The following is a conversation with Eric Weinstein, the second time we've spoken on this podcast.

He's a mathematician with a bold and piercing intelligence, unafraid to explore the biggest

questions in the universe and shine a light on the darkest corners of our society. He is the host

of the Portal podcast, a part of which he recently released his 2013 Oxford lecture

on his theory of geometric unity that is at the center of his lifelong efforts

to arrive at a theory of everything that unifies the fundamental laws of physics.

This conversation was recorded recently in the time of the coronavirus pandemic.

For everyone feeling the medical, psychological, and financial burden of this crisis,

I'm sending love your way. Stay strong. We're in this together. We'll beat this thing.

This is the Artificial Intelligence podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube,

review it with five stars on Apple Podcasts, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me

on Twitter at Lex Freedman, spelled F R I D M A N. This show is presented by Cash App,

the number one finance app in the App Store. When you get it, use code LexPodcast. Cash App

lets you send money to friends by Bitcoin and invest in the stock market with as little as one

dollar. Since Cash App does fractional share trading, let me mention that the order execution

algorithm that works behind the scenes to create the abstraction of the fractional orders

is an algorithmic marvel. So big props to the Cash App engineers for solving a hard problem

that in the end provides an easy interface that takes a step up to the next layer of abstraction

of the stock market, making trading more accessible to new investors and diversification

much easier. So again, if you get cash out from the App Store or Google Play and use code Lex

Podcast, you get $10 and Cash App will also donate $10 to first, an organization that is

helping to advance robotics and STEM education for young people around the world. And now,

here's my conversation with Eric Weinstein. Do you see a connection between World War II

and the crisis we're living through right now? Sure. The need for collective action,

reminding ourselves of the fact that all of these abstractions, like everyone should just do

exactly what he or she wants to do for himself and leave everyone else alone, none of these

abstractions work in a global crisis. And this is just a reminder that we didn't somehow put

all that behind us. When I hear stories about my grandfather who was in the army, and so the

Soviet Union where most people die when you're in the army, there's a brotherhood that happens.

There's a love that happens. Do you think that's something we're going to see here,

a sense of community? We're not there. I mean, what the Soviet Union went through.

I mean, the enormity of the war on the Russian doorstep, this is different. What we're going

through now is not, we can't talk about Stalingrad and COVID in the same breath yet. We're not ready.

And the sense of like the great patriotic war and the way in which I was very moved by the

Soviet custom of newlyweds going and visiting war memorials on their wedding day, like the

happiest day of your life, you have to say, thank you to the people who made it possible.

We're not there. We're just restarting history. I've called this, on the Rogan program,

I called it the Great Knapp, the 75 years with very little by historical standards

in terms of really profound disruption. And so when you call it the Great Knapp,

meaning lack of deep global tragedy. Well, lack of realized global tragedy.

So I think that the development, for example, of the hydrogen bomb was something that happened

during the Great Knapp. And that doesn't mean that people who lived during that time didn't

feel fear, didn't know anxiety. But it was to say that most of the violent potential of human

species was not realized. It was in the form of potential energy. And this is the thing that I've

sort of taken issue with with the description of Stephen Pinker's optimism is that if you

look at the realized kinetic variables, things have been getting much better for a long time,

which is the Great Knapp. But it's not as if our fragility has not grown,

our dependence on electronic systems, our vulnerability to disruption. And so all sorts

of things have gotten much better. Other things have gotten much worse. And the destructive

potential is skyrocketed. Is tragedy the only way we wake up from the Big Knapp?

Well, no, you could also have, you know, jubilation about positive things. But it's harder

to get people's attention. Can you give an example of a big global positive thing that could happen?

I think that when, for example, just historically speaking, HIV went from being a death sentence

to something that people could live with for a very long period of time, it would be great if

that had happened on a Wednesday, right? Like all at once, like you knew that things had changed.

And so the bleed in somewhat kills the sort of the Wednesday effect where it all happens on a

particular day at a particular moment. I think if you look at the stock market here, you know,

there's a very clear moment where you can see that the market absorbs the idea of the coronavirus.

I think that with respect to positives, the moon landing was the best example of a positive

that happened at a particular time or recapitulating the Soviet American link up in terms of

Skylab and Soyuz, right? Like that was a huge moment when you actually had these two nations

connecting in orbit. And so, yeah, there are great moments where something beautiful and

wonderful and amazing happens, you know, but it's just, they're fewer. That's why as much

as I can't imagine proposing to somebody at a sporting event, when you have like 30,000 people

waiting and, you know, like she says, yes, it's pretty exciting. So I think that we shouldn't

discount that. So how bad do you think it's going to get in terms of the global suffering that we're

going to experience with this crisis? I can't figure this one out. I'm just not smart enough.

Something is going weirdly wrong. They're almost like two separate storylines. In one storyline,

we aren't taking things nearly seriously enough. We see people using food packaging lids as masks

who are doctors or nurses. We hear horrible stories about people dying needlessly due to triage.

And that's a very terrifying story. On the other hand, there's this other story which says there

are tons of ventilators someplace. We've got lots of masks, but they haven't been released.

We've got hospital ships where none of the beds are being used. And it's very confusing to me

that somehow these two stories give me the feeling that they both must be true simultaneously and

they can't both be true in any kind of standard way. And I don't know whether it's just that I'm

dumb, but I can't get one or the other story to quiet down. So I think weirdly, this is much more

serious than we had understood it. And it's not nearly as serious as some people are making it

out to be at the same time. And that we're not being given the tools to actually understand,

oh, here's how to interpret the data. The issue with the personal protective equipment

is actually a jurisdictional battle or a question of who pays for it rather than a question of

whether it's present or absent. I don't understand the details of it, but something is wildly off

in our ability to understand where we are. So that's policy, that's institutions. What about,

do you think about the quiet suffering of millions of people that have lost their job? Is this a

temporary thing? I mean, what I'm, my ears not to the suffering of those people who've lost their

job or the 50% possibly of small businesses that are going to go bankrupt. Do you think about that

quiet suffering? Well, and how that might arise itself? Could be not quiet too. I mean,

right, that's the, could be a depression. This could go from recession to depression. And depression

could go to armed conflict and then to war. So it's not a very abstract causal chain that gets us

to the point where we can begin with quiet suffering and anxiety and all of these sorts of

things and people losing their jobs and people dying from stress and all sorts of things. But

look, anything powerful enough to put us all indoors in a, I mean, think about this as an

incredible experiment. Imagine that you proposed, Hey, I want to do a bunch of research. Let's figure

out what changes in our emissions, emissions profiles for our carbon footprints when we're all

indoors or what happens to traffic patterns or what happens to the vulnerability of retail sales

as Amazon gets stronger, you know, et cetera, et cetera. I believe that in many of those situations,

we're running an incredible experiment. And am I worried for us all? Yes, there are some bright

spots, one of which is that when you're ordered to stay indoors, people are going to feel entitled.

And the usual thing that people are going to hit when they hear that they've lost your job, you know,

there's this kind of tough, tough love attitude that you see, particularly in the United States.

Oh, you lost your job, poor baby. Well, go retrain, get another one. I think there's going

to be a lot less appetite for that because we've been asked to sacrifice, to risk, to act collectively.

And that's the interesting thing. What does that reawaken in us? Maybe the idea that we actually

are nations and that, you know, your fellow countrymen may start to mean something to more

people, certainly mean something to people in the military. But I wonder how many people who

aren't in the military start to think about this as like, Oh, yeah, we are kind of running separate

experiments and we are not China. So you think this is kind of a period that might be studied for

years to come? From my perspective, we are a part of experiment, but I don't feel like we have access

to the full data, the full data of the experiment. We're just like little mice in a large...

Does this one make sense to you, Lex? I'm romanticizing it, and I keep connecting it to World

War II. So I keep connecting to historical events and making sense of them through that way,

or reading the plague by Camus. Like almost kind of telling narratives and stories, but it might...

I'm not hearing the suffering that people are going through, because I think that's quiet.

Everybody's numb currently. They're not realizing what it means to have lost your job

and to have lost your business. There's kind of a... I'm afraid how that fear will materialize

itself once the numbness wears out. And especially if this lasts for many months,

and if it's connected to the incompetence of the CDC and the WHO and our government

and perhaps the election process, my biggest fear is that the elections get delayed or something

like that. So the basic mechanisms of our democracy get slowed or damaged in some way

that then mixes with the fear that people have that turns to panic, that turns to anger.

That anger. Can I just play with that for a little bit? Sure. What if, in fact,

all of that structure that you grew up thinking about, and again, you grew up in two places,

right? So when you were inside the US, we tend to look at all of these things as museum pieces.

Like how often do we amend the Constitution anymore? And in some sense, if you think about

the Jewish tradition of Simba Torah, you've got this beautiful scroll that has been lovingly

hand drawn in calligraphy that's very valuable. And it's very important that you not treat it

as a relic to be revered. And so one day a year, we dance with the Torah and we hold this incredibly

vulnerable document up and we treat it as if it was Ginger Rogers being led by Fred Astaire.

Well, that is how you become part of your country. In fact, maybe the election will be delayed,

maybe extraordinary powers will be used, maybe any one of a number of things will indicate

that you're actually living through history. This isn't a museum piece that you were handed by

your great great grandparents. But you're kind of suggesting that there might be like a community

thing that pops up, like as opposed to an angry revolution, it might have a positive effect.

Well, for example, are you telling me that if the right person stood up and called for us to

sacrifice PPE for our nurses and our MDs who are on the front lines, that people wouldn't

reach down deep in their own supply that they've been stocking and carefully

storing there and just say, here, take it. Right now, an actual leader would use this time

to bring out the heroic character. And I'm going to just go wildly patriotic because I

friggin love this country. We've got this dormant population in the US that loves leadership and

country and pride in our freedom and not being told what to do. And we still have this thing

that binds us together and all of them, the merchants of division just be gone. I totally

agree with you. There's a, I think there is a deep hunger for that leadership. Why hasn't that,

why hasn't won a reason? Because we don't have the right surgeon general.

We have a guy saying, come on, guys, don't buy masks. They don't really work for you. Save them

for our healthcare professionals. No, you can't do that. You have to say, you know what, these

masks actually do work and they more work to protect other people from you. But they would

work for you. They'll keep you somewhat safer if you wear them. Here's the deal. You've got somebody

who's taking huge amounts of viral load all the time because the patients are shedding. Do you

want to protect that person who's volunteered to be in the front line, who's up sleepless nights?

You just change the message. You stop lying to people. You level with them. It's bad.

Absolutely. But that's a little bit specific. So you have to be just honest about the facts

of the situation. Yes. But I think you were referring to something bigger than just that.

Inspiring, rewriting the constitution, sort of rethinking how we work as a nation.

Yeah. I think you should probably amend the constitution once or twice in a lifetime

so that you don't get this distance from the foundational documents. And part of the problem

is that we've got two generations on top that feel very connected to the US. They feel bought in

and we've got three generations below. It's a little bit like watching your parents riding

the tricycle that they were supposed to pass on to you. And it's like, you're now too old to ride

a tricycle and they're still whooping it up, ringing the bell with the streamers coming off

the handlebars and you're just thinking, do you guys never get bored? Do you never pass a torch?

Do you really want it? We had five septicinarians, all born in the 40s, running for president of

the United States when Klobuchar dropped out. The youngest was Warren. We had Warren, Biden,

Sanders, Bloomberg, and Trump from like 1949 to 1941. All who have been the oldest president at

inauguration. And nobody says, grandma and grandpa, you're embarrassing us.

Except Joe Rogan. Let me put it on you. You have a big platform. You're somewhat of an

intelligent, eloquent guy. What role do you play? Why aren't you that leader? I would argue that

you're in ways becoming that leader. So I haven't taken enough risk. Is that your idea? What should

I do or say at the moment? No, you have taken quite a big risks and we'll talk about it.

But you're also on the outside shooting in, meaning you're dismantling the institution

from the outside as opposed to becoming the institution. Do you remember that thing you

brought up when you were on the view? The view? I'm sorry. When you were on Oprah?

I didn't get the invite. I'm sorry. When you were on Bill Maher's program,

what was that thing you were saying? They don't know we're here. They may watch us.

Yeah. They may quietly slip us a direct message, but they pretend that this internet thing is

some dangerous place where only lunatics play. Who has the bigger platform? The portal or Bill

Maher's program or the view? Bill Maher in the view. In terms of viewership or in terms of what's

the metric of size? Well, first of all, the key thing is take a newspaper and even imagine that

it's completely fake and then it has very little in the way of circulation. Yet imagine that it's

a 100 year old paper and that it's still part of this game, this internal game of media.

The key point is that those sources that have that kind of

mark of respectability to the institutional structures matter in a way that even if I say

something on a very large platform that makes a lot of sense, if it's outside of what I've called

the gated institutional narrative or gin, it doesn't matter to the institutions. The game is

if it happens outside of the club, we can pretend that it never happened.

How can you get the credibility and the authority from outside the gated institutional narrative?

