In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by a wavefunction, which provides information about the probabilities of various outcomes, such as finding a particle at a particular location in space. This differs dramatically from classical physics, where a particle is described by a definite position and momentum. As a result, quantum mechanics inherently involves a certain level of uncertainty. A key question is whether this uncertainty reflects a fundamental indeterminacy in reality itself or merely our limited knowledge of the physical system.

One possibility is that reality could be deterministic, and the wavefunction might simply describe statistical properties, much like temperature and pressure describe the collective behavior of gas molecules. In this view, the true state of the system would be governed by hidden variables—deterministic factors that remain unseen yet produce the probabilistic outcomes we observe in quantum experiments. The standard view, however, is that the universe itself is inherently probabilistic. Furthermore, Bell’s theorem famously rules out “local hidden variable” models, suggesting to many that any such model must allow instantaneous causal influences between spatially separated objects. But is this standard picture as definitive as it seems?

In this episode of the podcast, I speak with Rob Spekkens, one of the world’s leading experts on the foundations of quantum mechanics. His research explores the idea that a quantum state may represent a state of incomplete knowledge rather than an objective state of reality. Many of the phenomena commonly associated with quantum mechanics—noncommutativity, interference, entanglement, wave-particle duality, and discrete energy levels—can, as Rob demonstrates, be modeled with classical toy models wherein each system has a determinate physical state but where we have incomplete knowledge of this state.. Rob suggests that quantum mechanics may not be as fundamentally different from classical physics as it initially appears. If we truly want to understand quantum reality, we should focus on isolating and investigating the "thin film" of phenomena that distinguish a quantum from a classical world. That's what we discuss in this episode. ►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/J2ZIRkfrFlI

►Find out more about Rob's work: https://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/robert-spekkens

►Follow Rob on Twitter: @RobertSpekkens

►Subscribe And Turn On All Notifications To See More: https://www.youtube.com/c/EscapedSapiens?sub_confirmation=1

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

Wheat, soy, corn, potatoes—did we really domesticate the best crops nature had to offer? In this episode of the podcast, I speak with geneticist Padraic J. Flood, who specializes in population and quantitative genetics. Padraic left academia and a position in vertical farming to pursue a dream: the domestication of the Aardaker. The Aardaker is a small, unassuming plant native to moist temperate regions of Europe and Western Asia. It produces edible tubers similar to potatoes, but unlike potatoes, these tubers are rich in protein. This unique combination could yield several times more protein per hectare than soy. Not only that, but the Aardaker is delicious, versatile (much like a potato), and improves soil quality by fixing nitrogen. If Padraic succeeds in domesticating the Aardaker—improving its size, uniformity, and other key traits—he could create a super crop that requires less land, enriches the soil, and potentially returns vast areas of farming land to nature.

►Find out more about Padraic's work: www.aardaia.com

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

In this episode I speak with Professor Thomas Metzinger about how our strong, consciously experienced subjectivity emerges out of objective events in the natural world. According to Thomas, no such things as selves really exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are what he calls `phenomenal' selves which our brains fabricate. In this episode I try to unpack what this means exactly, and what the implications are.

Note: The first question of this interview has been re-filmed after the interview.

Thomas has a new book, which he made open access for everybody to read for free. You can find it here: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5725/The-Elephant-and-the-BlindThe-Experience-of-Pure

►Watch on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/KdHxUo8wRpY

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

Why is alcohol use so widespread? The usual thinking is that despite its negative effects, alcohol is pleasurable and that is why we drink it. But this can't be the whole story because if alcohol is really so bad then cultures that prohibit drinking should dominate over those that like to drink, or you might think that a genetic mutation that makes drinking less pleasurable would spread rapidly through the population. In this conversation I discuss this mystery with sinologist and philosopher Edward Slingerland, who is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, where he also holds appointments in the Departments of Psychology and Asian Studies. Our conversation ranges from the history of alcohol, to its biochemistry and impact on creativity and social life, to a discussion of whether alcohol was necessary for the development of civilization.

► Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/j36sKDsvZUg

► For more information about Edward's work see: https://www.edwardslingerland.com/ https://philosophy.ubc.ca/profile/edward-slingerland-iii/

►Follow Stephen on X: @slingerland20

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

This is a conversation with Stephen Wolfram about his proposed theory of everything. Stephen is a British-American computer scientist, mathematician, physicist, and CEO of Wolfram Research. He also created Mathematica, and Wolfram|Alpha & Wolfram Language, and is the Author of 'A New Kind of Science' as well as a number of other books.

