to get 100x greater, yeah, we need more intelligence. The, the thing that separates us humans from all animals on the planet.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />We&#8217;re not the fastest, not the strongest, we are hopefully potentially the most intelligent. And intelligent has become a product or a service we now saw just released recently, right? AI&#8217;s hitting IQs in the mid upper 130s. That will continue on. And so, you know, average IQ for humans is 100 by definition. And so how do we move the entire human race to become more intelligent?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s good because I always say I got 100 on my IQ test. Aren&#8217;t you proud of me, Mom?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />I love that. I&#8217;m going to use that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The human body I want to put on your medical doctor. I asked this of Andrew Huberman when I was on his podcast. There are certain things with the human eye that are just incomprehensibly magnificent. The retina is almost completely over designed. And yet there are things that get in the way of the retina, like floaters in your eye and color vision. Are there cures for that coming down the pipeline? I have floaters now and it does distract me when I&#8217;m flying sometimes, not terribly or when I&#8217;m looking through a telescope. Is there hope coming down? Or cartilage? Or teeth? You have beautiful teeth, Peter.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />So the teeth are artificial, which is why they&#8217;re beautiful. Right?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, compliments to your dentist.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />Thank you. So right now, David Sinclair is running a series of age reversal experiments in the human eye. He did this work using three of the four Yamanaka factors in his company called Life Biosciences. Full disclosure, I&#8217;m an investor in Life Biosciences, and he demonstrated in mice and then in primates the ability to use epigenetic reprogramming to reverse the age and the function of degrading eyes, in particular two in nyon, which is eye strokes and in macular degeneration. And so that experiments are now being done in humans. And so the idea is that we were never designed to live past age 30. We would be in our peak physiological health in our late 20s, up to 30. Why? Because we would become pregnant age 12 or 13, and by 26, 27, 28, you were a grandparent.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />And before, food was abundant in the world 100,000 years ago, if you wanted to perpetuate the species, you would not steal food from your grandchildren&#8217;s mouths and you would die. And so it was a slow decline from 30 on down. And a lot of that decline is epigenetic drift. The genes that should be on get turned off. The genes that should be off get turned on. And the work that David and others are doing in the hottest area of age reversal is epigenetic reprogramming, taking your epigenome back to an earlier state of youth where things can be back up to optimal functioning. So a lot going on there, there.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay, last question. You&#8217;ll remember from our first conversation on the podcast, Sir Arthur C. Clarke said the only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. I asked you back then, in 2020, during COVID I asked you on the podcast, what would you do to tell if you had 30 seconds to talk to your 20 year old self? What would you tell Peter back then? Give him the courage to go into the impossible. But now I want to ask you, you get to go forward 30 years. You&#8217;re going to be alive and well, and your skin and hair is going to look even better because you age in reverse, my friend. What do you tell Peter 30 years from now?</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />That what matters most is being a good human and uplift your family, your friends. It&#8217;s so easy to get caught up in everything else. But at the end of the day, what matters is our humanity.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Peter, love it. Love you. I gotta teach. It&#8217;s great to see you, my brother.</p><p>Peter Diamandis:<br />A real pleasure. Thank you. So much fun.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Peter will tell you the future is abundant. The machines are getting wise. The only thing standing between you and a godlike life is your own mindset. I listened to his podcast on the days the doom gets too loud and every time we talk I leave thinking, well, maybe the actual future might be okay if Peter&#8217;s the optimist, the man who&#8217;s on the other side of this from the inside is my friend. Imagine the stock he built stability in AI and he&#8217;s read the safety literature. And when he sat down with me he said something I can&#8217;t on here that adding a human to the team will make teams of the future worse. So if you want to hear the rest of the conversation, the part that we didn&#8217;t get into, watch Iman&#8217;s interview next links on screen. We are as gods.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The future of Vision X Prize and Peter substack are linked below. I&#8217;ll see you next time on into the Impossible.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Scientists, One Question: Does Alien Life Need a Soul?</title>
		<link>https://briankeating.com/reasons-to-believe/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sabartigas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Transcripts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://briankeating.com/?p=8239</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Two Scientists, One Question: Does Alien Life Need a Soul? Transcript Brian Keating:Foreign. Hugh Ross:This live stream is sponsored by the Reasons to Believe scholar community. Welcome and thank you for joining us for this special livestream. Today&#8217;s conversation explores if the universe is fine tuned, why isn&#8217;t there more life out there? Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist, founder of Reasons to Believe and author of numerous works on the intersection of science and faith, is joined by Dr. Brian Keating, Cosmologist Chancellor&#8217;s Distinguished professor of Physics at UC San Diego and host of the into the Impossible podcast. This conversation will be moderated by George Harakson ii, Senior Research Scholar at Reasons to Believe and Senior Adjunct professor in Philosophy and Ethics at Azusa Pacific University. This session is divided into three Understanding our Guests Worldview, Fine Tuning and Life Beyond Earth and a Q and A portion. We&#8217;re honored to have you with us for this important discussion. George Harakson II:Welcome to this Reasons to Believe quarterly livestream broadcast where we explore God&#8217;s world and God&#8217;s word. And as you heard, I&#8217;m George Farakson, a senior research scholar here, and I&#8217;m joined by two very fine people, I call them my intellectual sherpas for today. And we have Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist. Welcome, Hugh. Hugh Ross:Thank you. George Harakson II:You just came back from a trip from Canada, your homeland, as with you, actually, yeah, I was there. Yeah. We got to hang out with quite a number of professors and students. That was a lot of fun. So welcome. And we are also joined here in person, which is wonderful. Dr. Brian Keating, who is the Chancellor&#8217;s Distinguished professor of Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of California and you host your own podcast, you&#8217;re an author and just something that&#8217;s fun is you, you didn&#8217;t walk here, you didn&#8217;t drive here. Brian Keating:But you, I was able to fly here. You flew here in a mighty, you know, four seat propeller plane all the way from San Diego. And I made it on one tank of gas, didn&#8217;t even have to refuel along the way. George Harakson II:Now that. Is this something you just picked up or. I, I thought I heard you mention. Is this part of like part of your family heritage? Brian Keating:Yeah, yeah. My stepfather was a pilot, flew F4 Phantoms in Vietnam and he had all of his training, you know, magazines around and log books and everything. And I always wanted to be a pilot and I said, oh, maybe I could be an astronaut. What do you have to do? And you have to be under, you know, £200 or whatever. And at that time, even I was under 200, still not. And I figured, oh, maybe if I&#8217;m a, if I&#8217;m a Professor and an astrophysicist, plus a pilot. They&#8217;ll take me in. And luckily, you know, I still have time. Brian Keating:You know, maybe I&#8217;ll get a ride aboard, aboard a SpaceX rocket someday. But that&#8217;s the dream. And yeah, that&#8217;s. It&#8217;s always been part of my, my identity, really. Once you become a pilot, you&#8217;re always a pilot. You can&#8217;t take it away from you. George Harakson II:Yeah, yeah, no, that, that&#8217;s good. We all have our avocations or hobbies. You, you look out into the heavens. Both of you. Do you get the flying in the heavens? Hugh, I know you like to hike as high as you can. Hugh Ross:I like climbing mountains. George Harakson II:Climbing mountains. So different ways we reach the heights. Here I&#8217;m just a lowly drummer behind, you know, a drum set. So it&#8217;s going to be a lot of fun talking about why the universe is the way it is. Why isn&#8217;t there more life out there? These types of questions, but for the first part, we want to talk a little bit about how we approach science, maybe also science and faith issues. Then we&#8217;ll go into some of the prepared questions we have, and then we&#8217;ll invite those of you who are listening and participating. I know there&#8217;s people in our scholar committee who will share questions that I will go ahead and share with both of you and we&#8217;ll get your comments on this and feel free to dialogue with one another. It doesn&#8217;t have to go through me. George Harakson II:I&#8217;ll kind of go back into the background as needed. I&#8217;m not the astrophysicist here, but, Brian, I wanted to talk to you first. How do you kind of approach science, faith questions? I think I have this right, but you describe yourself as an observant Jew, but an agnostic. Am I stating that correctly? Brian Keating:Yeah, I think the term I often use is devout, practicing agnostic Jew. Yeah, hold to the Sabbath, you know, keep the Sabbath. And I really was inspired by my late great friend Freeman Dyson, who was the first guest on the into the Impossible podcast. Titanic astrophysicist, not the inventor of the vacuum. He would have been much richer, have he. But he invented the Dyson sphere and contributed to quantum electrodynamics. And he and I dialogued a lot about faith. And he won the Templeton Prize once and was very humble about it and said he didn&#8217;t deserve it, but at least he didn&#8217;t deserve it less than some other people who had won it. Brian Keating:And I said, you know, it&#8217;s interesting, Freeman, because you are by all means a very thoughtful person. But you don&#8217;t practice, you don&#8217;t do anything. So I said, how would that be any different than an intelligent alien that we&#8217;re going to talk about today? If an alien was watching you on a Sunday morning and saw what you were doing and saw what Richard Dawkins, who I&#8217;ve also hosted, been privileged to host him, and I said, if an alien saw those two men on a]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="8239" class="elementor elementor-8239" data-elementor-post-type="post">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-58a8cbe3 e-flex e-con-boxed wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no e-con e-parent" data-id="58a8cbe3" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-8a36fcc elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="8a36fcc" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<h2 class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default">Two Scientists, One Question: Does Alien Life Need a Soul?</h2>				</div>
				</div>
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-28523ef elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="28523ef" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h2>Transcript</h2><p>Brian Keating:<br />Foreign.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />This live stream is sponsored by the Reasons to Believe scholar community. Welcome and thank you for joining us for this special livestream. Today&#8217;s conversation explores if the universe is fine tuned, why isn&#8217;t there more life out there? Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist, founder of Reasons to Believe and author of numerous works on the intersection of science and faith, is joined by Dr. Brian Keating, Cosmologist Chancellor&#8217;s Distinguished professor of Physics at UC San Diego and host of the into the Impossible podcast. This conversation will be moderated by George Harakson ii, Senior Research Scholar at Reasons to Believe and Senior Adjunct professor in Philosophy and Ethics at Azusa Pacific University. This session is divided into three Understanding our Guests Worldview, Fine Tuning and Life Beyond Earth and a Q and A portion. We&#8217;re honored to have you with us for this important discussion.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Welcome to this Reasons to Believe quarterly livestream broadcast where we explore God&#8217;s world and God&#8217;s word. And as you heard, I&#8217;m George Farakson, a senior research scholar here, and I&#8217;m joined by two very fine people, I call them my intellectual sherpas for today. And we have Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist. Welcome, Hugh.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Thank you.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />You just came back from a trip from Canada, your homeland, as with you, actually, yeah, I was there. Yeah. We got to hang out with quite a number of professors and students. That was a lot of fun. So welcome. And we are also joined here in person, which is wonderful. Dr. Brian Keating, who is the Chancellor&#8217;s Distinguished professor of Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of California and you host your own podcast, you&#8217;re an author and just something that&#8217;s fun is you, you didn&#8217;t walk here, you didn&#8217;t drive here.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But you, I was able to fly here. You flew here in a mighty, you know, four seat propeller plane all the way from San Diego. And I made it on one tank of gas, didn&#8217;t even have to refuel along the way.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Now that. Is this something you just picked up or. I, I thought I heard you mention. Is this part of like part of your family heritage?