Well, first of all, you and I both share institutional credibility coming from our associations. So

we were both at MIT. Were you at Harvard at any point? Nope. Okay. Well, and lived in Harvard

Square. So did I. But at some level, the issue isn't whether you have credentials in that sense.

The key question is, can you be trusted to file a flight plan and not deviate from that flight

plan when you are in an interview situation? Will you stick to the talking points? I will not.

And that's why you're not going to be allowed in the general conversation, which amplifies these

sentiments. But I'm still trying to. So your point, it would be, is that we're, let's say, both.

So you've done, how many Joe Rogan? Four. I've done four too, right? So both of us are somewhat

frequent guests. The show is huge. You know the power as well as I do. And people are going to

watch this conversation. Huge number watched our last one. By the way, I want to thank you for

that one. That was a terrific, terrific conversation. Really did change my life. Lex, you're a

brilliant interviewer. So thank you. Thank you. That was that you changed my life too. That you

gave me a chance. So I was. No, no, no. I'm so glad I did that one. What I would say is, is that we

keep mistaking how big the audience is for whether or not you have the kiss. And the kiss is a

different thing. Kiss? What does that stand for? Well, it doesn't, it's not an acronym yet. Okay.

It's a, thank you for asking. It's a question of, are you part of the interoperable institution

friendly discussion? And that's the discussion which we ultimately have to break into.

But that's what I'm trying to get at, is how do we, how does Eric Weinstein become the president

of the United States? I shouldn't become the president of the United States. Not interested.

Thank you very much for asking. Okay. Get into a leadership position where, I guess I don't know

what that means, but where you can inspire millions of people to inspire the sense of

community, inspire the, the kind of actions required to overcome hardship, the kind of hardship that

we may be experiencing, to inspire people to work hard and face the difficult, hard facts of the

realities we're living through, all those kinds of things that you're talking about. That leader,

you know, can that leader emerge from the current institutions? Or alternatively,

can it also emerge from the outside? I guess that's what I was asking.

So my belief is, is that this is the last hurrah for the elderly centerist kleptocrats.

Can you define each of those terms? Okay. Elderly. I mean, people who were born at least a year

before I was, that's a joke, you can laugh. No, because I'm born at the cusp of the Gen X boomer

divide. So centerist, they're pretending, you know, there are two parties, Democrat and Republican

party in the United States. I think it's easier to think of the mainstream of both of them as part

of a, an aggregate party that I sometimes call the looting party, which gets us to kleptocracy,

which is ruled by thieves. And the great temptation has been to treat the US like a trough. And you

just have to get yours because it's not like we're doing anything productive. So everybody's

sort of looting the family mansion and somebody stole the silver and somebody's cutting the

pictures out of the frames. And, you know, roughly speaking, we're watching our elders

live it up in a way that doesn't make sense to the rest of us.

Okay. So if it's the last hurrah, this is the time for leaders to step up.

Like, no, we're not ready yet. We're not ready. I call out, you know, the head of the CDC should

resign. Should resign. The head, the surgeon general should resign. Trump should resign. Pelosi

should resign. De Blasio should resign. They're not going to resign. I understand that. So that's

why, so we'll wait. No, but that's not how revolutions work. You don't wait for people to

resign. You step up and inspire the alternative. Do you remember the Russian revolution of 1907?

It's before my time. But there wasn't a Russian revolution of 1907.

So you're thinking we're in 1907, not 1907. I'm saying we're too early.

But we got this, you know, Spanish flu came in 17, 18. So I would argue that there's a lot of

parallels there or there were one. I think it's not time yet. Like John Prine, the songwriter,

just died of COVID. That was a pretty big. Really? Yeah. By the way, yes, of course, I,

every time we do this, we discover our mutual appreciation of obscure, brilliant, witty songwriter.

Well, he's really, he's really quite good, right? He's really good. Yeah. He died.

My understanding is that he passed recently due to complications of corona.

So we haven't had large enough, enough large, large enough shocking deaths yet,

picturesque deaths, deaths of a family that couldn't get treatment.

There are stories that will come and break our hearts. And we have not had enough of those.

The visuals haven't come in. But I think they're coming. Well, we'll find out.

But that you got to, you have to be there. He has to be there when they come. I mean,

but we didn't get the visual, for example, of falling man from 911. Right. So the outside world

did, but Americans were not, it was thought that we would be too delicate. So just the way you

remember Pulitzer Prize winning photographs from the Vietnam era, you don't easily remember

the photographs from all sorts of things that have happened since because something changed in

our media. We are in sense that we cannot feel or experience our own lives and the tragedy that

would animate us to action. Yeah. But I think there, again, I think there's going to be that

suffering that's going to build and build and build in terms of businesses, mom and pop shops that

close. And I think for myself, I think often that I'm being weak and I feel like I should be doing

something. I should be becoming a leader on a small scale. You can't. This is not World War II

and this is not Soviet Russia. Why not? Why not? Because our internal programming, the malware

that sits between our ears is much different than the propagandized malware of the Soviet era.

I mean, people were both very indoctrinated and also knew that some level it was BS.

They had a double mind. I don't know. There must be a great word in Russian for being able to think

both of those things simultaneously. You don't think people are actually sick of the partisanship,

sick of incompetence? Yeah, but I called for revolt the other day on Joe Rogan and people

found it quixotic. Well, because I think revolt is different. I'm really angry. I'm furious.

I cannot stand that this is my country at the moment. I'm embarrassed. So let's build a better

one. Yeah. I'm in. Okay, so let's take over a few universities. Let's start running a different

experiment at some of our better universities. When I did this experiment, I said, if this

were 40 years ago, the median age I believe of a university president was 51, that would have the

person in Gen X and we'd have a bunch of millennial presidents, a bunch of more than half Gen X.

It's almost 100% baby boom at this moment. How did that happen? We can get into how they changed

retirement, but this generation above us does not feel, or even the older generation,

the silent generation. I had Roger Penrose on my program. Thank you. I really appreciate that.

And I asked him a question that was very important to me. I said, look, you're in your late 80s.

Is there anyone you could point to as a successor that we should be watching? We can get excited.

Here's an opportunity to pass the baton. He said, well, let me hold off on that.

Is it ever the right moment to point to somebody younger than you to keep your flame alive after

you're gone? And also, I don't know whether I'm just going to admit to this. People treat me like

I'm crazy for caring about the world after I'm dead, or wanting to be remembered after you're

gone. Well, what does it matter to you? You're gone. It's this deeply secular, somatic perspective

on everything. You know that phrase in, as time goes by, he says, it's still the same old story,

a fight for love and glory, a case of do or die. I don't think people imagined then that there

wouldn't be a story about fighting for love and glory. And like we are so out of practice about

fighting rivals for love and fighting for glory and something bigger than yourself.

But the hunger is there. Well, that was the point then, right? The whole idea is that Rick was,

you know, he was like Han Solo of his time. He's just like, I stick my neck out for nobody. You

know, it's like, oh, come on, Rick, you're just pretending you actually have a big soul, right?

And so at some level, that's the question. Do we have a big soul or is it just all bullshit?

See, I think there's huge Manhattan project style projects, whether you talk about physical

infrastructure or going to Mars, you know, the SpaceX, NASA efforts or huge, huge scientific

efforts. Well, we need to get back into the institutions and we need to remove the weak

leadership that we have weak leaders and the weak leaders need to be removed and they need

to seat people more dangerous than the people who are currently sitting in a lot of those chairs.

Or build new institutions. Good luck. Well, so one of the nice things from the internet is,

for example, somebody like you can have a bigger voice than almost anybody at the particular

institutions we're talking about. That's true. But the thing is, I might say something.

You can count on the fact that the, you know, provost at Princeton isn't going to say anything.

What do you mean? To afraid? Well, if that person were to give an interview,

how are things going in research at Princeton? Well, I'm hesitant to say it, but they're

perhaps as good as they've ever been and I think they're going to get better. Oh, is that right?

All fields? Yep. I don't see a weak one. It's just like, okay, great. Who are you and what are you even saying?

We're just used to total nonsense 24 seven. Yeah. What do you think might be a beautiful

thing that comes out of this? Is there a hope, like a little inkling,

a little fire of hope you have about our time right now?

Yeah, I think one thing is coming to understand that the freaks, weirdos, mutants, and other

nair duels, sometimes referred to as grifters. I like that one. Grifters and Gadflies were

very often the earliest people on the coronavirus. That's a really interesting question. Why was that?

And it seems to be that they had already paid such a social price that they weren't going to be

beaten up by being told that, oh my God, you're xenophobic. You just hate China.

Or, wow, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. So if you'd already paid those prices, you were

free to think about this and everyone in an institutional framework was terrified that

they didn't want to be seen as the alarmist, the chicken little. And so that's why you have this

confidence where De Blasio says, get on with your lives, get back in there and celebrate

Chinese New Year in Chinatown despite coronavirus. It's like, okay, really? So you just always thought

everything would automatically be okay if you adopted that posture.

So you think this time reveals the weakness of our institutions and reveals the strength

of our Gadflies and the weirdos and the... No, not necessarily the strength, but the value of

freedom, like a different way of saying it would be, wow, even your Gadflies and your grifters

were able to beat your institutional folks because your institutional folks were playing

with a giant mental handicap. So just imagine like we were in the story of Harrison Bergeron

by Vonnegut and our smartest people were all subjected to distracting noises every seven

seconds. Well, they would be functionally much dumber because they couldn't continue a thought

through all the disturbance. So in some sense, that's a little bit like what belonging to an

institution is, is that if you have to make a public statement, of course the surgeon general

is going to be the worst because they're just playing with too much of a handicap. There are

too many institutional players are like, don't screw us up. And so the person has to say something

wrong. We're going to back propagate a falsehood. And this is very interesting. Some of my socially

oriented friends say, Eric, I don't understand what you're on about. Of course masks work,

but you know what they're trying to do? They're trying to get us not to buy up the masks for

the doctors. And I think, okay, so you imagine that we can just create scientific fiction at will

so that you can run whatever social program you want. This is what I, you know, my point is get

out of my lab, get out of the lab. You don't belong in the lab. You're not meant for the lab.

You're constitutionally incapable of being around the lab. You need to leave the lab.

You think the CEC and WHO knew that masks work? And we're trying to sort of imagine that people

are kind of stupid and they would buy masks in excess if they were told that masks work. Is that,

like, because this does seem to be a particularly clear example of mistakes made.

You're asking me this question? Yeah. No, you're not. What do you think, Lex?

Well, I actually probably disagree with you a little bit. Great. Let's do it.

But I think it's not so easy to be honest with the populace

when the danger of panic is always around the corner. So I think the kind of honesty you exhibit

appeals to a certain class of brave intellectual minds that appeals to me, but I don't know

from the perspective of WHO, I don't know if it's so obvious that they should

be honest 100% of the time with people. I'm not saying you should be perfectly

transparent and 100% honest. I'm saying that the quality of your lies has to be very high

and it has to be public spirited. There's a big difference between... So I'm not a child about

this. I'm not saying that when you're at war, for example, you turn over all of your plans

to the enemy because it's important that you're transparent with 360 degree visibility far from

it. What I'm saying is something has been forgotten and I forgot who it was who told it to me,

but it was a fellow graduate student in the Harvard Math Department and he said,

you know, I learned one thing being out in the workforce because he was one of the few people

who had had a work life in the department as a graduate and he said, you can be friends with

your boss, but if you're going to be friends with your boss, you have to be doing a good job at work.

And there's an analog here, which is if you're going to be reasonably honest with the population,

you have to be doing a good job at work as the surgeon general or as the head of the CDC.

So if you're doing a terrible job, you're supposed to resign. And then the next person is supposed

to say, look, I'm not going to lie to you. I inherited the situation. It was in a bit of disarray,

but I had several requirements before I agreed to step in and take the job because I needed to

know I could turn it around. I needed to know that I had clear lines of authority. I needed to

know that I had the resources available in order to rectify the problem and I needed to know that

I had the ability and the freedom to level with the American people directly as I saw fit. All of

my wishes were granted and that's why I'm happy here on Monday morning. I've got my sleeves rolled

up. Boy, do we got a lot to do. So please come back in two weeks and then ask me how I'm doing

then and I hope to have something to show you. That's how you do it. So why is that excellence

and basic competence missing? The big net. You see, you come from multiple traditions where it

was very important to remember things. The Soviet tradition made sure that you remembered the

sacrifices that came in that war. And the Jewish tradition, we're doing this on Passover, right?

Okay. Well, every year we tell one simple story. Well, why can't it be different every year? Maybe

we could have a rotating series of seven story because it's the one story that you need. It's

like, you work with the men in black group, right? And it's the last suit that you'll ever need. This

is the last story that you ever need. Don't think I fell for your neuralyzer last time. In any event,

we tell one story because it's the get out of dodge story. There's a time when you need to not

wait for the bread to rise. And that's the thing, which is even if you live through a great nap,

you deserve to know what it feels like to have to leave everything that has become comfortable and

unworkable. It's sad that you need that tragedy. I imagine to have the tradition of remembering.