Stephen's attempt to derive all of the laws of nature (including gravitation, statistical mechanics, and general relativity) rests on two key ideas:

1. The idea of computational irreducibility. In physics we usually deal with systems for which we are able to predict the state of the system at a later time as long as the initial conditions are known. For example, the trajectory of a bullet can be calculated at any point along its path. There are, however, complicated systems like cellular automata where there isn't a closed formula that lets you calculate the state of the system at some arbitrary later point. Instead you are forced to compute the development of the system one step at a time if you want to know how it evolves. Such systems are 'computationally irreducible'.

2. The idea of computational boundedness. This is the idea that we have finite computing power in our brains. There are many complex systems that scale so fast that our bounded computing power isn't enough follow every element of the system (e.g. we can't visualize the motion of the billions of cells in our own bodies, and so instead we develop an aggregated model of ourselves).

Starting with these two ideas, Stephen asks what a world with computational irreducibility would look like to a computationally bounded creature living in that world. He then builds a computational model based on hypergraphs (which you can think of as a kind of cellular automata), and from there attempts to re-derive all the laws of nature. This is an extraordinarily ambitious project, that lies somewhat outside of mainstream approaches to physics. The claim is, however, that significant progress has been made, and that this approach really is able to derive interesting aspects of the physical world. This conversation explores the key ideas behind the program.

►Watch on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/T0s_H9c2O28

► For more information about Stephen's work see: www.stephenwolfram.com www.wolframphysics.org

►Thumbnail source images can be found here: https://company.wolfram.com/press-center/stephen-wolfram/ https://www.wolframphysics.org/visual-gallery/

►Follow Stephen on X: @stephen_wolfram

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. This interview is one of a series of interviews that explores the impact of economics on sustainability and the environment. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. As such, the views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests. A big thank you to anonymous for letting me use their space as a temporary studio.

Housing regulation is often put in place for good reasons, namely comfort, safety, environmental protection, availability of utilities and services, and more. With each additional regulation, however, restrictions are being placed on what you can build, where you can build, and how quickly you can build it. Professor Bryan Caplan argues that our current mess of regulations dramatically increases the price of housing, by limiting supply. This, he argues, has disastrous effects on fertility, and many social issues that we care about today, including social mobility and financial inequalities. Bryan argues further that inappropriate zoning and regulation creates widespread environmental damage through urban sprawl, congestion, and by limiting the number of people who are able to live in environmentally less damaging areas of the country (e.g. where heating and air condition is not required throughout the year, or where water is not scarce).

Bryan's preference would be to lift many, if not all building regulations. My approach would be somewhat more conservative. We discuss the nuances of the debate in this conversation.

►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Rh1eFIveLfE

►For more information about Bryan's work: http://www.bcaplan.com/

►For Bryans new book: https://www.cato.org/books/build-baby-build

►Follow Bryan on X: @bryan_caplan

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. This interview is one of a series of interviews that explores the impact of economics on sustainability and the environment. The Andrea von Braun Foundation has provided me with full creative freedom with their support. The views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

Julia Berezutskaya is one of the worlds leading researchers working in the area of brain computer interfaces. She is part of the brain-computer interface group (dept. Neurology & Neurosurgery) at UMC Utrecht, where she works at the intersection of fundamental and clinical neuroscience research. A key goal of her work on the computational modeling of cognitive and neurobiological processes is to one day allow for the decoding of naturalistic human speech from the brain signals of patients who have lost all motor function. In this conversation we discuss the basics of her work: what do the implants look like? Where do they go in the brain? What does the signal look like? What is being decoded? How are brain signals decoded? Who is getting these implants, and what is the state of the art?

►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/JrE-Ux7BnHA

►You can find out more about the EU project that Julia is a part of where she will implant individuals with an intracortical BCI here: https://intrecom.eu/

►You can see one of the mockup implants she uses here: https://wysscenter.ch/advances/ability/

►Visit Julias website to find out more about her work: https://www.juliaberezutskaya.com/

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.

Carl Bender is an applied mathematician and mathematical physicist holding positions at Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Heidelberg, Imperial College, London. He was also one of my own favorite lecturers. He taught me about perturbation theory and asymptotic series which are powerful mathematical tools for solving difficult problems in physics. I invited Carl on to the podcast to discuss complex numbers, and their application in physics. At a conceptual level Carl talks about the link between mathematics and reality, the history of complex numbers and what they are good for, his research into weird new quantum systems known as PT-symmetric quantum systems, his interactions with Richard Feynman, and the role that beauty plays in Mathematical discovery.

►Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/UbHaAziq6jY

►You can find out more about Carl Here: https://web.physics.wustl.edu/cmb/

These conversations are supported by the Andrea von Braun foundation (http://www.avbstiftung.de/), as an exploration of the rich, exciting, connected, scientifically literate, and (most importantly) sustainable future of humanity. The views expressed in these episodes are my own and those of my guests.