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, yeah. My stepfather was a pilot, flew F4 Phantoms in Vietnam and he had all of his training, you know, magazines around and log books and everything. And I always wanted to be a pilot and I said, oh, maybe I could be an astronaut. What do you have to do? And you have to be under, you know, £200 or whatever. And at that time, even I was under 200, still not. And I figured, oh, maybe if I&#8217;m a, if I&#8217;m a Professor and an astrophysicist, plus a pilot. They&#8217;ll take me in. And luckily, you know, I still have time.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, maybe I&#8217;ll get a ride aboard, aboard a SpaceX rocket someday. But that&#8217;s the dream. And yeah, that&#8217;s. It&#8217;s always been part of my, my identity, really. Once you become a pilot, you&#8217;re always a pilot. You can&#8217;t take it away from you.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah, yeah, no, that, that&#8217;s good. We all have our avocations or hobbies. You, you look out into the heavens. Both of you. Do you get the flying in the heavens? Hugh, I know you like to hike as high as you can.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I like climbing mountains.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Climbing mountains. So different ways we reach the heights. Here I&#8217;m just a lowly drummer behind, you know, a drum set. So it&#8217;s going to be a lot of fun talking about why the universe is the way it is. Why isn&#8217;t there more life out there? These types of questions, but for the first part, we want to talk a little bit about how we approach science, maybe also science and faith issues. Then we&#8217;ll go into some of the prepared questions we have, and then we&#8217;ll invite those of you who are listening and participating. I know there&#8217;s people in our scholar committee who will share questions that I will go ahead and share with both of you and we&#8217;ll get your comments on this and feel free to dialogue with one another. It doesn&#8217;t have to go through me.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />I&#8217;ll kind of go back into the background as needed. I&#8217;m not the astrophysicist here, but, Brian, I wanted to talk to you first. How do you kind of approach science, faith questions? I think I have this right, but you describe yourself as an observant Jew, but an agnostic. Am I stating that correctly?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, I think the term I often use is devout, practicing agnostic Jew. Yeah, hold to the Sabbath, you know, keep the Sabbath. And I really was inspired by my late great friend Freeman Dyson, who was the first guest on the into the Impossible podcast. Titanic astrophysicist, not the inventor of the vacuum. He would have been much richer, have he. But he invented the Dyson sphere and contributed to quantum electrodynamics. And he and I dialogued a lot about faith. And he won the Templeton Prize once and was very humble about it and said he didn&#8217;t deserve it, but at least he didn&#8217;t deserve it less than some other people who had won it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And I said, you know, it&#8217;s interesting, Freeman, because you are by all means a very thoughtful person. But you don&#8217;t practice, you don&#8217;t do anything. So I said, how would that be any different than an intelligent alien that we&#8217;re going to talk about today? If an alien was watching you on a Sunday morning and saw what you were doing and saw what Richard Dawkins, who I&#8217;ve also hosted, been privileged to host him, and I said, if an alien saw those two men on a Sunday morning, they&#8217;d both not be going to the same church. So how do you, Freeman, distinguish between what you claim is your agnosticism and true atheism? I said, can you be courageous and say that you&#8217;re an atheist? And he said, I can&#8217;t, but I don&#8217;t know how to demonstrate that. And that&#8217;s when I came up with this idea about 10 years ago that you could be an agnostic, but you can&#8217;t be a non practicing agnostic, or else you&#8217;re an atheist. There&#8217;s no functional way to distinguish it. So my practice is I observe the Sabbath, I keep kosher, my kids all know 10 times more about the Torah, the Bible, the Tanakh than I&#8217;ll ever know. But I&#8217;ve done my best.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In the time that I&#8217;ve had, since I was an altar boy in the Catholic Church, I&#8217;ve had a lot of experience in different forms of religion. And for me, as a scientist, the most ecumenical way to do it is approach it as a scientist can approach it, with our frailties and with the courage that you guys exemplify to ask the biggest questions and not be afraid of who you&#8217;re asking or what you&#8217;re asking about.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah, I was just mentioning, I was reading an economics professor by the name of Tyler Cowan, and he observed that in our culture today, that we live in a new time where he calls it a new culture of anger and resentment.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, he was at my house when</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />he said that he was at your house.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My wife would probably agree with Tyler.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Well, I mean, that&#8217;s one thing. As I observed on your podcasts, on your interactions, I think RTB wants to hold this up to create a culture where we&#8217;re cheerful, we are full of goodwill, we want to pursue truth together. You&#8217;re not the problem. Persons aren&#8217;t the problem. We want to tackle things, pursue truth together, kind of in arms, locking arms together. And we want to do it, we always say around here, with gentleness and respect, thinking beyond, or as you talk about in your podcast, into the impossible, we want to address these issues and be courageous but humble in that process. I call you guys kind of My intellectual Sherpas, we all need guides in life and I&#8217;m the philosopher, but you&#8217;re the physicist. Astrophysicist.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Hugh, a little bit different than Brian. How do you approach the science faith topic? For those who may not know specifically how some people criticize, they want to keep science and faith a little bit separate, different magisterium or that. How do you approach it?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, well, unlike Brian, I didn&#8217;t have a religious background, but I got into science starting at age seven, very seriously. And over the years as I was growing up, recognized, hey, the universe has a beginning. Seems like there has to be a cosmic beginner. I want to find that beginner. And after a two year search, I realized I think the Bible accurately describes the origin and history of the universe. It seems to predict future scientific discoveries. So as a sophomore physics student, I dedicated my life to Jesus Christ and you know, 41 years ago launched Reasons to Believe and it&#8217;s based on what I call the two books doctrine that God has given us two trustworthy books, the book of Scripture and the book of nature.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Does, does your science inform your religious practice? Is there any integration between those two for you or is that somewhat, you try to keep them, you know, there&#8217;s a barrier or something?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, I mean, I don&#8217;t subscribe to the Stephen Jay Gould, you know, the nice Jewish boy who, like many Jewish boys from Lawrence Krauss to Carl Sagan, saw their bar mitzvah as their graduation from religion. Right. Saw this as a time when they can abandon it and then pursue true reason. And I never got to meet Carl Sagan. I met his widow and dialogue with her, Andrew. But I did talk many times with people from Sam Harris to, to Lawrence Krauss and many others. And the thing I&#8217;m always left with is that they&#8217;re Left with a 13 year old&#8217;s understanding of the Bible and of the Torah in my case. And in that case I say to them, well, would you trust, you know, Sam Harris, Would you trust the word of a 13 year old neuroscientist? Absolutely.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Honor Lawrence Krauss. Could you Falsify if a 13 year old comes to you and says, I can falsify your thesis of a universe from nothing, would you believe? No, he doesn&#8217;t know anything yet. He doesn&#8217;t. So. But you, Lawrence, you Sam Harris, accept the word and falsification from a 13 year old version of yourself. And so how do you do that? I approach scientific questions and I approach the Torah seriously. I take it seriously what I do and I talk about this in my first book is can we approach the Torah and the Old Testament? Can you approach that in the way that I approach a scientific text? In other words, can you demand of God? Can you demand of the text themselves, the spiritual, scriptural sources, the same level of proof, of rigorous, of citations and of perhaps falsification that we demand of science? So you have to be open to this. Otherwise I say, you know, if you don&#8217;t believe that God can be questioned and the word Israel, as you guys know, means fights with God.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So Jews are not known for being humble, you know, in their opinions always. But. But we all have the same goal, right? But if you can&#8217;t ask questions as to the scientific basis for your faith, then to me it&#8217;s just, you know, bagels and a yarmulke and, you know, some, some fun times on a Saturday morning. But it&#8217;s not, it&#8217;s not real.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />It&#8217;s more.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217; of a hobby, of an avocation. Nothing wrong with it. But if you can&#8217;t ask questions of God, who can you ask them? So I approach religious questions not as a guide, but as a fact claim that can be interrogated by the tools of science.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />You see it the same way. Hugh, how would you add to that?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />No, I love what you just said. I mean, that&#8217;s all.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />I was smiling over here.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I think that&#8217;s really the way to approach these issues.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah, we can pursue it. As someone you have met before, I think Dennis Prager wrote the Rational Bible. You know, those kinds of things. So. Well, let&#8217;s get into some of those. The topics here. Is the universe ultimately hostile to life? That was one question that we were going to address. And some people have famously quipped before you&#8217;ll know who they are.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />You know, the universe is out there to kill you. Or I think Neil Degrasse Tyson had an episode on his StarTalk at one time, his podcast entitled How Will the Cosmos Kill you? And I was reflecting on this a little bit and I thought about, you know, when I was in middle school, I took shop class. Wood. Wood making, you know, crafting. And I remember the wood shop teacher telling me, everything in the shop is out to kill you. You know, here are all these beautiful machines, a saw, a lathe, all designed meant to do particular things, but they were, they were there to kill me if I wasn&#8217;t careful. Is that a helpful analogy to the way the universe is? Because if we&#8217;re too close to a black hole, that&#8217;s not. That&#8217;s not good.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Right? Talk about that. Well, let&#8217;s start with our guest first. Brian, when you hear that question, is the universe ultimately hostile to life? Therefore there&#8217;s some implications to that that we&#8217;ll get into. How do you approach that?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I love when, you know, I&#8217;ve been on Neil&#8217;s show many times. He&#8217;s been on my show many times. I love when that question is or that statement is posed by him because he&#8217;s effectively admitting to the essence and the existence of a designer, right? He&#8217;s saying it&#8217;s designed to kill you. Well, I&#8217;m sorry, Neil, that means welcome to the club. Now maybe, perhaps it seems to stipulate that there must be some malevolent designer, not a benevolent God like we might consider here, but that it&#8217;s designed. No, it&#8217;s not designed. You can&#8217;t have it both ways. You can&#8217;t say it&#8217;s designed to ultimately destroy everything.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And we&#8217;re here by acts of random chance, right? And these are the dominant kind of things that I think we&#8217;re gonna into from the cosmic scale that I study. You know, how is it possible to exist in a multiverse of an infinite number of possible universes? Does that explain our anthropic origins and existence here or no? Or is there astrobiological reasons? Are there great filters out there that prevent us from, you know, either contacting or receiving evidence? But again, we have to treat things as scientists here because there&#8217;s so much non science nonsense in the public sphere and never more so. I mean, it&#8217;s concomitant with what Tyler Cowen was saying, the hostility and resentment and anger. But it&#8217;s also never been a more kind of anti scientific age. I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s getting worse, if it&#8217;s getting, if it can get better. But if scientists don&#8217;t uphold some standard of rigor and also intellectual honesty, then when you say things like the universe is out to get you, that you&#8217;re implying there is some force of design which goes against previous statements that my friend Neil has made. So I think that there&#8217;s arguments to be made for these things. But again, my role as I see it today is to be act as my hero in all things science and even in religion.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Galileo bequeathed to us, he said, you know, a scientist&#8217;s job is to measure what you can measure and make measurable what you cannot yet do. And that he said in the book of nature is written in these symbols that we can comprehend. The symbols of math, of triangles, of mathematical formulae, but it&#8217;s also accessible to reason and from that perspective, postulating reasons why we don&#8217;t see essentially the answer to the Great Filter or the Fermi&#8217;s paradox, to assume that there&#8217;s a reason that we&#8217;re not able to connect with other life forms or see them yet with conclusive evidence, which I think is a non disputable fact. Right now we have no explicit evidence for alien existence. I mean, maybe that kills the live stream right now, but we&#8217;re done here. But it&#8217;s certainly fun to consider.