It's sad to think that because things have been nice and comfortable means that we can't have

great competent leaders, which is kind of the implied statement. Can we have great leaders

who take big risks, who inspire hard work, who deal with difficult truth, even though things

have been comfortable? Well, we know what those people sound like. I mean, if for example,

Jaco Willink suddenly threw his hat into the ring, everyone would say, okay,

right, party's over. It's time to get up at 4.30 and really work hard. And we've got to get back

into fighting shape. And yeah, but Jaco is a very special, I think that whole group of people

by profession put themselves into hardship on a daily basis. And he's not, well, I don't know,

but he's probably not going to be, well, could Jaco be president?

Okay, but it doesn't have to be Jaco, right? In other words, if it was Kai Lenny or if it was

Alex Honnold from rock climbing. They're just serious people. They're serious people

who can't afford your BS. Yeah, but why do we have serious people that do rock climbing

and don't have serious people who lead the nation? Because that was a, those skills

needed in rock climbing are not good during the big nap. And at the tail end of the big nap,

they would get you fired. But I don't, don't you think there's a fundamental part of human

nature that desires to, to excel to be exceptionally good at your job?

Yeah, but what is your job? I mean, in other words, my point to you is if you, if you're a

general in a peacetime army and your major activity is playing war games, what if the

skills needed to win war games are very different than the skills needed to win wars because you

know how the war games are scored and you've, you've done moneyball, for example, with war games.

And you figured out how to win games on paper. So then the advancement skill becomes divergent

from the ultimate skill that it was proxying for. Yeah, but you create, we're good as human

beings to, I mean, at least me, I can't do a big nap. So at any one moment when I finish something,

a new dream pops up. So go into Mars. What do you like to do? You like to do Brazilian jujitsu?

Well, first of all, I like to do everything. You like to play guitar?

Guitar. You do this podcast, you do theory. You're always, you're constantly taking risks

and exposing yourself, right? Why? Because you got one of those crazy, I'm sorry to say it,

you got an Eastern European Jewish personality, which I'm still tied to. And I'm a couple of

generations more distant than you are. And I've held on to that thing because it's valuable to me.

You don't think there's a huge percent of the populace, even in the United States, that's

that might be a little bit dormant. But do you know Anna Hachin from the Red Scare podcast?

Did you interview her? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I listened. Yeah, yeah, yeah. She was great.

She was great, right? Yeah, she's fun. She's terrific. But she also has the same thing going

on. And I made a joke in the liner notes for that episode, which is somewhere on the road from

Stalingrad to Forever 21, something was lost. How can Stalingrad and Forever 21 be in the same

sentence? And in part, it's that weird thing. It's like trying to remember. Even words, like,

I mean, Russian and Hebrew, things like, it's like, but Pomyat and Lyskor, these words have

much more potency about memory. And I don't know. I think there's still a dormant populace

that craves leaders on a small scale and large scale. And I hope to be that leader on a small

scale. And I think you, sir, have a role to be a leader. You kids go ahead without me. I'm just

going to, I'm going to do a little bit of weird podcast. See, now you're, you're putting on your

Joe Rogan hat. He says, I'm just a comedian. Oh, no, I'm not. You say I'm just, that's not that.

If I say I want to lead too much because of the big nap, there's like a group, a chorus of automated

idiots. And their first thought is like, ah, I knew it. This was a power grab all along. Why

should you lead? You know, just like, and so the, the idea is you're just trying to skirt around,

not stepping on all of the idiot landmines. It's like, okay. So now I'm going to hear

that in my inbox for the next three days. Okay. So lead by example, just live. No, I mean,

large platform. Look, we should take over the institutions. There are institutions,

we've got bad leadership, we should mutiny, and we should inject a, I don't know, 15%, 20%,

disagreeable, dissident, very aggressive, loner, individual, mutant freaks, all the people that

you go to see Avengers movies about, or the X men or whatever it is, and stop pretending that

everything good comes out of some great giant inclusive communal 12 hour meeting. It's like,

stop it. That's not how shit happens. You recently published the video of a lecture,

you gave it Oxford presenting some aspects of a theory, theory of everything called geometric

unity. So this was a work of 30, 30 plus years. This is life's work. Let me ask you the, the

silly old question. How do you feel as a human, excited, scared, the experience of posting it?

You know, it's funny. One of the, one of the things that you, you learn to feel as an academic

is the great sins you can commit in academics is to show yourself to be a non serious person,

to show yourself to have delusions, to avoid the standard practices, which everyone has signed

up for. And, you know, it's weird because like, you know that those people are going to be angry.

He did what? You know, why would he do that? And, and what we're referring to, for example,

the traditions of sort of publishing incrementally, certainly not trying to have a theory of everything,

perhaps working within the academic departments. Yep. All those things. That's true.

And so you're going outside of all of that. Well, I mean, I was going inside of all of that.

And we did not come to terms when I was inside. And what they did was so outside to me was so

weird, so freakish. Like the most senior respectable people at the most senior respectable places

were functionally insane, as far as I could tell. And again, it's like being functionally stupid

if you're the head of the CDC or something where, you know, you're giving recommendations out that

aren't based on what you actually believe, they're based on what you think you have to be doing.

Well, in some sense, I think that that's a lot of how I saw the math and physics world as

the physics world was really crazy. And the math world was considerably less crazy,

just very strict and kind of dogmatic. We'll psychoanalyze those folks, but I really want to

maybe linger on it a little bit longer of how you feel because this is such a, such a special

moment in your life. Well, I really appreciate it. It's a great question. So that if we can

pair off some of those other issues, it's new being able to say what the observer is,

which is my attempt to replace space time with something that is both closely related to space

time and not space time. So I used to carry the number 14 as a closely guarded secret in my life.

And where 14 is really four dimensions of space and time plus 10 extra dimensions of rulers

and protractors or for the cool kids out there, symmetric two tensors.

So you had a geometric, a complicated, beautiful geometric view of the world that you carried

with you for a long time. Yeah. Did you, did you have friends that you colleagues that you

essentially know? Talked? No. In fact, part of these, part of some of these stories are me coming

out to my friends. And I use the phrase coming out because I think that gays have monopolized

the concept of the closet. Many of us are in closets and having nothing to do with their

sexual orientation. Yeah, I didn't really feel comfortable talking to almost anyone. So this

was a closely guarded secret. And I think that I let on in some ways that I was up to something and

probably, but it was a very weird life. So I had to have a series of things that I pretended to care

about so that I could use that as the stalking horse for what I really cared about. And to your

point, I never understood this whole thing about theories of everything. Like if you were going

to go into something like theoretical physics, isn't that what you would normally pursue?

Like, wouldn't it be crazy to do something that difficult and that poorly paid if you were going

to try to do something other than figure out what this is all about? Now I have to reveal my cards,

my sort of weaknesses and lack and understanding of the music of the physics and math departments.

But there's an analogy here to artificial intelligence. And often folks come in and say,

okay, so there's a giant department working on quote unquote artificial intelligence. But why is

nobody actually working on intelligence? Like you're all just building little toys. You're not

actually trying to understand and that breaks a lot of people. It confuses them because like,

okay, so I'm at MIT, I'm at Stanford, I'm at Harvard, I'm here, I dreamed of being working on

artificial intelligence. Why is everybody not actually working on intelligence? And I have the

same kind of sense that that's what working on the theory of everything is. That strangely,

you somehow become an outcast for even. But we know why this is, right?

Why? Well, it's because let's take the artificial, let's play with AGI, for example.

Yeah. I think that the idea starts off with nobody really knows how to work on that.

And so if we don't know how to work on it, we choose instead to work on a program that is

tangentially related to it. So we do a component of a program that is related to that big question

because it's felt like, at least I can make progress there. And that wasn't where I was.

Where I was in, it's funny, there was this book called Frieden Uhlenbeck and it had this weird

mysterious line in the beginning of it. And I tried to get clarification of this weird mysterious

line and everyone said wrong things. And then I said, okay, well, so I can tell that nobody's

thinking properly because I just asked the entire department and nobody has a correct

interpretation of this. And so, you know, it's a little bit like you see a crime scene photo

and you have a different idea. Like there's a smoking gun and you figure,

that's actually a cigarette lighter. I don't really believe that. And then there's like a

pack of cards and you think, oh, that looks like the blunt instrument that the person was beaten

with. So you have a very different idea about how things go and very quickly you realize that

there's no one thinking about that. There's a few human sides to this and technical sides,

both of which I'd love to try to get down to. So the human side, I can tell from my perspective,

I think it was before April 1st, April Fools, maybe the day before, I forget. But I was laying in

bed in the middle of the night and somehow it popped up, you know, on my feed somewhere that

your beautiful face is speaking live. And I clicked and, you know, it's kind of weird how

the universe just brings things together in this kind of way. And all of a sudden I realized that

there's something big happening at this particular moment. It's strange, on a day like any day.

And all of a sudden you were thinking of, you had this somber tone, like you were serious,

like you were going through some difficult decision. And it seems strange, I almost thought you were

maybe joking, but there was a serious decision being made and it was a wonderful experience to

go through with you. I really appreciate it. I mean, it was April 1st. Yeah, it was kind of

fascinating. I mean, it's just a whole experience. And so I want to ask, I mean, thank you for letting

me be part of that kind of journey of decision making that took 30 years. But why now? Why did

you think, why did you struggle so long not to release it and decide to release it now?

On a, while the whole world is on lockdown, on April Fool's, is it just because you like the

comedy of absurd ways that the universe comes together? I don't think so. I think that the

COVID epidemic is the end of the big nap. And I think that I actually tried this seven years earlier

in Oxford. So I, and it was too early. Which part was too early? Is it the platform? Because

your platform is quite different now, actually, the internet. I remember you, I read several

your brilliant answers that people should read for the Edge questions. One of them was related to

the internet. And it was the first one. Was it the first one? Yeah. An essay called Go Virtual

Young Man. Yeah. Yeah, that seemed, that's like forever ago now. Well, that was 10 years ago.

And that's exactly what I did is I decamped to the internet, which is where the portal lives,

the portal, the portal, the portal. Yeah. Well, we'll insert the theme, the ominous theme music

which you can just listen to forever. I actually started recording a tiny guitar licks

for the audio portion, not for the video portion. You've kind of inspired me with

bringing your guitar into the story, but keep going. So you thought, so the Oxford was like

step one and you kind of, you put your foot into the, in the water to sample it, but it was too

cold at the time. So you didn't want to step in. I was just really disappointed. What was

disappointing about that experience? It's a hard thing to talk about. It has to do with the fact

that, and I can see this, you know, this mirrors a disappointment within myself. There are two

separate issues. One is the issue of making sure that the idea is actually heard and explored.

And the other is the, is the question about will I become disconnected from my work

because it will be ridiculed. It will be immediately improved. It will be found to be

derivative of something that occurred in some paper in 1957. When the community does not want

you to gain a voice, it's a little bit like a policeman deciding to weirdly enforce all of

these little known regulations against you and, you know, sometimes nobody else. And I think that's

kind of, you know, this weird thing where I just don't believe that we can reach the final theory

necessarily within the political economy of academics. So if you think about how academics

are tortured by each other and how they're paid and where they have freedom and where they don't,

I actually weirdly think that that system of selective pressures is going to eliminate anybody

who's going to make real progress.

So that's interesting. So if you look at the story of Andrew Wiles, for example,

with, from my last theorem, I mean, he, as far as I understand, he pretty much isolated himself

from the world of academics in terms of the big, the bulk of the work he did. And it, from my

perspective, is dramatic and fun to read about, but it seemed exceptionally stressful. The first

step he took, the first steps he took when actually making the work public, that seemed, to me,

would be hell.

Yeah, but it's like so artificially dramatic. You know, he leads up to it at a series of lectures.

He doesn't want to say it. And then he finally says it at the end, because obviously this comes

out of a body of work where, I mean, the funny part about, for my last theorem is it wasn't

originally thought to be a deep and meaningful problem. It was just an easy to state one that

had gone unsolved. But if you think about it, it became attached to the body of regular theory.

So he built up this body of regular theory, gets all the way up to the end, announces.

And then like, there's this whole drama about, okay, somebody's checking the proof. I don't

understand what's going on in line 37. You know, and like, oh, is this serious? It seems a little

bit more serious than we knew.

I mean, do you see parallels? Do you share the concern that your experience might be something

similar?

Well, in his case, I think that if I recall correctly, his original proof was unsalvageable.

He actually came up with a second proof with a colleague, Richard Taylor,

and it was that second proof which carried the day. So it was a little bit that he got

put under incredible pressure and then had to succeed in a new way having failed the first

time, which is like, even a weirder and stranger story.

That's an incredible story in some sense. But I mean, are you, I'm trying to get a sense of the

kind of stress you're on.

I think that this is okay, but I'm rejecting. What I don't think people understand with me

is the scale of the critique. It's like, I don't, people say, well, you must implicitly agree with

this and implicitly agree. And it's like, no, try me. Ask before you decide that I am mostly

in agreement with the community about how these things should be handled or what these things

mean.

Can you elaborate? And also, just why this criticism matter so much here? So you seem to

dislike the burden of criticism that it will choke away all.

There's different kinds of criticism. There's constructive criticism and there's destructive

criticism. And what I don't like is I don't like a community that can't, first of all,

like if you take the physics community, just the way we screwed up on masks and PPE,

just the way we screwed up in the financial crisis and mortgage back securities, we screwed

up on string theory.

Can we just forget the string theory happened or?

Sure. But then somebody should say that, right? Somebody should say, you know, it didn't work

out.

Yeah.

But okay, but you're asking this, like, why do you guys get to keep the prestige after

failing for 35 years? That's an interesting question.

Who is the you guys? Because to me,

Whoever the profession, look, these things, if there is a theory of everything to be had,

right, it's going to be a relatively small group of people where this will be sorted out.

Absolutely.

It's not tens of thousands. It's probably hundreds at the top.

But within that community, there's the assholes. There's the, I mean, you have,

you always in this world have people who are kind, open minded.

It's not a question about kind. It's a question about, okay, let's imagine, for example,

that you have a story where you believe that ulcers are definitely caused by stress.

And you've never questioned it, or maybe you felt like the Japanese came out of the blue

and attacked us at Pearl Harbor, right? And now somebody introduces a new idea to you,

which is like, what if it isn't stress at all? Or what if we actually tried to make resource

star of Japan attack us somewhere in the Pacific so we could have Cassus Belli to enter the Asian

theater? And the person's original idea is like, what? What are you even saying? You know, it's

like too crazy. Well, when Dirac in 1963 talked about the importance of beauty as a guiding

principle in physics, and he wasn't talking about the scientific method. That was crazy talk.

But he was actually making a great point. And he was using Schrodinger. And I think it was,

Schrodinger was standing in for him. And he said that if your equations don't agree with

experiment, that's kind of a minor detail. If they have true beauty in them, you should explore them

because very often the agreement with experiment is an issue of fine tuning of your model,

of the instantiation. And so it doesn't really tell you that your model is wrong. And of course,

Heisenberg told Dirac that his model was wrong, because that the proton and the electron should

be the same mass if they are each other's antiparticles. And that was an irrelevant

kind of silliness rather than a real threat to the Dirac theory.

But okay, so amidst all this silliness, I'm hoping that we could talk about the journey

that geometric unity has taken and will take as an idea and an idea that will see the light.

Yeah. So first of all, I'm thinking of writing a book called Geometric Unity for Idiots.

And I need you as a consultant. So can we...

First of all, I hope I have the trademark on geometric unit.

You do. Good.

Can you give a basic introduction of the goals of geometric unity, the basic tools of mathematics

use the viewpoints in general for idiots like me? Okay. Great. Fun.

So what's the goal of geometric unity?

The goal of geometric unity is to start with something so completely bland

that you can simply say, well, that's something that begins the game is as close to a mathematical

nothing as possible. In other words, I can't answer the question, why is there something

rather than nothing? But if there has to be a something that we begin from,

let it begin from something that's like a blank canvas.

That's even more basic. So what is something? What are we trying to describe here?

Okay. Right now, we have a model of our world and it's got two sectors.

One of the sectors is called general relativity. The other is called the standard model.

So we'll call it GR for general relativity and SM for standard model.

What's the difference between the two?

What are the two described? So general relativity gives pride of place to gravity

and everything else is acting as a sort of a backup singer.

Gravity is the star of the show. Gravity is the star of general relativity.

And in the standard model, the other three non gravitational forces. So if there are four

forces that we know about three of the four non gravitational, that's where they get to shine.

Great. So tiny little particles and how they interact with each other.

So photons, gluons and so called intermediate vector bosons. Those are the things that the

standard model showcases and general relativity showcases gravity. And then you have matter

which is accommodated in both theories, but much more beautifully inside of the standard model.

So what does a theory of everything do?

So first of all, I think that that's the first place where we haven't talked enough.

We assume that we know what it means, but we don't actually have any idea what it means.

And what I claim it is, is that it's a theory where the questions beyond that theory are no

longer of a mathematical nature. In other words, if I say, let us take X to be a four dimensional

manifold. To a mathematician or a physicist, I've said very little. I've simply said,

there's some place for calculus and linear algebra to dance together and to play.

And that's what manifolds are. They're the most natural place where our two greatest math theories

can really intertwine. Which are the two? Oh, you mean the calculus and linear algebra.

Okay. Now the question is beyond that. So it's sort of like saying, I'm an artist and I want to

order a canvas. Now the question is, does the canvas paint itself? Does the canvas come up with an

artist and paint an ink, which then paint the canvas? Like that's the hard part about theories

of everything, which I don't think people talk enough about. So can we just, you bring up that

Escher and the hand that draws itself? The fire that lights itself or drawing hands?

The drawing hands. Yeah. And every time I start to think about that, my mind like shuts down.

No, don't do that. There's a spark. No, but this is the most beautiful part. We should do this

together. No, it's beautiful, but this robot's brain sparks fly. So can we try to say the same

thing over and over in different ways about what you mean by that having to be a thing we have to

contend with? Sure. Like why do you think that creating a theory of everything, as you call the

source code, our understanding our source code, require a view like the hand that draws itself?

Okay. Well, here's what goes on in the regular physics picture. We've got these two main theories,

general relativity and the standard model, right? Think of general relativity as more or less the

theory of the canvas. Okay. And maybe you, you have the canvas in a particularly rigid shape.

Maybe you've measured it. So it's got length and it's got angle, but more or less, it's just canvas

and length and angle. And that's all that really general relativity is, but it allows the canvas

to warp a bit. Then we have the second thing, which is this import of foreign libraries where,

which aren't tied to space and time. So we've got this crazy set of symmetries called SU3 cross SU2

cross U1. We've got this collection of 16 particles in a generation, which are these sort of twisted

spinners. And we've got three copies of them. Then we've got this weird Higgs field that comes in

and like Deus Ex Machina solves all the problems that have been created in the play that can't be

resolved otherwise. So that's the standard model, quantum field theory just plopped on top of this.

It's a problem of the double origin story. One origin story is about space and time.

The other origin story is about what we would call internal quantum numbers and internal symmetries.

And then there was an attempt to get one to follow from the other called Kaluza Klein theory,

which didn't work out. And this is sort of in that vein. So you said origin story. So in the

hand that draws itself, what is it? So it's as if you had the canvas and then you ordered up,

also give me paint brushes, paints, pigments, pencils and artists. But you're saying that's

like, if you want to create a universe from scratch, the canvas should be generating the paint

brushes and the paint brushes in the canvas. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Like you should who's the

artist in this analogy? Well, this is sorry, then we're going to get into a religious thing. And

I don't want to do that. Okay. Well, you know my shtick, which is that we are the AI. We have

two great stories about the simulation and artificial general intelligence. In one story,

man fears that some program we've given birth to will become self aware, smarter than us,

and we'll take over. In another story, there are genius simulators and we live in their simulation.

And we haven't realized that those two stories are the same story. In one case,

we are the simulator. In another case, we are the simulated. And if you buy those and you put them

together, we are the AGI and whether or not we have simulators, we may be trying to wake up by

learning our own source code. So this could be our Skynet moment, which is one of the reasons I

have some issues around it. I think we'll talk about that because I... Well, that's the issue

of the emergent artist within the story just to get back to the point. Okay. So now the key point is

the standard way we tell the story is that Einstein sets the canvas and then we order all the stuff

that we want. And then that paints the picture that is our universe. So you order the paint,

you order the artist, you order the brushes, and that then when you collide the two,

gives you two separate origin stories. The canvas came from one place and everything else came from

somewhere else. So what are the mathematical tools required to construct consistent geometric theory?

You know, make this concrete? Well, somehow you need to get three copies, for example,

of generations with 16 particles each. Right? And so the question would be like, well,

there's a lot of special personality in those symmetries. Where would they come from?

So for example, you've got what would be called grand unified theories that sound like

SU5, the George I. Glashow theory, there's something that should be called spin 10,

but physicists insist on calling it SO10. There's something called the petit salon theory that

tends to be called SU4 cross SU2 cross SU2, which should be called spin six cross spin four.

I can get into all of these. What are they all accomplishing?

They're all taking the known forces that we see and packaging them up to say we can't get rid of

the second origin story, but we can at least make that origin story more unified. So they're trying

grand unification is the attempt. And that's a mistake in your in you.

It's not a mistake. The problem is, is it was born lifeless. When George I. Glashow first came out

with the SU5 theory, it was very exciting because it could be tested in a South Dakota

mine filled up with like, I don't know, cleaning fluid or something like that.

And they looked for proton decay and didn't see it. And then they gave up, because in that day,

when your experiment didn't work, you gave up on the theory. It didn't come to us born of a fusion

between Einstein and, and, and Boer, you know, and that was kind of the problem is it had this

weird parenting where it was just on the Boer side. There was no Einsteinian contribution.

Lex, how can I help you most? I'm trying to figure out what questions you want to ask

so that you get the most satisfying answers. There's, there's a, there's a bunch,

there's a bunch of questions I want to ask. I mean, one, and I'm trying to sneak up on you

somehow to reveal in a accessible way than the nature of our universe.

So I can just give you a guess, right? Like I, we have to be very careful that we're not claiming

that this has been accepted. This is a speculation, but I will, I will make the speculation that what

I think what you would want to ask me is how can the canvas generate all the stuff that usually

has to be ordered separately? All right, should we do that? Let's go there. Okay.

So the first thing is, is that you have a concept in computers called technical debt.

You're coding and you cut corners and you know, you're going to have to do it right

before the thing is safe for the world, but you're piling up some series of IOUs to yourself and your

project as you're going along. So the first thing is we can't figure out if you have only four degrees

of freedom and that's what your canvas is. How do you get at least Einstein's world? Einstein says,

look, it's not just four degrees of freedom, but there need to be rulers and protractors to measure

length and angle in the world. You can't just have a flabby four degrees of freedom. So the first

thing you do is you create 10 extra variables, which is like, if we can't choose any particular

set of rulers and protractors to measure length and angle, let's take the set of all possible

rulers and protractors and that would be called symmetric, non degenerate two tensors on the

tangent space of the four manifold X4. Now, because there are four degrees of freedom,

you start off with four dimensions, then you need four rulers for each of those different

directions. So that's four, that gets us up to eight variables. And then between four original

variables, there are six possible angles. So four plus four plus six is equal to 14.

So now you've replaced X4 with another space, which in the lecture, I think I called you 14,

but I'm now calling Y 14. This is one of the big problems of working on something

in private is every time you pull it out, you sort of can't remember it, you name something

something new. Okay, so you've got a 14 dimensional world, which is the original four dimensional

world, plus a lot of extra gadgetry for measurement. And because you're not in the four dimensional

world, you don't have the technical debt. No, now you've got a lot of technical debt, because now

you have to explain the way a 14 dimensional world, which is a big, you're taking a huge

advance on your payday check, right? But aren't more dimensions allow you more freedom? Maybe

you have to get rid of them somehow because we don't perceive them. So eventually you have to

collapse it down to the thing that we perceive. Or you have to sample a four dimensional filament

within that 14 dimensional world known as a section of a bundle. Okay, so how do we get from

the four 14 dimensional world where I imagine a lot of, wait, wait, wait, yep. You're cheating. The

first question was, how do we get something from almost nothing? Like how do we get the

if I've said that the who and the what in the newspaper story that is a theory of everything

are bosons and fermions. So let's make the who the fermions and the what the bosons think of

as the players and the equipment for a game. Are we supposed to be thinking of actual physical

things with mass or energy? Yep. Okay. So think about everything you see in this room. So from

chemistry, you know, it's all protons, neutrons and electrons, but from a little bit of late 1960s

physics, we know that the protons and neutrons are all made of upcorks and downcorks. So everything

in this room is basically upcorks, downcorks and electrons stuck together with, with the,

the what the equipment. Okay. Now, the way we see it currently is we see that there are

space time indices, which we would call spinners that correspond to the who that is the fermions,

the matter, the stuff, the upcorks, the downcorks, the electrons. And there are also

16 degrees of freedom that come from this in this space of internal quantum numbers.

So in my theory, in 14 dimensions, there's no internal quantum number space that figures in.

It's all just spinorial. So spinners in 14 dimensions without any

festooning with extra linear algebraic information. There's a concept of a, of, of spinners,

which is natural if you have a manifold with length and angle and why 14 is almost a manifold

with length and angle. It's, it's so close. It's in other words, because you're looking at the

space of all rulers and protractors, maybe it's not that surprising that a space of rulers and

protractors might come very close to having rulers and protractors on it itself. Like,

can you measure the space of measurements? And you almost can. And in a space that has length and

angle, if it doesn't have a topological obstruction comes with these objects called spinners.

Now, spinners are the stuff of, of our world. We are made of spinners. They are the most important,

really deep object that I can tell you about. They were very surprising. What is a spinner?

So famously, there are these weird things that require 720 degrees of rotation

in order to come back to normal. And that doesn't make sense. And the reason for this is that there's

a knottedness in our three dimensional world that people don't observe. And you know, you can famously

see it by this Dirac string trick. So if you take a glass of water, imagine that this was a tumbler

and I didn't want to spill any of it. And the question is, if I rotate the cup without losing

my grip on the base 360 degrees, and I can't go backwards, is there any way I can take a sip?