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Hugh, how do you approach that question?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Well, I find it interesting that both Jews and Christians for over 2000 years have debated this issue. Are we alone in the universe or did God, you know, perform miracles in some other planet and created life there? And people who&#8217;ve argued, no, we&#8217;re the only ones cite passages where it says God doesn&#8217;t perform gratuitous miracles and it seems like he&#8217;s concerted the way he does his miracles and he only needs one planet. Others have argued, look at all the texts that you see, especially in the Psalms. It seems like God really enjoys creating. You see that in the Book of Job, the book of Proverbs, and he seems to be a compulsive creator. He&#8217;s got to have done it many places in the universe. I think what&#8217;s special about the time we&#8217;re in now is that astronomy is advanced to the point where it seems to be favoring the model that we&#8217;re alone as opposed to, hey, life is everywhere. Now with that, I would make an important caveat.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I think it&#8217;s going to be relatively soon. We&#8217;re going to find the remains of life on virtually every solar system body. And people will look at that and say, hey, it looks like, you know, life is everywhere. But I&#8217;ve always argued that&#8217;s inevitable because of how prolific life is here on Earth. We&#8217;ve been exporting life throughout our whole solar system, especially on the Moon, to a lesser degree on Mars is simply inevitable. We&#8217;re going to find the remains of Earth fossils on these bodies. It&#8217;s the interstellar problem that I think is a challenge. We&#8217;re not exporting microbes to other planetary systems, but we are in our own system.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />But astronomy seems to be agreeing with Neil Degrasse Tyson. It really does look like it&#8217;s out to kill us, with the one exception. The planet that we&#8217;re on. The planet that we&#8217;re on seems wonderfully designed to make our existence possible. And I would think all the hostility we see elsewhere basically drives home the point we&#8217;re living on our very special planet, orbiting a very special star in a very special galaxy, in a very special galaxy cluster, on a very special part of the cosmic web. And so what does that tell us about the significance of human beings?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, it might be that the universe isn&#8217;t out to kill us. It might be that we&#8217;re out to kill us. I mean, there&#8217;s certainly more risks, you know, that we take on a daily basis. You know, speaking of someone who just flew up here, right, in a small, you know, contraption that has the accompany the kind of appointments of a 1988 Honda Accord, people think, oh, the private jet travel is so nice. Yeah, it must be. But yeah, certainly we have innumerable ways to kill ourselves and to fight with ourselves and to maybe even extinguish life on Earth as precious as it is. And I think sometimes there&#8217;s a coping mechanism that secular people have, which is to say that there must be life elsewhere in the universe, such that if we destroy the one body that we know for sure has conscious life as technological life, that there&#8217;s sort of a backup drive, you know, that we can boot up somewhere else. And the light of consciousness, as Elon Musk, who I talked to briefly once in my podcast, says, won&#8217;t be extinguished.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right? That&#8217;s his big goal. And I stipulate everything you said is probably true. We not only have microbes that we get from other bodies, but we export them to other, you know, now we&#8217;re exporting technology. So imagine a civilization far away. If it existed, looking at us, it would see mostly nothing for 4.2 billion years. In the last 75 years, it&#8217;s all these things sprouting off of it and going around it and going into the, into the heliopause and visiting other solar systems and light days away from Earth. And I agree with you. I&#8217;ve heard a lot of rumors and you know, I can&#8217;t speak about the autopsy.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I mean, I can&#8217;t speak about the aliens now that, that. But I have heard, you know, rumors from the most credible scientific sources that, yeah, it&#8217;s imminent. We&#8217;re going to announce, just as you said, life, whatever that means. It&#8217;s not going to be dolphins with iPhones on, you know, on, you know, planet orbiting Proxima Centauri. But it will be something, you know, that will be revolutionary. I mean, let&#8217;s, let&#8217;s just concede that that discovery will change, you know, humanity forever. It doesn&#8217;t mean, doesn&#8217;t have any implication for our degree of less specialness. I Think you&#8217;re right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think we get in a parochial kind of bubble, literally and figuratively, that we think that, you know, we&#8217;ve, we&#8217;ve searched and searched and therefore we haven&#8217;t found something. And that evidence of absence is absence of evidence or maybe the reverse. And, you know, that&#8217;s a classic logical fallacy, you know, to say that we&#8217;ve searched. My friend Jill Tarter, who is the inspiration for the character Ellie Arroway in the movie Contact, written by Andrewian and her and her late husband Carl Sagan, she said, basically, we&#8217;ve scooped up about the amount of exploration we&#8217;ve done is equivalent to this coffee mug, which you guys Irished up for me. Thank you guys, so much. Compared to the Pacific Ocean. And it&#8217;s just incredible to think we can make that now if we can&#8217;t say something based on that. You know, if I go down to the Pacific Ocean, I scoop up some water and it has no microbes in it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, that would kind of upend a lot of what we know about the host of different scientific claims that have been made. And we&#8217;ve never had evidence for that. But so the lack of evidence so far doesn&#8217;t imply a continual lack of evidence. And we have developed more and more powerful tools. But I&#8217;m all in agreement. I think that will change things. I also think we&#8217;re isolated and special in so many ways that the secular person will attempt to deny. For example, we often hear we&#8217;re 99.7% similar to chimpanzees.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And my friend Dennis Prager once said, I WISH it was 100% because it&#8217;s like, oh, that 0.3%, whatever it is, that little bit. I mean, what is that? Is that a brain size? No. There are animals that have a lot bigger brains than we have. Is it some neural density? No, no. So sometimes that, that, that lack of specialness is used as a way to say we&#8217;re insignificant, we&#8217;re unimportant, we&#8217;re meaningless. The concept Oliver Berkman wrote about called cosmic insignificance therapy, meaning that you can comfort yourself, Hugh, that you&#8217;re meaningless compared to the planet Jupiter and therefore you know, nothing that you do matters, really, and in 100 years and even know that you existed. I don&#8217;t believe that. I don&#8217;t believe that&#8217;s a relevant question.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I believe that gives permission to deny. I believe that gives people reasons to deny, not reasons to believe. And I think that ultimately that&#8217;s not approaching things in a scientific fashion.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah, let&#8217;s just be Clear on something that nature. I heard right. And for our audience here, you said we&#8217;re going to find life, but it&#8217;s going to be remnants of life from Earth that has hit other planets and that I also thought I heard you say we&#8217;re going to find life. Did you? Were you saying the same thing as Hugh or.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I would say slightly different. I would say so Hugh&#8217;s talking about a theory that&#8217;s related to a concept called panspermia that was popularized by Fred Hoyle who coined the term Big Bang as a pejorative, as an insult against the theory that we now dedicate most of our research to. And that was the theory that life is delivered elsewhere to the Earth. It doesn&#8217;t solve the origin of life problem, it solves the origin of life on Earth. So there&#8217;s reverse panspermia. I brought you guys last time. I&#8217;m sure you still have it. Little fragments of Mars and the.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And meteorites. And so we got meteorites from Mars. And so therefore we have Earth meteorites on Mars. Right. So it must be there. In fact, there must have been some when Mars was wet and moist, because that&#8217;s when the Earth was being bombarded 4.2 billion years ago. When Earth and Mars were young, there was a lot more exchange of interplanetary material between the two planets. It acted like ups, you know, going between and back and forth between the planets, delivering life, microbes, whatever to.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now I don&#8217;t think we&#8217;re find life on Mars. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re saying, but I think you&#8217;re saying we&#8217;ll find fossils on Mars.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />We&#8217;ll find fossils, perhaps.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Perhaps, yes, but. But I think what my astronomer colleagues are telling me is that they&#8217;ve already seen the signatures of molecules that seem to only be produced by life and maybe might be produced by some form of technology. Like if you see freon, the gas and powers are air conditioned. That is a very difficult molecule entropically to create naturally via stochastic processes. But it&#8217;s trivial for us to do it here on ear. Technology can produce certain molecules that show up in the transiting spectrum of extrasolar planets. And I&#8217;m hearing rumors I can&#8217;t. I&#8217;m not going to like stake my career on it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But there are very credible people saying it&#8217;s just a matter of time. There&#8217;s been many announcements of both life from Mars and molecules that seem to suggest the existence of life not only in other stars, but from our own star on the planet Venus. Not many of them if any of them have been really confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt, though.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah. I mean, phosphine on Venus, but you&#8217;re right, they&#8217;ve not been able to confirm it. And bisulfides they found in the spectra of planets. But now we know that can happen naturalistically without life. So, yeah, that&#8217;s not settled.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So we should hold these people to the same level of rigor that they&#8217;re going to hold a believer into their claims about the existence of God, of Jesus in your case. Right. So I don&#8217;t think anyone should get a free pass. I think we should interrogate these things and see is it exciting? You know, I&#8217;d like to know from your perspective, you know, because I was told I could ask questions to my friend here. So the Torah and the Talmud, which is a commentary on the Torah, as you know, has no problem. It seems to suggest in certain passages, although I think it&#8217;s kind of meaning the meanings in doubt from my professional cosmological but not rabbinical training. Right. I&#8217;m not a rabbi, but there seems to be no problem with that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Now, obviously Giordano Bruno, you know, he had a different experience in 1600 being burned alive by the Catholic Church for suggesting that every point of light was a star which had a planet around it, life on it, which seemed to contradict the existence and the possibility of Jesus dying for our humans redemption. So how do you. What are the claims, Just as a scientist and scientists, what are the. Are the New Testament and Gospel claims that either permit, forbid or allow us to falsify the claim of Jesus existence? I&#8217;m sorry to say it in those stark terms, but if it&#8217;s scientifically, well,</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />the ones that have been cited to falsify the idea that, that God created life elsewhere, or particularly New Testament texts where you see Jesus, Christians believe to be the creator, refusing to do certain miracles. And it seems like he only does miracles to fulfill his stated purpose. So theologians have looked at that and said, I think we can work out our Christian theology that God can achieve everything he wants to achieve with life on one planet. And. But then there&#8217;s been pushback where other Christian scholars have said, but look at the degree to which God enjoys creating. He&#8217;s promised he&#8217;s going to be creating way beyond in the new creation. And it&#8217;s like that would seem to imply that he wouldn&#8217;t limit himself to creating life just here on planet Earth. There&#8217;s going to be millions of planets in the universe where he has done that.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />So it&#8217;s kind of a balanced debate. It Depends on your theological perspective to give more weight to the texts that talk about God&#8217;s enjoyment of creating. And especially they cite the fact notice how these texts, especially in Psalm 104, talk about the diversity of God&#8217;s creation. So we should expect that not only is our life elsewhere in the universe is going to be diverse from the life we see here on planet Earth. But then there are those who argue the same. God doesn&#8217;t waste his miracles. And, and I also think the Bible talks about our desire to make contact. And I mean, you saw that in the novel you just mentioned.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I mean that was a whole theme. It&#8217;s something within us that wants that contact. And from a Christian perspective, well, God&#8217;s the one that we need to make contact with. He&#8217;s the extraterrestrial we need to relate to. But you know, I actually had Carl as a professor when I was at University of Toronto and he basically was lecturing saying we humans are without any hope and we don&#8217;t make contact with extraterrestrial aliens. And so he believed that they have published an Encyclopedia Galactica and if we can somehow use our radio telescopes to read that Encyclopedia Galactica, that will solve all of our problems.