And the answer is this weird motion, which is go over first and under second, and that's 720

degrees of rotation to come back to normal so that I can take a sip. Well, that weird principle,

which sometimes is known as the Philippine wine glass dance, because waitresses in the Philippines

apparently learned how to do this. That move defines, if you will, this hidden space that

nobody knew was there of spinners, which Dirac figured out when he took the square root of

something called the Klein Gorton equation, which I think had earlier work incorporated from

Cartan and Killing & Company in mathematics. So spinners are one of the most profound aspects of

human existence. I mean, forgive me for the perhaps dumb questions, but would a spinner

be the mathematical objects that's the basic unit of our universe? When you start with a manifold,

which is just like something like a donut or a sphere or a circle or a mobius band,

a spinner is usually the first wildly surprising thing that you found was hidden in your original

purchase. So you order a manifold and you didn't even realize, it's like buying a house and finding

a panic room inside that you hadn't counted on. It's very surprising when you understand that

spinners are running around in your spaces. Again, perhaps a dumb question, but we're talking

about 14 dimensions and four dimensions. What is the manifold we're operating under?

So in my case, it's proto spacetime. It's before Einstein can slap rulers and protractors on

spacetime. What do you mean by that? Sorry to interrupt. Space time is the 4D manifold.

Space time is a four dimensional manifold with extra structure.

What's the extra structure? It's called a semi Ramanian or pseudo Ramanian metric.

In essence, there is something akin to a four by four symmetric matrix,

which is equivalent to length and angle. So when I talk about rulers and protractors,

or I talk about length and angle, or I talk about Ramanian or pseudo Ramanian or semi Ramanian

manifolds, I'm usually talking about the same thing. Can you measure how long something is

and what the angle is between two different rays or vectors? So that's what Einstein gave us as

his arena, his place to play, his canvas. There's a bunch of questions I can ask here,

but like I said, I'm working on this book, Geometric Unity for Idiots. And I think what

would be really nice as your editor to have like beautiful, maybe even visualizations

that people could try to play with, try to try to reveal small little beauties about the way

you're thinking about this world. Well, I usually use the Joe Rogan program for that.

Sometimes I have him doing the Philippine wine glass dance. I had the hop vibration.

The part of the problem is that most people don't know this language about spinners, bundles,

metrics, gauge fields. And they're very curious about the theory of everything,

but they have no understanding of even what we know about our own world.

Is it a hopeless pursuit? No.

Like even gauge theory, just this, I mean, it seems to be very inaccessible. Is there some

aspect of it that could be made accessible? I mean, I could go to the board right there

and give you a five minute lecture on gauge theory that would be better than

the official lecture on gauge theory. You would know what gauge theory was.

So it is possible to make it accessible. Yeah. But nobody does, like in other words,

you're going to watch over the next year lots of different discussions about quantum entanglement

or the multiverse. Where are we now? Right.

Or many worlds, are they all equally real? Yeah.

Right? I mean, yeah. But you're not going to hear anything about the hop

vibration except if it's from me and I hate that. Why can't you be the one?

Well, because I'm going a different path. I think that we've made a huge mistake,

which is we have things we can show people about the actual models.

We can push out visualizations where they, they're not listening by analogy.

They're watching the same thing that we're seeing. And as I've said to you before,

this is like choosing to perform sheet music that hasn't been performed in a long time or,

you know, the experts can't afford orchestras. So they just trade Beethoven symphonies and

has sheet music and they go, Oh, wow, that was beautiful. But it's like nobody heard anything.

They just looked at the score. Well, that's how mathematicians and physicists trade papers

and ideas is that they, they write down the things that represent stuff.

I want to at least close out the thought line that you started.

Yes.

Which is how does the canvas order all of this other stuff into being?

So I at least want to say some incomprehensible things about that and then we'll have that much

done. All right. And that just point, does it have to be incomprehensible?

Do you know what the Schrodinger equation is?

Yes.

Do you know what the Dirac equation is?

What does no mean?

Well, my point is you're going to have some feeling that you know what the Schrodinger equation is.

As soon as we get to the Dirac equation, your eyes are going to get a little bit glazed, right?

Right. So now why is that? Well, the answer to me is that you, you want to ask me about the theory

of everything, but you haven't even digested the theory of everything as we've had it since 1928

when Dirac came out with his equation. So for whatever reason, and this isn't a hit on you.

Yeah. You haven't been motivated enough in all the time that you've been on earth

to at least get as far as the Dirac equation. And this was very interesting to me after I gave

the talk in Oxford. New scientist who had done kind of a hatchet job on me to begin with sent a

reporter to come to the third version of the talk that I gave. And that person had never heard of

the Dirac equation. So you have a person who is completely professionally not qualified to ask

these questions wanting to know, well, how does, how does your theory solve new problems? And like,

well, in the case of the Dirac equation, well, tell me about that. I don't know what that is.

So then the point is, okay, I got it. You're not even caught up minimally to where we are now.

And that's not a knock on you. Almost nobody is. But then how does it become my job to digest

what has been available for like over 90 years? Well, to me, the open question is whether what's

been available for over 90 years can be, there could be a blueprint of a journey that one takes

to understand it. Oh, I want to do that with you. And I, one of the things I think I've been

relatively successful at, for example, you know, when you ask other people what gauge theory is,

you get these very confusing responses. And my response is much simpler. It's, oh, it's a theory

of differentiation, where when you calculate the instantaneous rise over run, you measure the rise

not from a flat horizontal, but from a custom endogenous reference level. What do you mean by that?

It's like, okay, and then I do this thing with Mount Everest, which is Mount Everest is how high?

Then they give the height, I say above what? Then they say sea level. And I say,

which sea is that in Nepal? Like, oh, I guess there isn't a sea because it's landlocked. It's

like, okay, well, what do you mean by sea level? Oh, there's this thing called the geoid I'd never

heard of. Oh, that's the reference level. That's a custom reference level that we imported.

So you, all sorts of people have remembered the exact height of Mount Everest without ever knowing

what it's a height from. Well, in this case, in gauge theory, there's a hidden reference level

where you measure the rise in rise over run to give the slope on the line. What if you have

different concepts of what, of where that rise should be measured from that vary within the

theory that are endogenous to the theory. That's what gauge theory is. Okay, we have a video here,

right? Yeah. Okay. I'm going to use my phone. If I want to measure my hand and its slope,

this is my attempt to measure it using standard calculus. In other words, the reference level

is apparently flat. And I measure the rise above that phone using my hand. Okay. If I want to use

gauge theory, it means I can do this, or I can do that, or I can do this, or I can do this,

or I could do what I did from the beginning. Okay. At some level, that's what gauge theory is.

Now that is an act. No, I've never heard anyone describe it that way. So while the community

may say, well, who is this guy and why does he have the right to talk in public? I'm waiting

for somebody to jump out of the woodwork and say, you know, Eric's whole shtick about rulers and

protractors, uh, leading to a derivative. Derivatives are measured as rise of a run above

reference level. The reference levels don't fit together. Like I go through this whole shtick

in order to make it accessible. I've never heard anyone say it. I'm trying to make,

Prometheus would like to discuss fire with everybody else. All right. I'm going to just

say one thing to close out the earlier line, which is what I think we should have continued with.

When you take the naturally occurring spinners, the unadorned spinners, the naked spinners,

not on, on this 14 dimensional manifold, but on something very closely tied to it,

which I've called the chimeric tangent bundle. That is the, the object which stands in for

the thing that should have had length and angle on it, but just missed. Okay. When you take that

object and you form spinners on that and you don't adorn them, so you're still in the single origin

story, you get very large spinorial objects upstairs on this 14 dimensional world, Y 14,

which is part of the observers. When you pull that information back from Y 14 down to X four,

it miraculously looks like the adorned spinners, the festoon spinners, the spinners that we play

with in ordinary reality. In other words, the 14 dimensional world looks like a four dimensional

world plus a 10 dimensional compliment. So 10 plus four equals 14. That 10 dimensional compliment,

which is called a normal bundle, generates spin properties, internal quantum numbers that look

like the things that give our particles, our particles personality that make, let's say,

up quarks and down quarks charged by negative one third or plus two thirds, that kind of stuff,

or whether or not some quarks feel the weak force and other quarks do not.

So the X four generates Y 14, Y 14 generates something called the chimeric tangent bundle.

Chimeric tangent bundle generates unadorned spinners. The unadorned spinners get pulled back

from 14 down to four, where they look like adorned spinners. And we have the right number of them.

You thought you needed three, you only got two, but then something else that you'd never seen

before broke apart on this journey. And it broke into another copy of the thing that you already

have two copies of one piece of that thing broke off. So now you have two generations plus an

imposter third generation, which is, I don't know why we never talk about this possibility

in regular physics. And then you got a bunch of stuff that we haven't seen, which has descriptions.

So people always say, does it make any falsifiable predictions? Yes, it does.

It says that the matter that you should be seeing next has particular properties that can be read

off like weak isospin, weak hypercharge, like the responsiveness to the strong force. The one

I can't tell you is what energy scale it would happen at. So you can't say if those characteristics

can be detected with the current. But it may be that somebody else can. I'm not a physicist.

I'm not a quantum field theorist. I can't. I don't know how you would do that.

The hope for me is that there's some simple explanations for all of it.

Lex, should we have a drink?

You're having fun. No, I'm trying to have fun with you.

Yeah. There's a bunch of fun things to talk about here.

Anyway, that was how I got what I thought you wanted, which is if you think about the fermions

as the artists and the bosons as the brushes and the paint, what I told you is that's how we get

the artists. What are the open questions for you in this? Where are the challenges? So you're not

done. Well, there's things that I would like to have in better order. So a lot of people will say,

the reason I hesitate on this is I just have a totally different view than the community.

So for example, I believe that general relativity began in 1913 with Einstein and Grossman.

Now, that was the first of like four major papers in this line of thinking. To most physicists,

this general relativity happened when Einstein produced a divergence free gradient,

which turned out to be the gradient of the so called Hilbert or Einstein Hilbert action.

And from my perspective, that wasn't true. This is that it began when Einstein said,

look, this is about differential geometry. And the final answer is going to look like

like a curvature tensor on one side and matter and energy on the other side. And that was enough.

And then he published a wrong version of it, where it was the Ricci tensor, not the Einstein tensor,

then he corrected the Ricci tensor to make it into the Einstein tensor, then he corrected that to add

a cosmological constant. I can't stand that the community thinks in those terms. There's some

things about which like there's a question about which contraction do I use? There's an Einstein

contraction, there's a Ricci contraction, they both go between the same spaces. I'm not sure

what I should do. I'm not sure which contraction I should choose. This is called a Shia operator for

ship in a bottle and my stuff. You have this big platform in many ways that inspires people's

curiosity about physics and mathematics. Right. Now, and I'm one of those people.

Well, great. But then you start using a lot of words that I don't understand.

And I might know them, but I don't understand. And what's unclear to me if I'm supposed to

be listening to those words, or if it's just if this is one of those technical things that's

intended for a very small community, or if I'm supposed to actually take those words and start,

you know, a multi year study, not not a serious study, but the kind of study when you

you're interested in learning about machine learning, for example, or any kind of discipline.

That's where I'm a little bit confused. So you you speak beautifully about ideas. You often reveal

the beauty in mathematics and geometry. And I'm unclear on what are the steps I should be taking.

I'm curious, how can I explore? How can I play with something? How can I play with these ideas?

And enjoy the beauty of not necessarily understanding the depth of the theory that you're

presenting, but start to share in the beauty, as opposed to sharing and enjoying the beauty of

just the way the passion with which you speak, which is in itself fun to listen to, but also

starting to be able to understand some aspects of this theory that I can enjoy it to and start

to build an intuition, what the heck we're even talking about, because you're basically saying

we need to throw a lot of our ideas of views of the universe out. And I'm trying to find accessible

ways and along not in this conversation. No, I appreciate that. So one of the things that

I've done is I've I've picked on one paragraph from Edward Whitten. And I said, this is the

paragraph. If I could only take one paragraph with me, this is the one I'd take. And it's

almost all in prose, not in equations. And he says, look, this is this is our knowledge of the

universe at its deepest level. And he was writing this during the 1980s. And he has three separate

points that constitute our deepest knowledge. And those three points refer to equations,

one to the Einstein field equation, one to the Dirac equation, and one to the Yang Mills Maxwell

equation. Now, one thing I would do is take a look at that paragraph and say, okay, what do these

three lines mean? Like it's a finite amount of verbiage, you can write down every word that you

don't know. And you can say, what do I think? Done. Now, young man, yes, there's a beautiful wall

in Stony Brook, New York, built by someone who I know you will interview named Jim Simons.

And Jim Simons, he's not the artist, but he's the guy who funded it. World's greatest hedge fund

manager. And on that wall contain the three equations that Whitten refers to in that paragraph.