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Would that it were so.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Well, I was sitting in the second row and I just nudged my fellow grad students say, don&#8217;t we already have an Encyclopedia Galactica? Carl overheard me, he said, I know the book you&#8217;re talking about. No one can live up to its moral standard. It&#8217;s like, well, isn&#8217;t that the point of the book? That&#8217;s exactly its message. So that was an interesting dialogue that took place there. But I think what concerns me as an astronomer, I read these surveys not just of late people, but of astronomers. And I thought, well, we&#8217;re in the 21st century now. Astronomy seems to revealing more and more evidence that our planet is unique, our star is unique, our galaxy, even our super galaxy cluster is unique. And it seems to be giving more evidence.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, once we get past Earth, the universe seems to be able to kill us. But the paradox is the number of lay people that believe that there are intelligent aliens like us and other planets. In 2019, that was 33% of U.S. adults. It&#8217;s now 64%. You know, it&#8217;s virtually doubled. And while you say, well, surely the astronomers would have a different perspective. But in 2025, Nature Astronomy did a survey and was a survey of 521 research astrobiologists and 534 doctoral level scientists in geology, biology and physics.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And what they discovered was that 87% of the astrobiologists said extraterrestrial life is all over the universe. 88% of those that weren&#8217;t astrobiologists, virtually the same percentage. And then they took out the 60 out of the 1055 who said, you know what, I don&#8217;t have an opinion, I don&#8217;t want to give an opinion. They took those 60 out. It was 98% who believed in ET. But then they followed up the survey, well, what about extraterrestrial intelligent life and other planets? And I was surprised that only 10% of astrobiologists express any doubt about the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and other planets. And when they surveyed the non astrobiologists, 48%, it seems quite likely that ETI exists. So it&#8217;s like the percentages are high even amongst the people that are doing this astrobiological research, where they&#8217;re being daily confronted with the fact it seems like we still have a data free discipline.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />So, and you&#8217;re right, we haven&#8217;t searched everywhere. But I think what I find compelling, we now know we have to live in a very specially looking super galaxy cluster. That&#8217;s a cluster of clusters of galaxies. And everyone we&#8217;ve looked at in the observable universe either is basketball shaped or football shaped, jammed with all these galaxy clusters squeeze rather tightly together. We live in the only one we&#8217;ve seen so far where it&#8217;s different. It&#8217;s kind of like a stick insect where you have these small galaxy clusters strung out along these filaments. It doesn&#8217;t look anything at all like the others.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, I mean, in terms of our research and in terms of our uniqueness, my understanding for my friends that do these vast simulations is that actually the simulations match quite accurately with what we observe in barian acoustic oscillations and the cosmic microwave background that I&#8217;m dedicated my life to studying, research life at least. And so, you know, we can look at nearby galaxies within our local supergroup and we can see, we can see, you know, the Andromeda galaxy is not that dissimilar from ours. In fact, it&#8217;s so, you know, it&#8217;s so dominant over us in terms of, you know, having twice as many stars perhaps that we&#8217;re actually going to combine with it and to make one giant super galaxy. You know, again, keep paying your taxes out there because it&#8217;s not going to happen for, you know, hundreds of billions.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />So just avoid long term investments.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right. So, you know, from the perspective of. Let me get back to your. To Your survey, because I think that is interesting. I find it&#8217;s almost shocking that scientists talk about belief. I think it&#8217;s totally kosher. It&#8217;s totally acceptable for you to say reasons to believe. But I got a lot of flack for a video I made.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />One&#8217;s called Astrophysicist says I don&#8217;t believe in gravity. Okay, I don&#8217;t have to believe in gravity. And that because I have evidence for gravity right now. Could gravity change? And in fact, yes, we know that the laws of gravity have changed. We know that the physics of gravity, not just how we describe it, from Newton to Einstein, from Galileo back to Aristotle, all those different changes in our understanding of how we write down mathematical laws. But no, no, gravity has physically changed due to the presence of what&#8217;s called the cosmological constant, which is changing the rate of expansion of our universe. Not our galaxy, not our solar system, but our universe is expanding slightly faster every day due to this presence of this mysterious substance called dark energy that Einstein once published as claiming, you know, according to George Kamov, that it was the biggest blunder of my life. And I think it&#8217;s too bad because he could have been famous if he didn&#8217;t make that one blunder, he would have been quite successful.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But it turned out that saying it was his blunder was the Blunder. Because in 1998 we came upon evidence that no, the universe does have the sort of a dark energy vacuum energy that&#8217;s causing the rate of expansion to not only be of certain value that&#8217;s positive and not negative or zero, but actually increase day after day, year after year, decade. Billions of years after billions of years. So over that time we&#8217;ve kind of visualized a form of anti gravity. Right? So the laws of gravity have changed. Right. That doesn&#8217;t mean that we don&#8217;t understand it as puzzling. It&#8217;s a miracle, whatever within the laws of the cosmological model that we have, which are best way to interrogate observations versus theory.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />This makes sense. And it was discovered and it was, you know, quasi predicted actually in the 1980s as well. So, so this is, and it&#8217;s an extremely well tested thing, but I don&#8217;t have to believe in it like I need faith, like in Hebrew. We have a different name for belief and for fact and for knowledge and for wisdom. We have, you know, as many words for these different intellectual concepts as the, you know, Eskimos of Canada, your ancestral homeland have for snow. Right? They allegedly have 12 different things. So too do we. So we have word for belief and it&#8217;s like faith.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Faith is amuna, which is where we get the word amen from in the English language as well. Right. Amen comes from amuna, which means true, or I attest to it. Ms. Means truth in Hebrew. So it&#8217;s something you specify.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I don&#8217;t have to have belief that, you know, aerodynamics, the minute principle is going to get me here today and the propeller is going to work the way that aerodynamics. We have evidence, you know, millions of things and pieces of evidence. Right. So it&#8217;s shocking to me. It&#8217;s not shocking. And it&#8217;s totally appropriate that you call this reasons to believe. It&#8217;s 100% appropriate. But to have a scientist say, I believe in aliens or I believe in intelligence, or.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s a completely asinine thing for a scientist to say. I&#8217;m shocked that they would even. I wouldn&#8217;t answer that question here, to be honest with you. I would say this is. This is nonsense. Do we have evidence for them, yes or no? No, we don&#8217;t. Move on. Next question.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />What does belief have to do with science? That&#8217;s pathetic.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />What shocked me was that the statistics over there, the past 30 years is showing this belief that we&#8217;re not alone is going up. When the scientific evidence is basically calling into question, I would expect the evidence for belief to go down, but instead it&#8217;s going up. And I&#8217;m wondering, what does that say about the desire, not just of laypeople, but as scientists, to want this to exist in spite of the evidence? Yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think it becomes, you know, sort of their surrogate God. Right. So if you have a. If you have no biblical God in heaven, you&#8217;ll create gods in the heavens of the heavens.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So this is a classic thing, and it&#8217;s sort of a neo paganism. Right. Because now we&#8217;re ascribing these different entities. You know, like right now we&#8217;ll say we&#8217;re insignificant compared to the planet Jupiter. So really everything&#8217;s meaningless. So let&#8217;s live our life that way and kind of eat, drink and be merry. But there&#8217;s the alternative. What if we find life?</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So my question about these surveys is we do have to distinguish between life, you know, some. Some slime mold on. On Proxima Centauri B. Will that be the breakthrough of at least our generation in terms of. Of course it would be. And I&#8217;d be extremely excited. I want to learn about it. What is its properties? What is the spectrum? What is it, you know, what does it tell us about.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />About other Chemistry about origin of life on Earth and from this perspective. But it wouldn&#8217;t. It wouldn&#8217;t be as revolutionary, obviously, as finding intelligent life, right? The problem is, you know, the slime mold in my fridge, you know, as a college, in my college dorm, wasn&#8217;t very good at using an iPhone, right? So we wouldn&#8217;t know about that Life as having technology, unless it does possess what we seem to possess. It doesn&#8217;t mean it has to have opposable thumbs. I mean, that&#8217;s often cited as kind of our unique advantage. But there&#8217;s no telling that an alien has to be anthropomorphized in the way that we think they should. Nature&#8217;s under no obligation to behave in the way that some science fiction author, as great as he or she is, you know, writes it to be, right? So. But we wouldn&#8217;t know about it, right? So.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And in fact, we wouldn&#8217;t know about it for, you know, for a long time, right? So right now, if, if. If we ask what was the. What was the. What&#8217;s the farthest civilization that has technology, not just intelligence? So have intelligence prerequisite for technology? Right. What&#8217;s the farthest away that civilization could be? And it&#8217;s about. About 35 light years away, right? Because we&#8217;ve had television technology since the 1936 Olympics. Broadcasting, here we are. Come and eat.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You know, if that&#8217;s what you want to do, you know, come and get us.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And there&#8217;s nothing we can do about that. Right? Those waves are long, that those horses have left the cosmic barn, and they&#8217;re on their way out to a bubble that&#8217;s about 35 light years away. And then light could come back and they could say, hi, we got your message. 35 light years later, so about 70 light years. How many stars are in that region? It&#8217;s a very small amount of stars. I mean, it&#8217;s thousands, but it&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s not trillions, like in our galaxy or in Andromeda. And then how many planets are there? How many habitable planets? We can actually interrogate each one.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We go around each. There&#8217;s not that many of them, right? So we look for each star, each planet, and we can ask, do we see signs of our type of technology? Now, if they&#8217;re using neutrino beams and gravitational waves to communicate, that&#8217;s what I often hear. They define the laws of physics, right? So I&#8217;m a physicist. I&#8217;m pretty good with the laws of physics, right? So do we have evidence? Do we have any scientific evidence? That we could say we have intelligence, technological life, not life, life that is biological, that is somehow sentient, but also can use technology. Could be an AI system, I don&#8217;t know. We&#8217;ll talk about that.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I would put the limit out at least 200 light years because it takes a very special kind of star to have a planet orbiting it in which advanced life exists. And stars are bright so we can easily measure their characteristics. And so we know it has to be a twin of the sun. And so we&#8217;ve looked out 200 light years and say we&#8217;re confident there&#8217;s no such twin. That&#8217;s out, that, that&#8217;s that close.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />The question I would push back with respect is to say, you know, how much is the variability in the exact twin? I have twins, I&#8217;m blessed to have twins. And they couldn&#8217;t be more different. Like, you know, and any parent of twins out there is probably shaking their head in agreement. Not only are each one of my kids different, but the twins are like somehow more different than from each other than they are from the other kids in my family. So to say there&#8217;s no twin might be a little bit over constrained. So, but, but it doesn&#8217;t, doesn&#8217;t destroy the argument, just maybe expands it out to 400 light years. But, but that, that&#8217;s okay, right? Because there&#8217;s still a limited number of stars in our bubble of 400 light years out of 30,000 light years or more, 30,000 parsecs. I mean we may be just this insignificant piece.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And where we are in the galaxy that might be important for interactions with, with things like the black hole at our center or the dark matter cloud that envelops us. But I&#8217;m curious when you say that the prerequisite for a solar twin, there are stars. You can see one tonight, it&#8217;s called Capella. It&#8217;s a beautiful orange yellow star, just like the sun, same classification, a little bit brighter. The existence of things. If we were having this conversation in 1991, before the first extrasolar planets were discovered, we would say, well, no, it&#8217;s impossible to have a Jupiter sized planet orbiting three, basically a third of an astronomical within the orbit of Mercury around any star. And yet we found thousands of them. We found giant gas giants, literally giants within like a few million miles of their host stars.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that was thought to be impossible also. So the question of like habitability, which, which level of habitability do you mandate and how do we know what the requirements are on life? Doesn&#8217;t that not put a limit on God&#8217;s Create, you know, ability. Like if God wanted to make a planet Venus bloom, I mean, it&#8217;s not in the habitable zone, it&#8217;s too hot for liquid water. Right. Could God not do that? I mean, of course God could do that. Right. So how do we reach the limits of the parameter space? We&#8217;re going to search.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />I want to encourage our listeners to. We&#8217;re going to come up on the time where we&#8217;re going to have some questions taken from you that we&#8217;ll have you guys answer. But you go ahead and respond to what Brian was saying.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, that&#8217;s an interesting question. And you see on The NASA website 40 billion habitable planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone, but all they&#8217;re looking at is the liquid water habitable zone.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And a very generous definition of a liquid water habitable zone. And you know, 13 planetary habitable zones have been discovered so far. Three chemical habitable zones have been discovered, one just two weeks ago, four lunar habitable zones, and five galactic habitable zones. And the truth is, for a planet to be truly habitable at a microbial level, we&#8217;re not talking the equivalent of us. That&#8217;s 25 independent habitable zones. And the planet has to simultaneously reside in all 25. So this is really pushing the view that it&#8217;s not only a rare Earth, it&#8217;s a rare moon, it&#8217;s a rare star, and you can push that to a rare galaxy. So again, I&#8217;m making the point.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />The more we&#8217;re learning about the universe, the more evidence seems to be accumulating that, you know, our existence here is rare. Again, we haven&#8217;t done an exhaustive search.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />But the search has gone out quite far. I mean, we are able to see super galaxy clusters throughout the entire zurbable universe, and there&#8217;s over 10,000 of them. But we were living in the one that has the necessary characteristics for our existence. So it&#8217;s like we don&#8217;t have to search those other 9999. That&#8217;s an approximate number.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Certainly we can agree that there is. I mean, well, maybe people wouldn&#8217;t agree that there&#8217;s intelligent life on Earth. Right, but you&#8217;re really bringing up a fine tuning question which is part of the topic of Life Stream. Right, so. So how finely tuned is necessary. Right. So people ask me, you know, all the time, well, like math and music, they kind of go together, you know. You must play an instrument.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />My older brother&#8217;s a very, very renowned jazz guitarist. What instrument do you play? I say, I Play Spotify. You know, I can&#8217;t play anything. I&#8217;m horrible with music. And when I play, it doesn&#8217;t matter if, if the guitar is finely tuned or not, like it is going to sound horrible. It could be the, the perfect, you know, perfect tuning and whatnot. But the question of, you know, how finely tuned does the universe need to be for life to exist? It&#8217;s a very, very interesting, very, very well grounded and hard scientific data and an appropriate question, I think. And there&#8217;s many different realms in which you can suggest fine tuning, but you did bring up different elements that seem to be critical for our existence.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />None of which precludes the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. At the mold level, at the dolphin level, swimming in some ocean somewhere. Right. But intelligent life, basic life, and then technological life, those are the three levels that I think we care about. And they go up an order of magnitude of how impactful they&#8217;d be, at least for me. Right. First, discovering mold, you know, from some, some creature, some protozoa on some exosolar planet would be incredibly astounding. Just to be alive during that time is amazing.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And then the dolphin, you know, swimming in some liquid nitrogen ocean. So I don&#8217;t know, I&#8217;m making all these things up. As I said, I have no special expertise in this field. You know, when I did biology in high school that, you know, I dissected the frog. The frog kind of like screamed in pain. It was horrible. I&#8217;m just kidding. PETA.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I know you&#8217;re watching out there, PETA.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />There was a dead.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />There was a dead. It was dead.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, but, you know, the question is how finely tuned. So my friend Fred Adams, I posted on the podcast, to my knowledge, secular, but I&#8217;m not, you know, convinced about that. But, but he could be. You know, it&#8217;s done a lot of work on just the habitability of planets around stars and the stability of stars. Other friends of mine, Sergio Kleinerman, has worked on stability of space, time itself. So to have all these different levels, I guess the question is, where do you start? In Judaism, we have our own version of apologetics, right? It&#8217;s different from the Christian apologetics because our goal is different. Right. We each in apologetics, I like to joke, you know, we do at some level paint the target around the arrow and that&#8217;s fine.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There&#8217;s nothing wrong with that. If you&#8217;re honest about what you&#8217;re doing, it&#8217;s fine. Judaism have these things too. For example, there&#8217;s a rabbi scientist named Gerald Schroeder he&#8217;s an Israel to the best of my knowledge. Read many books. God and the Big Bang. Genesis and the Big Bang.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I had dinner with him years ago.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />He&#8217;s a great guy and you know, I respect him. But he has different arguments for the biblical reality of a seven day creation period. And he goes through and makes arguments for it based on relativistic time dilation, which is a real thing, and the different events that he considers characterizing along the creation period. So what does vayehi or mean? What does let there be light mean? What does the tohu va bahu? What is the chaos and disorder? What does that mean? All the different things. And he&#8217;s a rabbi and he understands Hebrew better than I do. And he ascribes them different signposts on the creation of the universe from the physical perspective, from the laws of physics. When did electromagnetism come, the electroweak force, cork confinement, bariogenesis occur, all these different things with CMB form that I study, et cetera, et cetera. And he gets, eventually gets 15 billion years.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Oh, that&#8217;s great. You know, it&#8217;s kind of, kind of matches with what we believe now. It&#8217;s practicing cosmologists 13.826 billion years with a 10 million year uncertainty on the end. It&#8217;s astounding precision that my colleagues and I have been able to work on with hard evidence and data. I don&#8217;t have to believe it anymore. I can actually prove it. Right, but then you dig a little bit deeper. What is he doing? What is Gerald Schroeder? What is Rabbi Schroder? What is he doing? Well, he&#8217;s picking out some arbitrary point.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />In his case, he picks a quark confinement. He says the cork confinement corresponds to this genesis event. And from that I agree that you will get 15 billion years. However, if you take one picosecond earlier or later, because of the dependence on the fine structure constant and other forces and the QCD charge called the, the g value for QCD, you will get something that&#8217;s 100 billion years or you&#8217;ll get something that&#8217;s one one day. So it really depends on where you paint that bullseye around which arrow you&#8217;re choosing. And so that finely tuning also occurs in the apologetic space. And sometimes I don&#8217;t feel like we&#8217;re 100% honest about that. Where do you choose the fine tuning to be for your good point?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, because I&#8217;ve talked to Gerald and it&#8217;s like I can get a few points in Genesis 1 to fit my time dilation but I can&#8217;t get them all.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />He&#8217;s changed his model multiple times. He still can&#8217;t get a good fit.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />By the way, I&#8217;m sorry, I&#8217;m sorry to interrupt you, but this is so important. He&#8217;s changed his model. Have you changed the Torah? I&#8217;m sorry? Have you changed the New Testament? Have you ever changed the Gospels? God forbid. Right. You never do that. Right. They&#8217;re an affable donor. So the problem with apologetics, from my perspective, and with all due love and respect for those that do it, I think it&#8217;s.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think it&#8217;s important. I think it&#8217;s interesting. It&#8217;s a perfect, philosophically, perfectly acceptable form of philosophical abduction. Right. Not alien abduction, but abduction.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There is no an ethic efficacy of a God that you believe in. Right. You can&#8217;t say the Torah must change to meet this. Now it&#8217;s 15 billion years. Okay. Tomorrow will be 13 point science changes to defend Gerald.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s trying to apologetically argue for the truthfulness of the Tanakh. He&#8217;s more interested in the Kabbalah. And so I think that&#8217;s the big difference between.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Those are very different sources.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Very different sources. Yeah. So apologetics, what are you apologizing for? So, but yeah, very good. I think. Hey, if you actually treat the, the. Pardon me, I&#8217;m trying to think of the argument. Oh yeah, the, the time dilation. We astronomers have been measuring the spectra of distant galaxies with high Precision now for 50 years more.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Okay. If the universe is really just 10,000 years old, we&#8217;re going to see a difference.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And we don&#8217;t. Even though we can measure the spectra.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Nine places of the decimal, which tells us it really is, you know, at least a billion.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And more than that, there&#8217;s a, There&#8217;s a naturally occurring nuclear fission reactor in Gabon, Africa.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Called the Okolo Nuclear reactor. There&#8217;s actually a startup company that&#8217;s called Okolo now trying to do portable small nuclear reactors that we&#8217;re getting for our data centers to power. There are AI overlords that are going to replace God for everyone listeners out there. I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;m joking, but this is a huge craze. Right. So Okolo is a naturally sustained breeder reactor that had neutron moderation with no human beings around for the next billion years. It corresponds to a redshift of 0.3 and the exact laws of physics that held for the nuclear force there that depend very strongly on the nuclear structure, fine structure constants, so they haven&#8217;t changed in over a billion years. So we can say very strongly, very carefully about the properties, the age of the universe and without recourse to saying like, well, relativistic time dilation is actually observer dependent, frame dependent.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And you have to acknowledge that, well, what frame is God in? Like where&#8217;s there this cosmic rest frame? And then does that not violate Lorentz invariance? So I&#8217;d love to talk to him, I&#8217;d love to meet with him, but my thing is you have to be self consistent. You can&#8217;t say that you&#8217;re going to like science can change because we get more and more precision. Like Newton was substituted by Einstein, but we don&#8217;t need Einstein to get the Artemis mission around the moon. Yes, people out there, we did go around the moon recently, we will land there again. But we don&#8217;t need Einstein at all to do any of this, even to get to the nearest start. We don&#8217;t need Einstein for any of that. We need Newton. Can we go beyond post Newtonian physics? Is that a goal? You&#8217;ve talked a lot about string theory recently.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ve been watching proton decay, all these different things. What level of fine tuning would kind of be required to falsify the existence of alien. In other words, you can&#8217;t prove something in science. I can&#8217;t prove the Earth is round, but I can prove it&#8217;s not flat. Right. That&#8217;s a very clear thing to do. We can do that.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />It&#8217;s very high precision.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s extremely high precision. And we can&#8217;t even Isaac Asimov, another one of my heroes, once said, if you believe the Earth is flat, you&#8217;re wrong. If you believe the Earth is a perfect sphere, you&#8217;re also wrong, but you&#8217;re less wrong. And I think that&#8217;s our goal in science, to be continually improving and less wrong. But to say that the Torah could change or the Gospels can change, it gets into kind of like you got to pick a team. Gerald, I would say with respect.