And so that is the transmission from the paragraph or graph to the wall. Now that wall

needs an owner's manual, which Roger Penrose has written called the road to reality. Let's call

that the tome. So this is the subject of the so called graph wall tome project that is going on

in our Discord server and our general group around the portal community, which is how do you take

something that purports in one paragraph to say what the deepest understanding man has of the

universe in which he lives. It's memorialized on a wall, which nobody knows about, which is an

incredibly gorgeous piece of art. And that was written up in a book, which has been written

for no man, right? Maybe it's for a woman, I don't know. But no one should be able to read

this book because either you're a professional, and you know a lot of this book, in which case

it's kind of a refresher to see how Roger thinks about these things. Or you don't even know that

this book is a self contained invitation to understanding our deepest nature. So I would

say find yourself in the graph wall tome transmission sequence and join the graph wall

tome project if that's of interest. Okay, beautiful. Now just to linger on a little longer,

what kind of journey do you see geometric unity taking? I don't know. I mean, that's the thing

is that first of all, the professional community has to get very angry and outraged, and they have

to work through their feeling that this is nonsense, this is bullshit, or like, no, wait a minute,

this is really cool. Actually, I need some clarification over here. So there's going to be

some sort of weird coming back together process. Are you already hearing murmurings of that?

That's very funny. Officially, I've seen very little. So it's perhaps happening quietly. Yeah.

Yeah. You often talk about we need to get off this planet. Yep.

Can I try to sneak up on that by asking, what in your kind of view is the difference,

the gap between the science of it, the theory, and the actual engineering of building something

that leverages the theory to do something? Like how big is that? We don't know. Gap. I mean,

if you have 10 extra dimensions to play with that are the rulers and protractors of the world

themselves, can you gain access to those dimensions? Do you have a hunch? So I don't know. I don't want

to get ahead of myself because you have to appreciate I can have hunches and I can, I can draw off.

But one of the ways that I'm succeeding in this world is to not bow down to my professional

communities nor to ignore them. Like I'm actually interested in the criticism. I just want to

denature it so that it's not mostly interpersonal and irrelevant. I believe that they don't want

me to speculate and I don't need to speculate about this. I can simply say I'm open to the

idea that it may have engineering prospects and it may be a death sentence. We may find out that

there's not enough new here that even if it were right that there would be nothing new to do. I can't

tell you. That's what you mean by death sentences. There would not be exciting breakthroughs that

follow on. Wouldn't it be terrible if you couldn't, like you can do new things in an Einsteinian world

that you couldn't do in a Newtonian world. You know, like you have twin paradoxes or

Lorentz contraction of length or any one of a number of new cool things happen in relativity

theory that didn't happen for Newton. What if there wasn't new stuff to do at the next and

final level? That would be quite sad. Let me ask a silly question. We'll say it with a straight face.

Impossible. So let me mention Elon Musk. What are your thoughts about he's more,

you're more on the physics theory side of things. He's more on the physics engineering side of

things in terms of SpaceX efforts. What do you think of his efforts to get off this planet?

Well, I think he's the other guy who's semi serious about getting off this planet.

I think there are two of us who are semi serious about getting off the planet.

What do you think about his methodology and yours when you look at them?

I don't want to be against Elon because like I was so excited that

like your top video was Ray Kurzweil and then I did your podcast and we had some chemistry. So it

zoomed up and I thought, okay, I'm going to beat Ray Kurzweil. So just as I'm coming up on Ray

Kurzweil, you're like, and now Alex Friedman special Elon Musk and he blew me out of the water.

So I don't want to be petty about it. I want to say that I don't, but I am. Okay, but here's the

funny part. He's not taking enough risk. Like he's trying to get us to Mars. Imagine that he got us

to Mars, the moon, and we'll throw in Titan and nowhere good enough. The diversification level

is too low. Now there's a compatibility. First of all, I don't think Elon is serious about Mars.

I think Elon is using Mars. As a narrative, as a story, as a dream. No, to make the moon jealous.

No. I think he's using it as a story to organize us, to reacquaint ourselves with our need for

space, our need to get off this planet. It's a concrete thing. He's shown that many people

think that he's shown that he's the most brilliant and capable person on the planet. I don't think

that's what he showed. I think he showed that the rest of us have forgotten our capabilities.

And so he's the only guy who has still kept the faith and is like, what's wrong with you people?

So you think the lesson we should draw from Elon Musk is there's a capable person within a lot of

us? Elon makes sense to me. In what way? He's doing what any sensible person should do. He's

trying incredible things and he's partially succeeding, partially failing. To try to solve

the obvious problems before us. But he comes up with things like, I got it. We'll come up with

a battery company, but batteries aren't sexy. So we'll make a car around it. It's like, great.

Anyone of a number of things, Elon is behaving like a sane person and I view everyone else as

insane. And my feeling is that we really have to get off this planet. We have to get out of this.

We have to get out of the neighborhood. Dillingan, a little bit. Do you think that's a

physics problem or an engineering problem? I think it's a cowardice problem. I think that we're

afraid that we had 400 hitters of the mind like Einstein and Dirac and that that era is done. And

now we're just sort of copy editors. So is some of it money? Like if we become brave enough

to go outside the solar system, can we afford to financially?

Well, I think that that's not really the issue. The issue is look what Elon did well. He amassed

a lot of money. And then he plowed it back in and he spun the wheel and he made more money.

And now he's got FU money. Now the problem is, is that a lot of the people who have FU money

are not people whose middle finger you ever want to see. I want to see Elon's middle finger.

I want to see what he's got. What do you mean by that? Or like when you say,

fuck it, I'm going to do the biggest possible thing. He's going to do whatever the fuck he

wants. Yeah. Right? Fuck you. Fuck anything that gets in his way that he can afford to

push out of his way. And you're saying he's not actually even doing that enough? No. He's not

going. Please. I'm going to go. Elon's doing fine with his money. I just want him to enjoy himself,

have the most, you know, Dionysian. But you're saying Mars is playing it safe.

He doesn't know how to do anything else. He knows rockets. Yeah. And he might know some physics

at a fundamental level. Yeah. I guess, okay, just let me just go right back to it. How much

physics do you really, how much brilliant breakthrough ideas on the physics side do you need to get off

this planet? I don't know. And I don't know whether, like in my most optimistic dream,

I don't know whether my stuff gets us off the planet, but it's hope. It's hope that there's

a more fundamental theory that we can access, that we don't need, you know, whose elegance and beauty

will suggest that this is probably the way the universe goes. Like you have to say this weird

thing, which is this I believe. And this I believe is a very dangerous statement. But this I believe,

I believe that my theory points the way. Now, Elon might or might not be able to access my

theory. I don't know. I don't know what he knows. But keep in mind, why are we also focused on Elon?

It's really weird. It's kind of creepy too. Why? He's just the person who's just asking the obvious

questions and doing whatever he can. But he makes sense to me. You see, Craig Venter makes sense

to me. Jim Watson makes sense to me. But we're focusing on Elon because he's somehow is rare.

Well, that's the weird thing. Like we've come up with a system that eliminates all Elon

from our pipeline. And Elon somehow snuck through when they weren't quality adjusting everything,

you know? And this idea of disk, right? Distributed idea suppression complex.

Yeah. Is that what's bringing the Elons of the world down?

You know, it's so funny. Like he's asking Joe Rogan, like, is that a joint? You know,

it's like, well, what will happen if I smoke it? What will happen to the stock price?

What will happen if I scratch myself in public? What will happen if I say what I think about

Thailand or COVID or who knows what? And everybody's like, don't say that. Say this.

Go do this. Go do that. Well, it's crazy making. It's absolutely crazy making. And if you think

about what we put through people through, we need to get people who can use FU money, the FU

money they need to insulate themselves from all of the people who know better because my nightmare

is that why did we only get one Elon? What if we were supposed to have thousands and thousands of

Elons? And the weird thing is like, this is all that remains. You're looking at like Obi Wan and

Yoda. And it's like, this is the only, this is all that's left after order 66 has been executed.

And that's the thing that's really upsetting to me is we used to have Elons five deep. And then

we could talk about Elon in the context of his cohort. But this is like, if you were to see a

giraffe in the Arctic with no trees around, you'd think, why the long neck? What a strange site,

you know? How do we get more Elons? How do we change this? So I think they use, so we know MIT

and Harvard. So maybe returning to our previous conversation, my sense is that the Elons of

the world are supposed to come from MIT and Harvard. Right. And how do you change?

Let's think of one that MIT sort of killed. Have any names in mind? Aaron Schwartz leaps to my

mind. Yeah. Okay. Are we MIT supposed to shield the Aaron Schwartz's from, I don't know, journal

publishers? Or are we supposed to help the journal publishers so that we can throw 35 year

sentences in his face or whatever it is that we did that depressed him? Okay. So here's my point.

Yeah. I want MIT to go back to being the home of Aaron Schwartz. And if you want to send Aaron

Schwartz to a state where he's looking at 35 years in prison or something like that, you are my sworn

enemy. You are not MIT. You are the traitorous, irresponsible, middle brow, pencil pushing,

green eye shade fool that needs to not be in the seat at the presidency of MIT. Period the end. Get

the fuck out of there and let one of our people sit in that chair. And the thing that you've

articulated is that the people in those chairs are not the way they are because they're evil or

somehow morally compromised is that it's just that that's the distributed nature. Is that there's

some kind of aspect of the system that just... These are people who wed themselves to the system.

They adapt every instinct. And the fact is, is that they're not going to be on Joe Rogan

smoking a blunt. Let me ask a silly question. Do you think institutions generally just tend to

become that? No. We get some of the institutions. We get Caltech. Here's what we're supposed to

have. We're supposed to have Caltech. We're supposed to have read. We're supposed to have deep

springs. We're supposed to have MIT. We're supposed to have a part of Harvard. And when the sharp

elbow crowd comes after the sharp mind crowd, we're supposed to break those sharp elbows and say,

don't come around here again. So what are the weapons that the sharp mind is supposed to use

in our modern day? So to reclaim MIT. What's the future? Are you kidding me? First of all,

assume that this is being seen at MIT. Definitely is. Okay. Hey, everybody. Try to remember who you

are. You're the guys who put the police car on top of the great dump. You guys came up with the

great breast of knowledge. You created a Tetris game in the green building. Now, what is your

problem? They killed one of your own. You should make their life a living hell. You should be the

ones who keep the memory of Aaron Schwartz alive and all of those hackers and all of those mutants.

You know, it's like, it's either our place or it isn't. And if we have to throw 12 more pianos

off of the roof, right? If Harold Edgerton was taking those photographs, you know,

with slo mo back in the 40s. If Noam Chomsky is on your faculty, what the hell is wrong with you

kids? You are the most creative and insightful people and you can't figure out how to defend

Aaron Schwartz. That's on you guys. So some of that is giving more power to the young, like you

said, the brave. No, it's taking power from the feeble and the middle brown. Yeah, but what is

the mechanism to me? I don't know. You have some nine volt batteries. No, it's a copper wire.

I tend to. Do you have a capacitor? I tend to believe you have to create an alternative

and make the alternative so much better that it makes MIT absolutely unless they change.

And that's what forces change. So as opposed to somehow. Okay, so use projection mapping.

What's projection mapping? Where you take some complicated edifice and you map all of its planes

and then you actually project some unbelievable graphics, reskinning a building, let's say at

night. That's right. Yeah. Okay, so you want to do some graffiti art with light. You basically

want to hack the system. No, I'm saying, look, listen to me, look, we're smarter than they are.

And they, you know what they say? They say things like, I think we need some geeks. Get me two PhDs.

Right. You treat PhDs like that. That's a bad move because PhDs are capable.

And we act like our job is to peel grapes for our betters. Yeah, that's a strange thing.

And you speak about it very eloquently is how we treat basically the greatest minds in the world,

which is like at the prime, which is PhD students, like that we pay them nothing.

I'm done with it. Yeah. Right. We got to take what's ours.

So, yeah, take back MIT, become ungovernable, become ungovernable.

And by the way, when you become ungovernable, don't do it by throwing food.

Don't do it by pouring salt on the lawn like a jerk. Do it through brilliance because what

you Caltech and MIT can do and maybe Rensselaer Polytechnic or Worcester Polytechnic, I don't

know, Lehigh. God damn it. What's wrong with you, technical people? You act like you're a servant

class. It's unclear to me how you reclaim it, except with brilliance, like you said.

But to me, that the way you reclaim it with brilliance is to go outside the system.

Aaron Schwartz came from the Elon Musk class. What are you guys going to do about it?

Right. The super capable people need to flex, need to be individual. They need to stop giving

away all their power to a zeitgeist or a community or this or that. You're not indoor cats. You're

outdoor cats. Go be outdoor cats. Do you think we're going to see this kind of change happen?

You were the one asking me before, like, what about the World War II generation?

Oh, and what I'm trying to say is that there's a technical revolt coming.

Here's, you want to talk about this. But I'm trying to lead it, right? I'm trying to see.

No, you're not trying to lead it. I'm trying to get a blueprint here.