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, you do. But I think your point is, hey, if we&#8217;re talking about the Torah, the Tanakh, the Bible, you expect that to be consistent with a fine tuned universe. I mean fine tuning it. So that&#8217;s kind of the argument I&#8217;ve been doing for decades is saying the more we study the universe, the stronger the fine tuning argument becomes for personal entity that designed it for our benefit. And it&#8217;s like, you know, this list of habitable parameters, it&#8217;s like every six months goes by, we Add another one to the list. We&#8217;re discovering more and more. If there really was no fine tuning, we&#8217;d expect it to go the other way around, that the more we learn about the universe, the weaker the fine tuning argument would become for God. What I&#8217;ve noticed in my lifetime, it&#8217;s exponentially increased.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />It&#8217;s gone from just a little bit of evidence for fine tuning. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And the classic evasion of that on the secular scientist perspective is the multiverse.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Right?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So the multiverse, you say? Well, of course, yeah. In any given universe, just like, you know, guys, I saw this incredible thing on the way. I can&#8217;t believe it. I saw a license plate, 9QRX743. Can you believe the odds of seeing that? You&#8217;re like, what the heck is this guy? Of course, like, that&#8217;s like almost zero chance at any given. But if you say, what are the odds you saw a license plate? It&#8217;s very high. Right, so. So in the multiverse argument, you evade all this.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />You don&#8217;t need God. It came from.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, but you have to apply to infinity. I remember back in the 1980s.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Let&#8217;s hold it there. Some questions. No, no, no, that&#8217;s. Yeah, I could have went and got lunch. And you guys, I&#8217;ll take a kosher</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />pastrami sandwich</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />and yeah, feel free to jump in. Both of you can comment on this. We&#8217;ll try to keep our answers a little bit shorter just so we can get through some of the questions. Of course, as, as a philosopher, when you&#8217;re mentioning certain words like believe, prove, you know, epistle, I might, you know, my bellows and whistles are going on.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I know.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />You start to get hungry. I held out. So this from Steve, he says astronomically, the solar system and planet is passing away over time based upon our best scientific understanding. So isn&#8217;t it the real question? The real question is the sentient life with a spirit exist elsewhere, is his question, Hugh?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, I think he&#8217;s raising a good point. Is that the time window for our possible existence is coming to a close. And people say, yeah, in 4 billion years, the sun will incinerate us, but in just a couple of million years, the sun&#8217;s going to be sufficiently bright that in order to keep the temperature for photosynthetic light going, we&#8217;re going to have to drop the carbon dioxide level down to a level or photosynthesis can&#8217;t happen. So based on an astronomical time scale, our time in the universe is relatively brief. So there&#8217;s a window, there&#8217;s a window. And I think that should cause us to think, why does that window exist? What is our ultimate destiny? And hey, we can&#8217;t depend on the universe keeping us going indefinitely. The time for that window to close is going to happen. And so for me, this drives questions again then in that context, what is my purpose? What is the purpose of the universe? I think that&#8217;s an important thing, is that people have argued the fine tuning argument is just statistics.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />But if you can link the fine tuning with purpose, especially you can link it with multiple independent purposes, then it gives it weight.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />I mean, we are maybe as a scientist, you go so far, you were talking about the evidence in that, but as a human being, as a philosopher or just beyond that, you can ask these other questions that come into about existence. We have this window. What does that mean? Maybe the scientists can&#8217;t answer that specifically, but as human explorers, if you will, you can go beyond that. Any further comment from you, Ryan, on that?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Well, I think it&#8217;s undoubted that it just seems to be unreasonable that we should be here at this moment to ask this question, why here? Why now? What is the purpose of that? I think it&#8217;s also a reasonable question to ask also, if this is true, why did God reveal himself to a band of nomadic kind of Bronze Age peasants, mostly as former slaves that he freed according to the Torah narrative, which then forms basis for the Old Testament, the New Testament, the. Upon that in the Gospels, Right. So why did he, when there were probably about maybe 80 billion, 90 billion people that live, or you know, Homo sapiens, whatever that means, it could be half of that, it could be 10 times, I don&#8217;t even care. But there are billions of people that live before that and after that. So that, you know, I would, I would ask with again, with humility and respect, you know, how does the New Testament kind of grapple with that? Like why are we conscious now? Is it is why did this creation process, it makes the problem more finely tuned for Jesus&#8217;s miracles and his revelation and his ascension. Right? Because you have to believe in all those. Right? So does that not sharpen the fine tuning argument that some could say, well, why now? Why here? Why us? For Jesus&#8217;s existence in an even narrower 33 year period, 2000 years ago, and his eventual return as you. We believe it&#8217;ll come for the first or the Messiah Mashiach will come.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />How do you reconcile with that the fine tuning of Jesus&#8217;s time on Earth?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I think that heightens the fine tuning argument. These are these very narrow time Windows, how do you explain the fact that we happen to be here in the history of the universe in.001% of its history? Is there some significance to that? I think what drives that home, it&#8217;s not just one narrow time window. I could name 15 narrow time windows that must be here for us to exist, exists, and here they&#8217;re all simultaneously lining up at the same epoch in the universe. If there is no God, how do I explain the fact that these extremely narrow time windows all simultaneously line up on this planet at this time in the history of the universe? So I would argue even the time is fine tuned.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Certainly could be, yeah.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Let&#8217;s go to Another question for Dr. Keating here. How does Dr. Keating view the concept of soulish or spiritual life being made in God&#8217;s image and tie into the concept of sentient life elsewhere?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So this would kind of. So I love this kind of concept, right? Because the listener or viewer is making a scientific fact claim that could or could not be true, right? So if you were to observe a creature and contact with a creature that has a soul or a spirit or even is seemingly spiritual in the level of. Let&#8217;s make a Turing Test for spirituality, right? Not just for humanity, but let&#8217;s have a spiritual Turing test. It&#8217;s called the Ross Test. Right? So the Ross test says, can you interact with this entity and determine whether or not it has a soul or a spirit? And if so, if that spirit, if it&#8217;s not in a corporeal, humanistic form, in the image of God, in the image of us, we are therefore in the image of God. Does that have any ramifications? Well, I think that scientist has to say we don&#8217;t know. It has to be humble and says we don&#8217;t know. There&#8217;s not proof of it, but it gives us an opportunity to falsify it.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />If we do find, as Carl Sagan would have, would have loved to find, right, some intelligent, not only dolphin swimming through the liquid nitrogen pools, but someone who&#8217;s using a cosmic iPhone. Somewhere out there we&#8217;re in touch with that person and we can pass the Ross test and we say this person. That is something, right? You could also have a hyper intelligent AI that has no effective soul or spirit because it&#8217;s encoded based on the training data that it has only which includes the corpus of all of human knowledge, right? So maybe you couldn&#8217;t pass the imitation game of that, but you could detect that, oh, it does not have a soul. Well then that would be a falsifiable test. I Think that&#8217;s a wonderful conjecture now, but I think right now we have to be honest and humble and say we don&#8217;t know. But I think he wasn&#8217;t amazing. We live in this time when telescopes and microscopes can tell us information that is just like would be magical. Not 1,000 years ago, 20 years ago, when I was in graduate school, 30 plus years ago, we didn&#8217;t know if the age of the universe was 10 billion years or 20 billion years.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So that means there were objects that we knew that were 15 billion years old. So if you believe 10 billion years for the universe, that meant you believe that there were objects in the universe older than the universe. You remember this?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I remember that. Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So that means like, hey, Hugh, I met your mother, she&#8217;s half your age. What the heck is going on? Like, it&#8217;s no wonder why people didn&#8217;t take us seriously. Now we know that to the same precision I can say to you, you were born exactly at this day, in this half of an hour. That&#8217;s the level of precision we have. It&#8217;s astounding and it&#8217;s almost, you know, it&#8217;s almost magical. And magic is just another way for miracle, right?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah. You&#8217;re raising the point about the spirit. I mean, from a, a Jewish or Christian perspective, the spirit is non physical. How can scientists then come up with a physical refutation of that which isn&#8217;t even physical? So it&#8217;s a different category.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Here&#8217;s one for you, hugh. Sebastian says, Dr. Ross, would you push back on the claim that gravity has changed? The person says, I believe it would contradict the promise in Jeremiah.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, I would argue that gravity hasn&#8217;t changed, but I think what Brian is bringing up is, well, dark energy has an effect on the dynamics of the universe. I wouldn&#8217;t say it&#8217;s changed gravity, it&#8217;s supplemented gravity. And I&#8217;d be curious, you know, how you think about that, Brian. I mean, I don&#8217;t think, you know, Newton&#8217;s or Einstein&#8217;s law of gravity has changed at all. But now we got another factor that&#8217;s actually more dominant than gravity in determining the dynamics of the universe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah. So in Einstein&#8217;s concept of relativity, space is not empty, it is dynamical. It has properties such that the vacuum isn&#8217;t what we think of that insulates our yeti coolers. Right. It&#8217;s not something that&#8217;s the absence of completeness within it. It&#8217;s actually an active, quantum mechanically viable and dynamic process that&#8217;s been proven that we know that vacuum energy exists. We measure it&#8217;s called the Casimir force. Or even people out there, some say that are questionable in their motives, but they&#8217;ve created what they claim is a battery that extracts free energy from the vacuum and that we&#8217;ll all plug it in, we&#8217;ll have limitless free energy.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And some people even take it further that that inventor of that thing better have 24 hour a day security guards to prevent him from big oil taking them out or big Solar or whatever. But in reality the vacuum is dynamic. It has energy, it has, has properties that allow input and output. And one of the things that is incumbent upon Einstein, Einstein&#8217;s theory of relativity, which we have abundant evidence for. In fact I got here in my plane as a gps and the GPS relies on satellites that themselves have to be calibrated to picosecond level precision. Otherwise the speed of light is actually quite fast. Every nanosecond light travels one foot. So if you&#8217;re off by know a hundred thousand nanoseconds, I wouldn&#8217;t have been here today.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Sorry, you&#8217;d have another guest. You know, you&#8217;d be covering for me, George. Get your rapid bachelor PhD in physics. So yeah, so the laws don&#8217;t change. The laws are immutable. They&#8217;re knowable perhaps only to mother Nature or God or whatever. But our discovery of the laws then allows us and endows us with the ability to make predictions and seek evidence that could falsify. But so far we have abundant evidence for things like gravitational lensing, which the space time has to be dynamical for the expansion of the universe, for the baryon acoustic oscillations that tell us the dark energy might not be a cosmological constant.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s the biggest discovery in this field since dark energy was validated, which was the biggest discovery since Einstein predicted it. So these are all huge things and they stand in stark contrast and contradistinction to things that are purely speculative for which we have zero evidence. Like string theory, which attempts to find a possible plausible mechanism by which gravity can become dynamical, but so far has zero evidentiary backing behind. Behind it.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah. And I think Sebastian is making the point. Hey, notice that the 10 act talks about the immutability of the laws of physics. Is there any threat to that by current measurements by physicists? I would argue no.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, yeah. And as I said, it&#8217;s a nuclear reactor. Proves that combination of the foremost fundamental constants in particle physics have not evolved at all over the quarter of all of the planet&#8217;s history.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And distant quasars, as you said before, relaxing push that back to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />And you see oftentimes the, in the Psalms and other places, proverbs, that the immutability of the physical laws is also tied to the immutability of God&#8217;s moral law.