All right. Lex, how angry are you about our country pretending that you and I can't actually do

technical subjects so that they need an army of kids coming in from four countries in Asia?

It's not about the four countries in Asia. It's not about those kids. It's about lying about us,

that we don't care enough about science and technology, that we're incapable of it,

as if we don't have Chinese and Russians and Koreans and Croatians. Like, we've got everybody

here. The only reason you're looking outside is that you want to hire cheap people from

the family business because you don't want to pass the family business on. And you know what?

You didn't really build the family business. It's not yours to decide. You, the boomers,

and you, the silent generation, you did your bit, but you also fouled a lot of stuff up.

And you're custodians. You are caretakers. You were supposed to hand something. What you did

instead was to gorge yourself on cheap foreign labor, which you then held up as being much more

brilliant than your own children, which was never true. See, but I'm trying to understand how we

create a better system without anger, without revolution, not by kissing and hugs. I don't

understand within MIT what the mechanism of building a better MIT is. We're not going to

pay Elsevier. Aaron Schwartz was right. JSTOR is an abomination. But why, who within MIT,

who within institutions is going to do that when, just like you said, the people who are running the

show are more senior. I don't know if Frank will check to speak out. So you hear, it's basically

individuals that step up. I mean, one of the surprising things about Elon is that one person

can inspire so much. He's got academic freedom. It just comes from money. I don't agree with

that. Do you think money? Okay. So yes, certainly. Sorry, and testicles. Yes, but I think the test

is more important than money or guts. I think I do agree with you. You speak about this a lot that

because the money in the academic institutions has been so constrained that people are misbehaving

and horrible. Yes. But I don't think that if we reverse that and give a huge amount of money,

people will all of a sudden behave well. I think it also takes guts. You need to give people

security. Security, yes. You need to know that you have a job on Monday when on Friday you say,

I'm not so sure I really love diversity and inclusion. And somebody's like, wait, what? You didn't

love diversity? We had a statement on diversity and you wouldn't sign? Are you against the inclusion

part or are you against diversity? Do you just not like people like you? Actually, that has nothing

to do with anything. You're making this into something that it isn't. I don't want to sign

your goddamn stupid statement and get out of my lab. Get out of my lab. It all begins from the

middle finger. Get out of my lab. The administrators need to find other work.

Yeah. Listen, I agree with you and I hope to seek your advice and wisdom as we change this

because I'd love to see. I will visit you in prison if that's what you're asking.

I have no, I think prison is great. You get a lot of reading done and good working out.

Well, let me ask something I brought up before is the Nietzsche quote of,

beware that when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. For when you gaze long

into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. Are you worried that your focus on the flaws in the

system that we've just been talking about has damaged your mind or the part of the mind of

your mind that's able to see the beauty in the world, in the system that because you have so

sharply been able to see the flaws in the system, you can no longer step back and appreciate its

beauty. Look, I'm the one who's trying to get the institutions to save themselves by getting

rid of their inhabitants, but leaving the institution like a neutron bomb that removes

the unworkable leadership class but leaves the structures. So the leadership class is really

the problem. The leadership class is the problem. The individual like the professors,

the individual scholars. Well, the professors are going to have to go back into training to

remember how to be professors. People are cowards at the moment because if they're not cowards,

they're unemployed. Yeah, that's one of the disappointing things I've encountered is to me,

tenure. Nobody has tenure now. Whether they do or not, they certainly don't have

the kind of character and fortitude that I was hoping to see to me. But they'd be gone.

You're dreaming about the people who used to live at MIT. You're dreaming about the

previous inhabitants of your university. And if you looked at somebody like

Isidore Singer is very old. I don't know what state he's in, but that guy was absolutely

the real deal. And if you look at Noam Chomsky, tell me that Noam Chomsky has been muzzled.

Right? Yeah. Now, what I'm trying to get at is you're talking about younger energetic people,

but those people, like when I say something like, I'm against, I'm for inclusion and I'm for diversity,

but I'm against diversity and inclusion TM, like the movement. Well, I couldn't say that if I was a

professor. Oh my God, he's against our sacred document. Okay. Well, in that kind of a world,

do you want to know how many things I don't agree with you on? Like we could go on for days and

days and days, all of the nonsense that you've parroted inside of the institution. Any sane person

like has no need for it. They have no want for desire. Do you think you have to have some

patience for nonsense when many people work together in a system? How long has string theory

gone on for and how long have I been patient? Okay. So you're talking about limit to patience.

You're talking about like 36 years of modern nonsense and string theory. So you can do like

eight to 10 years, but not more. I can do 40 minutes. This is 36 years. Well, you've done that over

two hours. No, but I appreciate it. But it's been 36 years of nonsense since the anomaly cancellation

in string theory. It's like, what are you talking about about patience? I mean, Lex,

you're not even acting like yourself. Well, you're trying to stay in the system. I'm not sure. I'm

not. I'm trying to see if perhaps, so my hope is that the system just has a few assholes in it,

which you highlight. And the fundamentals of the system are broken. Because if the fundamentals

of the systems are broken, then I just don't see a way for MIT to succeed. I don't see how young

people take over MIT. I don't see how... By inspiring us. You know, the great part about

being at MIT, like when you saw the genius in these pranks, the heart, the irreverence.

We were talking about Tom Lehrer the last time. Tom Lehrer was as naughty as the day is long.

Agreed? Agreed. Was he also a genius? Was he well spoken? Was he highly cultured?

He was so talented, so intellectual that he could just make fart jokes morning, noon, and night.

Yeah. Okay. Well, in part, the right to make fart jokes, the right to, for example,

put a functioning phone booth that was ringing on top of the great dome at MIT has to do with,

we are such bad asses that we can actually do this stuff. Well, don't tell me about it anymore.

Go break the law. Go break the law in a way that inspires us and makes us not want to prosecute

you. Break the law in a way that lets us know that you're calling us out on our bullshit,

that you're filled with love, and that our technical talent has not gone to sleep. It's

not incapable. And if the idea is that you're going to dig a moat around the university and

fill it with tiger sharks, that's awesome because I don't know how you're going to do it. But if

you actually manage to do that, I'm not going to prosecute you under a reckless endangerment.

Yeah. That's beautifully put. I hope those, first of all, they'll listen. I hope young

people at MIT will take over in this, in this kind of way. In the introduction to your podcast

episode on Jeff Epstein, you give to me a really moving story, but unfortunately for me too brief

about your experience with a therapist and the lasting terror that permeated your mind.

Can you go there? Can you tell?

No, thanks. I mean, I appreciate what you're saying. I said it obliquely. I said enough.

There are bad people who cross our paths. And the current vogue is to say, oh, I'm a survivor.

I'm a victim. I can do anything I want. This is a broken person. And I don't know why I was

sent to a broken person as a kid. And to be honest with you, I also felt like in that story, I say

that I was able to say no. And this was like the entire weight of authority. And he was misusing

his position. And I was also able to say no. What I couldn't say no to was having him reinflicted in

my life. You were sent back a second time. I tried to complain about what had happened.

And I tried to do it in a way that did not immediately cause horrific consequences to both

this person and myself because we don't have the tools to deal with sexual misbehavior.

We have nuclear weapons. We don't have any way of saying this is probably not a good place

or a role for you at this moment as an authority figure and something needs to be worked on.

So in general, when we see somebody who is misbehaving in that way, our immediate instinct

is to treat the person as Satan. And we understand why. We don't want our children to be at risk.

Now, I personally believe that I fell down on the job and did not call out the Jeffrey Epstein thing

early enough because I was terrified of what Jeffrey Epstein represents. And this recapitulated

the old terror trying to tell the world this therapist is out of control. And when I said

that, the world responded by saying, well, you have two appointments booked and you have to go

for the second one. So I got reinflicted into this office on this person who was now convinced

that I was about to tear down his career and his reputation. It might have been on the verge

of suicide for all I know. I don't know. But he was very, very angry. And he was furious with me

that I had breached a sacred confidence of his office.

What kind of ripple effects does that have? Has that had to the rest of your life?

Has that had to the rest of your life, the absurdity and the cruelty of that? I mean,

there's no sense to it. Well, see, this is the thing people don't really grasp, I think.

There's an academic who I got to know many years ago named Jennifer Fried, who has a theory of

betrayal, which she calls institutional betrayal. And her gambit is that when you are betrayed by

an institution that is sort of like a fiduciary or parental obligation to take care of you,

that you find yourself in a far different situation with respect to trauma than if you

were betrayed by somebody who's a peer. And so I think that in my situation, I kind of repeat

a particular dynamic with authority. I come in not following all the rules,

trying to do some things, not trying to do others, blah, blah, blah. And then I get into a weird

relationship with authority. And so I have more experience with what I would call institutional

betrayal. Now, the funny part about it is that when you don't have masks or PPE in a influenza like

pandemic and you're missing ICU beds and ventilators, that is ubiquitous institutional betrayal.

So I believe that in a weird way, I was very early. The idea of, and this is like the really hard

concept, pervasive or otherwise universal institutional betrayal, where all of the

institutions, you can count on any hospital to not charge you properly for what their services are.

You can count on no pharmaceutical company to produce the drug that will be maximally beneficial

to the people who take it. You know that your financial professionals are not simply working

in your best interest. And that issue had to do with the way in which growth left our system.

So I think that the weird thing is, is that this first institutional betrayal by a therapist

left me very open to the idea of, okay, well, maybe the schools are bad, maybe the hospitals

are bad, maybe the drug companies are bad, maybe our food is off, maybe our journalists are not

serving journalistic ends. And that was what allowed me to sort of go all the distance and say,

huh, I wonder if our problem is that something is causing all of our sense making institutions to

be off. That was the big insight. And that tying that to a single etiology, what if it's just about

growth? They were all built on growth. And now we've promoted people who are capable of keeping

quiet that their institutions aren't working. So we've the privileged, silent aristocracy,

the people who can be counted upon, not to mention a fire when a raging fire is tearing

through a building. But nevertheless, it's how big of a psychological burden is that?

It's huge. It's terrible. I mean, crushing. It's very, it's very comforting to be the parental.

I mean, I don't know, I treasure, I mean, we were just talking about MIT, we can until I can

intellectualize and agree with everything you're saying, but there's a comfort, a warm blanket

of being within the institution. And up until Aaron Schwartz, let's say. In other words,

now if I look at the provost and the president as mommy and daddy, you did what to my big brother?

You did what to our family? You sold us out in which way? What secrets left for China?

China? You hired which workforce? You did what to my wages? You took this portion of my grant

for what purpose? You just stole my retirement through a fringe rate. What did you do?

But can you still, I mean, the thing is about this view you have, is it often turns out to be

sadly correct? Well, this is the thing. And but let me just, in this silly hopeful thing,

do you still have hope in institutions? Can you within your, psychologically?

Yes. I'm referring not intellectually, because you have to carry this burden. Can you still have

a hope like within you? When you sit at home alone, and as opposed to seeing the darkness

within these institutions, seeing a hope. Well, but this is the thing I want to confront,

not for the purpose of a dustup. I believe, for example, if you've heard episode 19,

that the best outcome is for Carol Greider to come forward as we discussed in episode 19.

Would your brother, Brett, and say, you know what? I screwed up. He did call,

he did suggest the experiment. I didn't understand that it was his theory that was producing it.

Maybe I was slow to grasp it. But my bad, and I don't want to pay for this bad

choice on my part, let's say, for the rest of my career, I want to own up and I want to help make

sure that we do what's right with what's left. And that's one little case within the institution

that you would like to see made? I would like to see MIT very clearly come out and say, you know,

Margot O'Toole was right when she said, David Baltimore's lab here produced some stuff that

was not reproducible with Teresa Minishikari's research. I want to see the courageous people.

I would like to see the Aaron Schwartz wing of the computer science department. Yeah,

wouldn't know. Let's think about it. Wouldn't that be great if they said, you know,

an injustice was done and we're going to write that wrong just as if this was Alan Turing?

Which I don't think they've righted that wrong. Well, then let's have the Turing Schwartz wing.

The Turing Schwartz, they're starting a new college of computing. It wouldn't be wonderful

to call it the Turing Schwartz. I would like to have the Madame Wu wing of the physics department,

and I'd love to have the Emmy Nerder statue in front of the math department. I mean,

like you want to get excited about actual diversity and inclusion? Yeah.

Well, let's go with our absolute best people who never got theirs because there is structural

bigotry, you know? But if we don't actually start celebrating the beautiful stuff that

we're capable of when we're handed heroes and we fumble them into the trash, what the hell? I mean,

Lex, this is such nonsense. We just, just pulling our head out. You know, on everyone's

secombe should be tattooed. If you can read this, you're too close.

Beautifully put, and I'm a dreamer just like you. So I don't see as much of the darkness

genetically or due to my life experience, but I do share the hope. From IT, the institution

that we care a lot about. We both do. Yeah. And Harvard, the institution I don't give a damn

about, but you do. I love Harvard. I'm just kidding. I love Harvard, but Harvard and I

have a very difficult relationship. And part of what, you know, when you love a family that isn't

working, I don't want to trash. I didn't bring up the name of the president of MIT during the

Air and Schwartz period. It's not vengeance. I want the rot cleared out. I don't need to go

after human beings. Yeah. Just like you said, with the, with the disk formulation, the individual

human beings don't necessarily carry them. It's those chairs that are so powerful that,

in which they sit. It's the chairs, not the humans. It's not the humans.