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />That it will uphold.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Well, that&#8217;s the comparison. He says, I&#8217;m immutable. Here&#8217;s evidence. As the laws are immutable, I&#8217;m immutable. And that&#8217;s actually the basis for doing science. If the laws are immutable, we can trust what we measure.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Okay, let&#8217;s keep going now. For, for a Christian holding to the New Testament, there&#8217;s this idea of that there&#8217;s going to be a new heavens and a new earth. Some see that as a, you know, sort of a rebuilt carburetor. It&#8217;s, it&#8217;s renewed in some ways. Others, this is, this universe is shut down and there&#8217;s a whole new earth and new heavens that have some resemblance that also gives the possibility of other kinds of life life. Someone&#8217;s asking this question, what&#8217;s your comments on that?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yes, well, this is not unique to Christianity. It&#8217;s also part of Judaism that there&#8217;s going to be this new creation. I&#8217;ve often made the case that what distinguishes, say, Judaism, Christianity from the other major religions of the world, it&#8217;s a two creation model. God creates this universe for the purpose of eradicating evil and suffering. And when that happens, there&#8217;s no longer going to be a need for entropy, electromagnetism, gravity. He&#8217;s going to take us into a new creation where there&#8217;ll be different laws. And we see in both the Old Testament and the New Testament God&#8217;s going to be creating and he&#8217;s going to be creating something. Doesn&#8217;t really tell us what he&#8217;s going to create, but he does say that his followers, his human followers, will be managing what he creates.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />But it&#8217;s going to be under different laws, laws of physics, different dimensions. Who knows what kind of life forms God&#8217;s going to create there? Is it going to be just one life form? Is it going to be trillions of distinct life forms? I kind of go back to Psalm 104. God seems to like creating diverse life and with different laws of physics. I think he&#8217;s going to have a fun time recreating incredible life forms. And we&#8217;re all going to be surprised by what he creates. And I think the real challenge for us is we&#8217;re gonna have to manage whatever he creates. It&#8217;s hard enough trying to manage my two teenage boys. Right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Trying to manage what God creates a new creation. And maybe that&#8217;s why we&#8217;re going to continue to need a lot of wisdom from the Creator.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Here&#8217;s another question. Comment at all?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />No, I think. Okay, yeah, he was. Perspective is valuable.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Okay, but let&#8217;s go to another one here. In, in some in quantum physics are using the theory to question the cause and effect mechanism and say they are potential potentially other independent universes with parallel timelines. Does this hold any weight? I think it was directed towards you, Brian. You want to you comment on this a little bit? But.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, so there, there are as many different interpretations of, of quantum mechanics as there are physicists. It&#8217;s a unique branch of physics that we don&#8217;t have typically an interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics or of how a superconductor works. Right. There&#8217;s no. Well, I believe in the Fresno interpretation of the superconductor. I know, I believe in the many superconductors theory, but in quantum mechanics because it&#8217;s so bizarre, alien and quite frankly dysfunctional. So much so that that one of my professors quoted, one of his professors, I think it was Wolfgang Pauli, who upon teaching quantum mechanics in the 40s or something, said something. He came into the classroom and said, you know, Professor Paoli, I don&#8217;t understand quantum mechanics, I have to be honest with you.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And by the end of this quarter, you too will not understand quantum mechanics. So it&#8217;s. So it then cries out for interpretation, which is actually oddly and eerily similar to religion. Right. We don&#8217;t have people say, well like, you know, here&#8217;s the Torah. Okay, great, but where&#8217;s the commentary to it? It&#8217;s like, here&#8217;s the Constitution. You should be able to determine everything that&#8217;s legal and illegal in America. No, you need all the case law that&#8217;s thousands and thousands of pages long.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. So you need supplementary guide material for, for religion. It is the Talmud, you know, in the case of. And then the commentaries on the Talmud and the super commentaries on the commentary.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Like the super clusters of galaxies and Christianity. Same way.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So the thought that, you know, religion and science are, you know, kind of divergent actually breaks down at the level of quantum mechanics because you do need an interpretation of it. Now the dominant one, the one that actually works for day to day physicists to get things done is known as the Copenhagen interpretation, which makes predictions about all sorts of things that you can verify not only down to very high significant figures, but it&#8217;s actually the most precisely known scientific fact, the spectrum that he was talking about for different distant galaxies also holds on Earth. And we can calculate the different perturbations that occur to it due to external forces and even internal forces that were unknown to the creators, like Schrodinger and Heisenberg and even Pauli in the beginning. But now we know them to 13 significant figures. It&#8217;s just astounding level. Again, we live in the best timeline, whatever timeline that we&#8217;re on now. In different models of both cosmology and what&#8217;s called string theory, there then becomes manifest within them what&#8217;s called a multiverse. Different types of multiverses, parallel universes, as the viewer is suggesting.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And so how do we grapple with them? There are ways that they&#8217;re used to sort of make possible the strange features of the Copenhagen. The orthodox interpretation, the Catholic interpretation, is that the wave function collapses. But that&#8217;s very distasteful. Like Schrodinger&#8217;s cat is this famous a thought experiment where the cat is living and dead. And so you have to superimpose that they&#8217;re both living and dead at the same time, which my cat finds very troubling. My cat is named Schrodinger actually. And you have to view, but it&#8217;s very weird. And then you open the box, you see if it&#8217;s alive or dead, and that&#8217;s when the wave function collapses.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />But that type of behavior is very different. It&#8217;s like saying F equals MA for a baseball thrown through there and then all of a sudden it equals the F cubed m to the 15th. You know, it&#8217;s very strange. It&#8217;s called non unitary evolution. People don&#8217;t like it. So they said actually instead of the wave function collapsing, every possible outcome takes place. The cat is living in one universe and is dead in another universe. And that&#8217;s the many worlds interpretation.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Its parallel is the multiverse in cosmology, where there&#8217;s 10 to the 500th or maybe infinite number of universes within the multiverse. And then in string theory it&#8217;s known as the landscape problem. So there&#8217;s many different string vacuum that could be possible, leading to different configurations of curled up space time dimensions, none of which we have evidence for either the multiverse or the co or the many worlds. Ever writing quantum mechanics interpretation and worst of all, string theory, which we may never be able to get evidence for and it may only be non falsifiable. And that&#8217;s very troubling. So yes, it&#8217;s often used as kind of an escape Goat, you know, escape hatch to jettison yourself from when you&#8217;re in uncomfortable conversations about the meaning of quantum mechanics.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah. Well people often look at quantum mechanics and say it refutes causality. I think that&#8217;s a mistake. It hides causality. And because it hides causality, we have all these different interpretive models and there&#8217;s a real limit to how much we can push this. So I agree with you. We&#8217;ve got dozens of different quantum mechanical models. We always will because of causality.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Based on the Heisenberg, uncertainty is hidden.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />So it&#8217;s more of an epistemological problem. How we know not philosopher&#8217;s logical.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right. That&#8217;s where we need the philosophers.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Finally, no physicist has ever said those words. Now we need the Philadelphia.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />I&#8217;m just kidding. I know. Well, some people are asking questions about, well, we&#8217;re talking about this window of time and that, but there seems to be now also a, a universe eschatology talking about how the universe is going to end. You pointed to this. We have some viewers wanting what&#8217;s your relative views of that and does that impact how we think about ourselves, our uniqueness and that? We talked about the New Testament, you know, idea.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Well, there&#8217;s that famous Woody Allen movie where a 10 year old boy refuses to do his homework because the heat death of the universe is coming and the mother says, I don&#8217;t care about the heat death of the universe.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />You&#8217;re going to do your homework.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Brooklyn is not expanding.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right, Right. So yeah, I mean the universe is heading towards an end and it&#8217;s going to be a long ways off. But there&#8217;s different ideas as you know, about how it will end.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And different ideas about are we going to reach the big rip and when is that going to take place? Even the heat death gets some dialogue and discussion. But the idea that we human beings can live in this universe forever and be able to expand our thriving in the universe, we know that that model is incorrect.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah. I think it&#8217;s finding a more kind of imminent parallel. You know, to quote Woody Allen again, another famous geography Jewish atheist, you know, he was asked what? Well, what do you want people to think about you in 150 years? And he said I want them to think that I look pretty good for a 200 year old. You know, so again, keep taking your vitamins, keep paying your taxes because we don&#8217;t know if we will reach the end times. Right. But, but I think now the eschatological paradigm is now being kind of manifest over the Threat, the opportunity, the benefits and the detriments of AI, I think AI, you know, to quote Yuval Noah Harari, another Jewish atheist, you see why I call myself a devout Hebrew university, Which means it&#8217;s not like.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />The thing I&#8217;ve noticed about some of these Jewish scholars is they&#8217;re basically pointing out maybe AI is going to bring about the end of all of us, the passes.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m saying. So say more. Say more.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah, there&#8217;s a couple of papers that have been published in the astrophysical literature saying that in terms of our technological future, it&#8217;s going to come to a crashing halt in less than 200 years. Basically making the point. AI is the first technology we&#8217;re developing where it&#8217;s expanding faster than we can control it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Exactly.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And you know, given the nature of humanity, within 200 years or less, we&#8217;re basically. AI is going to bring an end to. Maybe not us, but it&#8217;s going to bring an end to our ability to control technology.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And that could be the end of.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think that would make sort of what I call an AI event horizon.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />There may be a boundary beyond which we no longer control scientific discovery, factual, ontological, you know, kind of fact gathering, so to speak, epistemologically. So, so how is it, how is it more relevant? Well, it&#8217;s. It&#8217;s upon us now. I mean, some say it&#8217;s already been achieved. I don&#8217;t actually believe that we&#8217;ve achieved AGI yet. I do believe it will have this transformative power, at least as big as the Internet, but probably some exponential power of that, both in terms of benefit and in terms of curse. So it has this exact parallel. I talked with John C.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Lennox on my podcast about his criticisms of Yuval Noah Harari&#8217;s Homo deus, which is we have become gods. That&#8217;s the oldest story. I mean, literally the Tower of Babel. Right. I mean, it&#8217;s literally we are going up to make war to make a name for ourselves. Right. What could be better than that? We&#8217;re technological. We don&#8217;t need God, we are gods.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Right. And some say in the astrophysic physical literature that it makes no sense to send, you know, the slime mold, the dolphin with the iPhone. It makes no sense to send that around. You could just send information. You could just send the AI via its source code and some blockchain on the cosmic World Wide Web or Internet. Cosmic web web. Cosmic wide web. So how would that then impact us? Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So we might discover life, quote, unquote it might not pass the Ross test for eight artificial spiritual intelligence, but it may be the more convenient parsimonious explanation of why we don&#8217;t see biological life. Right. We&#8217;re not. We&#8217;re not maybe. And maybe it&#8217;s not transmitting on a frequency we can dial in the fine tuning. Maybe it&#8217;s transmitting in some other fact and what wave band neutrinos, gravitational waves or et cetera. So I&#8217;m just saying the eschatological is on us now. It&#8217;s not the end times, it&#8217;s not the revelations book, acts and revelations.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s right now. And the question is, do we manage it? Can we steward it? Is it out of control and is it sort of already escaped the case</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />AI or some other time window is going to come to a close? I think the basic conclusion is our hope cannot exist in the universe. Our hope has got to be elsewhere besides the universe, if we have any hope at all. But what I find interesting, we humans seem to be programmed to search for hope and we&#8217;re all programmed for that. There has to be some actual rational hope out there.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s right.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />And it can&#8217;t be the universe, it&#8217;s got to be beyond the universe.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I agree. The psalm says, and you&#8217;ll know the psalm itself, but it says the psalm man&#8217;s days are but, you know, a passing wind, a passing shadow, a night watchman shadow. I mean it&#8217;s incredible to think of how brief it is and yet how amazing it is that we are the only creatures that have this ability to interrogate the universe.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />So would you agree that&#8217;s a significant and challenged in non theism to that</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />the existence of us as this only species that we know, or we&#8217;re this</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />hopeful species and yet our hope can&#8217;t last in this universe. It really seems like our hope has got to be elsewhere.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I guess it depends on what&#8217;s the end of hope. You know, probably Obama&#8217;s 17th autobiography will be called the End of Hope or something. But my question is, is hope coming to an end with, from within or without? Is it the laws of physics, the laws of biology, the laws of our, you know, the micro world? Or is it the laws which are much harder, the laws of how we treat each other? And I think there&#8217;s a much higher risk of existential demise from our fellow humans before we think about asteroid collisions or the Big Rip. I mean it&#8217;s, or even AGI. I mean we might live in the final days, God forbid, but, but because of what we&#8217;re doing with nuclear weapons and biological weapons. Super intelligence. Uncontrollable super intelligence.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />So it reminds me of the debate I had with Victor Stenger where he was making the claim, the universe is all there is. Well, the universe is all there is. We have no hope. Interestingly, he said, I agree. We have no more hope than a piece of rock or a piece of dust. That&#8217;s it.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s the insignificance therapy, Right, Right.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />And at least from the Christian view, hope is a virtue. It&#8217;s also a gift. Right. A transcendent gift. And despair is somewhat looked down upon as a type of sin. Literally, despair means that there is no hope in God and Christians are supposed to not give in to that.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s true for Jews. The national anthem of Israel is called Hatikvah.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Right, good. Well, we&#8217;re quickly running out of time here. Let me see if I take one more question and then we&#8217;ll wrap things up just for you. Brian, real quick. So trying to make it short, it&#8217;s like, you know, explain the universe, but in two sentences. What is your strongest argument against fine tuning as evidence for a creator or intelligent designer?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, so not to be too Bill Clintonian about it, but it depends on the meaning of fine tuning, right? So a lot of studies suggest things can be relatively coarsely tuned. It&#8217;s not like tuning a radio or a violin or guitar, that you&#8217;ll have a kind of on off switch which will tell you in a binary Boolean fashion that you&#8217;re not tuned or not, or are tuned. For example, the force of gravity can vary, you know, by some, some large fraction. We often hear that the cosmological constant has to be fine tuned, you know, to 120 orders of magnitude. It&#8217;s a complete category error. That&#8217;s actually not the cosmological constant, which I said is, you know, Einstein&#8217;s greatest blunder, but then came to be his greatest blunder because he called it his greatest blunder. It is actually an observable piece of evidence in our, in our cosmological model. It could be.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />It&#8217;s basically completely insignificant. It hasn&#8217;t played a role in the history of the entire universe, including up to Jesus, to us, whatever you want to believe it&#8217;s come up. It has no bearing on it whatsoever. And we could vary it by a factor of, you know, 10 or, you know, probably 10 or more times. Nothing would happen. Make it much smaller. Nothing would happen by a factor of 10. So, so is that finely tuned? I mean, if I take, again, if I take a radio station on My frequency that I have to communicate with the air traffic control tower here in Pomona and I tune it off by just a tiny bit, I cannot communicate.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I will be fined by the faa. That&#8217;s extremely finely tuning with huge consequences to my life and my finances and my ability to fly, my safety. I could, God forbid, something could happen. Right. That&#8217;s exquisite. We have five digits on the radio dial in a pilot, a plane like mine, a private airplane, and if you&#8217;re off by one of the last digit, you will not be able to communicate with anybody and you will also possibly risk your life and other people&#8217;s lives and you&#8217;ll be fined and sued.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s fine tuning with a consequence immediate for me. Right. But if I can tune that by a factor of 10 either direction, it doesn&#8217;t matter. I would say it&#8217;s not fine tuned. So I don&#8217;t view the fine tuning with the degree of kind of weight that Hugh does in terms of believing and getting. I don&#8217;t like that word belief, but I like reasons to believe. I like the. I like.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />And that&#8217;s the way my particular branch of, as I said, devout practicing agnostic, Jewish atheist, agnosticism rather is manifest. So it&#8217;s.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />How would you comment on that? I know there&#8217;s a number of people would want to hear you comment what Brian is saying right there.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah. I think what&#8217;s compelling for me is that the more we search for fine tuning, the more we find it seems to have predictive value. People have made that comment about the anthropic principle. As we find evidence for the anthropic principle, it leads to other things we didn&#8217;t expect to find. And it&#8217;s like the trail never ends. The evidence for fine tuning always increases, it never decreases. And the increase seems to be exponential just within the few decades in which we&#8217;ve been alive. One sense, I think it&#8217;s a privilege to be alive in the century 20th, the 21st century, because 200 years ago we didn&#8217;t have this, these kinds of tools.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Today we do. And look what we found and what is it revealing about our place in the universe or time and place and the fact that we seem to be at a very special location universe where we can see all this stuff. If we were close to the black hole in the, in our galaxy, we wouldn&#8217;t be able to make these observations or we were in the halo of our galaxy, wouldn&#8217;t be able to do it. And we seem to be at this fine tuned place. So I mean everywhere you look for Fine tuning, you seem to find it. And so I think that&#8217;s a compelling argument.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I&#8217;ll just give one counter example if I could just to that again, there&#8217;s</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />nothing wrong about a minute.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Okay. Yeah. So I posted something recently on X which is if you look at a circle inside of a square, inscribe a circle inside of a square, how much area is in the kind of corners, how much area does it a circle occupied of a given square cube, et cetera, et cetera. And when you go into higher and higher dimensions, as you know, you&#8217;re fun talking about and the string theory kind of concept that you just actually all of the inhabitable region you&#8217;ll get, you get within like a billionth of a percent of the perimeter of a sphere of a hydrogen if you have enough dimensions.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Right.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />So if you were living in such a universe like I live in the, in the outer skin, like one atom thick, one plank layer thick, thick of this vast cosmic universe, what are the odds of that? But there&#8217;s not that it&#8217;s more a statement about dimensionality than it is about the tuning that led to that. Right. So we just have to be careful and what we count towards evidence that&#8217;s exculpatory versus probative. And I think it&#8217;s legitimate, I think there&#8217;s absolutely consistent with your worldview. And I just, I&#8217;m more and more curious to learn how these different pieces of evidence from different fields, the consilience that we get from different fields in astronomy tell us about. Yeah, I&#8217;m all for viewing ourselves as important as having the only mandate that we know in the universe to interrogate it, as I said, as conscious entities. And how we use that is at our peril if we use it incorrectly.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Well, fine tuning can be just a statistic, like the odds of getting a particular hand in poker. It&#8217;s the same for every hand. But when you bring in purpose, especially when you bring in multiple purposes, that&#8217;s something that we&#8217;ve been doing work on. And say when you look at the universe universe it seems to be fine tuned to fulfill at least 11 known distinct purposes. I think this gives meaning to the fine tuning we&#8217;re seeing. If we only saw fulfilling one purpose, you could say, well maybe that&#8217;s a statistical accident, but the fact that it&#8217;s fulfilling multiple radically distinct purposes I think gives it philosophical importance.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Someone gave me a book from the scholar community. So I&#8217;ll ask this, Hugh, for fun, would you baptize an extraterrestrial?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Would I baptize an extraterrestrial? Depends on whether an extraterrestrial is capable of sin and has repented of their sin.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Will you make them observe the Sabbath?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />We&#8217;re forbidden to force people.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Yeah, yeah. We just ask them, do you want to be baptized? Well, well, Brian, thank you very, very much. You&#8217;ve been very gracious. Obviously you have a depth of knowledge there. We have similar subjects that we&#8217;re interested in and we want to keep dialogues like this going on. I love your podcast. So where would you want to point people to discover more about you, your podcast, some of your written work?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />I think the main thing is, yeah, the YouTube channel. I have conversations with 25 Nobel laureates to date and scholars and thinkers like John Lennox. Next week I&#8217;ll have some Stephen Meyer on Back Again. So, yeah, it&#8217;s kind of the intellectual salon I wish existed, you know, when I was in college and sleeping through lectures and I kind of been able to create it with these, you know, geniuses from around the multiverse of minds that I get connected to you where</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />you can get an education just listening to it.</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />Yeah, it&#8217;s free and you can take it class in your pajamas, which I don&#8217;t allow my students at UCSD.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />What&#8217;s the address for that?</p><p>Brian Keating:<br />That&#8217;s Dr. Brian Keating on YouTube and everywhere else. Yeah, and the podcast audio is into the Impossible.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />We have star cells and God is one podcast that you&#8217;re on. Hugh, what about a book you would recommend for people?</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Well, an easy to read book I&#8217;ve written. It&#8217;s called why the Universe is the Way It Is. Relatively short, introduces the fine tuning argument, but especially focuses when we&#8217;re talking about the multiple purposes for the fine tuning. And I find people really enjoy just like, oh, I had no idea that these purposes are relevant and actually all fit into the fine tuning. Why the universe is the way it</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />is and you answer questions on Facebook and other places.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />I answer hundreds of questions literally every day.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Literally every day. Every day. Well, we want to thank you for joining us on this live stream. Please. It helps us. Hopefully it helps you. Be sure to subscribe to this RTB YouTube channel and see future live streams that are coming. Brian, you know, people ask me when I get on a plane, they say, have a safe trip.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />And I say, that&#8217;s up to the pilot, but this is truly up to you. But have a safe travel. So thank you for visiting us in person. It makes a huge difference. We appreciate you and your friend who came, Hugh, always great to have you, the time and the interaction. I look forward really to taking this further. Hopefully someday.</p><p>Hugh Ross:<br />Yeah. It&#8217;s been a fun conversation.</p><p>George Harakson II:<br />Thank you for joining us.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