Without naming names, can you tell the story of your struggle during your time at Harvard?

Maybe in a way that tells the bigger story of the struggle of young,

bright minds that are trying to come up with big, bold ideas within the institutions that

we're talking about. You can start. I mean, in part, it starts with coffee with a couple of

Croatians in the math department at MIT. And we used to talk about music and dance and math

and physics and love and all this kind of stuff as Eastern Europeans love to. And I ate it up.

And my friend, Gordana, who was an instructor in the MIT math department when I was a graduate

student at Harvard, said to me, I'm probably going to do a bad version of her accent.

Here we go. Erick, will I see you tomorrow at the secret seminar? And I said, what secret seminar?

Erick, don't joke. I said, I'm not used to this style of humor, Gordana. I said,

Erick, the secret seminar that your advisor is running. I said, what are you talking about?

Ha, ha, ha. Your advisor is running a secret seminar on this aspect. I think it was like

the churned Simon's invariant. I'm not sure what the topic was again, but she gave me the room

number and the time, and she was not cracking a smile. I've never known her to make this kind

of a joke. And I thought this was crazy. And I was trying to have an advisor. I didn't want

an advisor, but people said you have to have one, so I took one. And I went to this room like 15

minutes early, and there was not a soul inside it. It was outside of the math department.

And it was still in the same building, the science center at Harvard. And I sat there and I let five

minutes go by. I let seven minutes go by. Ten minutes go by. There's nobody. I thought, okay,

so this was all an elaborate joke. And then like three minutes to the hour, this graduate student

walks in and like sees me and does a double take. And then I start to see the professors in geometry

and topology start to file in. And everybody's like very disconcerted that I'm in this room.

And finally, the person who was supposed to be my advisor walks in to the seminar and sees

me and goes, why does it go? And I realized that the secret seminar is true, that the department

is conducting a secret seminar on the exact topic that I'm interested in, not telling me about it,

and that these are the reindeer games that the Rudolphs of the department are not invited to.

And so then I realized, okay, I did not understand it. There's a parallel department.

And that became the beginning of an incredible odyssey in which I came to understand that the

game that I had been sold about publication, about blind refereeing, about openness and

scientific transmission of information was all a lie.

I came to understand that at the very top, there's a second system that's about closed meetings

and private communications and agreements about citation and publication that the rest of us

don't understand. And that in large measure, that is the thing that I won't submit to. And so when

you ask me questions like, well, why wouldn't you feel good about talking to your critics? Or

why wouldn't you feel? The answer is, oh, you don't know. Like if you stay in a nice hotel,

you don't realize that there is an entire second structure inside of that hotel,

where like there's usually a workers cafe in a resort complex that isn't available to the people

who are staying in the hotel. And then there are private hallways inside the same hotel that are

parallel structures. So that's what I found, which was in essence, just the way you can stay hotels

your whole life and not realize that inside of every hotel is a second structure that you're

not supposed to see as the guest. There is a second structure inside of academics that behaves

totally differently with respect to how people get dinged, how people get their grants taken away,

how this person comes to have that thing named after them. And by pretending that we're not

running a parallel structure, I have no patience for that anymore. So I got a chance to see how

the game, how hardball is really played at Harvard. And I'm now eager to play hardball

back with the same people who played hardball with me.

Let me ask two questions on this. So one, do you think it's possible? So I call those people

assholes. That's the technical term. Do you think it's possible that that's just not the entire

system, but a part of the system? Sort of that there's, you can navigate, you can swim in the

waters and find the groups of people who do aspire to the openness. The guy who rescued my PhD

was one of the people who filed in to the secret seminar.

Right. But are there people outside of this? Is he an asshole?

Yes. I was a bad... No, but I'm trying to make this point, which is this isn't my failure to

correctly map these people. It's yours. You have a simplification that isn't going to work.

I think, okay, asshole is the wrong term. I would say lacking of character and...

What would you have had these people do? Why did they do this? Why have a secret seminar?

I don't understand the exact dynamics of a secret seminar, but I think the right thing to do

is to, I mean, to see individuals like you. There might be a reason to have a secret seminar,

but they should detect that an individual like you, a brilliant mind who's thinking about certain

ideas could be damaged by this. I don't think that they see it that way. The idea is we're

going to sneak food to the children we want to survive. Yeah, so that's highly problematic,

and there should be people within that room. I'm trying to say this is the thing,

the ball that can't, is Thrombeck won't be caught. The problem is they know that most of their

children won't survive, and they can't say that. I see. Sorry to interrupt. You mean that the fact

that the whole system is underfunded, that they naturally have to pick favorites?

They live in a world which reached steady state at some level, let's say, in the early 70s,

and in that world, before that time, you have a professor like Norman Steenrod, and you'd have

20 children that is graduate students, and all of them would go on to be professors,

and all of them would want to have 20 children. You start taking higher and higher powers of 20,

and you see that the system could not, it's not just about money. The system couldn't survive,

so the way it's supposed to work now is that we should shut down the vast majority of PhD programs,

and we should let the small number of truly top places populate mostly teaching and research

departments that aren't PhD producing. We don't want to do that because we use PhD students as a

labor force. The whole thing has to do with growth, resources, dishonesty, and in that world,

you see all of these adaptations to a ruthless world where the key question is, where are we

going to bury this huge number of bodies of people who don't work out? My problem was I wasn't

interested in dying. You clearly highlight that there's aspects of the system that are broken,

but as an individual, is your role to exit the system or just acknowledge that it's a game and

win it? My role is to survive and thrive in the public eye. In other words, when you have an escapee

of the system, like yourself, such as, and that person says, you know, I wasn't exactly finished.

Let me show you a bunch of stuff. Let me show you that the theory of telomeres never got reported

properly. Let me show you that all of marginal economics is supposed to be redone with a

different version of the differential calculus. Let me show you that you didn't understand the

self dual Yang Mills equations correctly in topology and physics, because they're in fact

much more broadly found, and it's only the mutations that happen in special dimensions.

There are lots of things to say, but this particular group of people, like if you just take,

where are all the Gen X and millennial university presidents?

All right. They're all in a holding pattern. Now, why in the story of telomeres was it an

older professor and a younger graduate student? It's this issue of what would be called interference

competition. For example, orcas try to drown minke whales by covering their blow holes so

that they suffocate because the needed resource is air. Okay. Well, what do the universities do?

They try to make sure that you can't be viable, that you need them, that you need their grants,

you need to be zinged with overhead charges or fringe rates or all of the games that the locals

love to play. Well, my point is, okay, what's the cost of this? How many people died as a result of

these interference competition games? When you take somebody like Douglas Prasher who did green

fluorescent protein and he drives a shuttle bus because his grant runs out and he has to give

away all of his research and all of that research gets a Nobel Prize and he gets to drive a shuttle

bus for $35,000 a year. What do you mean by died? Do you mean their career, their dreams,

their passions? Yeah, as an academic, Doug Prasher was dead for a long period of time.

Okay, so as a person who's escaped the system, can't you at this, because you also have in

your mind a powerful theory that may turn out to be useful, maybe not. Let's hope.

Can't you also play the game enough like with the children? So like publish and but also...

If you told me that this would work, really what I want to do, you see, is I would love to

revolutionize a field with an H index of zero. We have these proxies that count how many papers

you've written, how cited are the papers you've written. All this is nonsense.

That's interesting. Sorry, what do you mean by a field with an H index? So I told you

you feel... H index is count somehow how many papers have you gotten that get so many citations.

Let's say H index undefined. Like for example, I don't have an advisor for my PhD,

but I have to have an advisor as far as something called the math genealogy project that tracks

who advised whom down the line. So I am my own advisor, which sets up a loop, right? How many

students do I have an infinite number or descendants? They don't want to have that story. So I have to

be... I have to have formal advisor Raoul Botte and my Wikipedia entry, for example, says that I

was advised by Raoul Botte, which is not true. So you get fit into a system that says, well,

we have to know what your H index is. We have to know where are you a professor if you want to

apply for a grant. It makes all of these assumptions. What I'm trying to do is in part to show all of

this is nonsense. This is proxy BS that came up in the institutional setting. And right now,

it's important for those of us who are still vital like Elon, it would be great to have Elon as a

professor of physics and engineering, right? It seems ridiculous to say, but...

Just as a shot in the arm. It would be great to have Elon at Caltech, even one day a week.

One day a month. Okay. Well, why can't we be in there? It's the same reason. Well,

why can't you be on the view? Why can't you be on Bill Maher? We need to know what you're going

to do before we take you on the show. Well, I don't want to tell you what I'm going to do.

Do you think you need to be able to dance the dance a little bit?

I can dance the dance fun. To be on the view. Oh, come on. So you can. Yeah, you do. You're not.

I can do that fine. Here's where it's... Sure. The place that it goes south is

there's like a set of questions that gets you into this more adversarial stuff. And you've in

fact asked some of those more adversarial questions this setting. And they're not things

that are necessarily aggressive, but they're things that are making assumptions.

Right. So when you have a question, it's like, Lex,

are you avoiding your critics? It's just like, okay, why did you frame that that way? Or the

next question would be, do you think that you should have a special exemption and that you

should have the right to break rules and everyone else should have to follow them?

That question I find innervating. It doesn't really come out of anything meaningful. It's

just like we feel we're supposed to ask that of the other person to show that we're not captured

by their madness. That's not the real question you want to ask me. If you want to get really excited

about this, you want to ask, do you think this thing is right? Yeah, weirdly, I do. Do you think

that it's going to be immediately seen to be right? I don't. I think it's going to have an

interesting fight and it's going to have an interesting evolution. And what do you hope to

do with it in nonphysical terms? Gosh, I hope it revolutionizes our relationship of, well,

with people outside of the institutional framework and it reinflicts us into the institutional

framework where we can do the most good to bring the institutions back to health.

It's like, these are positive uplifting questions. If you had Frank Wilczek, you wouldn't say,

Frank, let's be honest, you have done very little with your life after the original huge

show that you used to break under the physics scene. We weirdly ask people different questions

based upon how they sit down. Yeah, that's very strange, right? So here's the thing. I get

these days a large number of emails from people with the equivalent of a theory of everything

for AGI. And I use my own BS radar to detect unfairly, perhaps, whether they're full of

shit or not. Right. I love where you're going with this, by the way.

My concern I often think about is there's elements of brilliance in what people write to me.

And I'm trying to, right now, as you made it clear, the kind of judgments and assumptions

would make, how am I supposed to deal with you who are not an outsider of the system

and think about what you're doing, because my radar is saying you're not full of shit.

But I'm also not completely outside of the system.

That's right. You've danced beautifully. You've actually got all the credibility

that you're supposed to get, all the nice little stamps of approval, not all, but a large enough

amount. I mean, it's hard to put into words exactly why you sound, whether your theory

turns out to be good or not, you sound like a special human being. I appreciate that and thank

you very much. In a good way. No, no, no. But what am I supposed to do with that flood of emails

from AGI folks? Why do I sound different? I don't know. And I would like to systemize that. I don't know.

Look, when you're talking to people, you very quickly can surmise. Am I claiming to be a physicist?

No, I say it every turn. I'm not a physicist. When you say something about bundles, you say,

well, can you explain it differently? I'm pushing around on this area, that lever over there.

I'm trying to find something that we can play with and engage.

And another thing is that I'll say something at scale. So if I was saying completely wrong

things about bundles on the Joe Rogan program, you don't think that we wouldn't hear a crushing

chorus and the same thing with geometric unity. So I put up this video from this Oxford lecture.

I understand that it's not a standard lecture, but you haven't heard the most brilliant people

in the field say, well, this is obviously nonsense. They don't know what to make of it.

They're going to hide behind, well, he hasn't said enough details. Where's the paper?

Where's the paper? I've seen the criticism. I've gotten the same kind of criticism. I've

published a few things, especially stuff related to Tesla. We did studies on Tesla vehicles. And

the kind of criticism I've gotten showed that they're completely... Oh, right. The guy who had

Elon Musk on his program twice is going to give us an accurate assessment. Next.

Exactly. Exactly. It's just very low level without actually ever addressing the content.

You know, Lex, I think that in part you're trying to solve a puzzle that isn't really your puzzle.

I think you know that I'm sincere. You don't know whether the theory is going to work or not.

And you know that it's not coming out of somebody who's coming out of left field.

Like the story makes sense. There's enough that's new and creative and different in other aspects

where you can check me that your real concern is, are you really telling me that when you start

breaking the rules, you see the system for what it is and it's become really vicious and aggressive?

And the answer is yes. And I had to break the rules in part because of learning issues, because I

came into this field with a totally different set of attributes. My profile just doesn't look

like anybody else's remotely. But as a result, what that did is it showed me what is the system

true to its own ideals or does it just follow these weird procedures and then when you take it

off the rails, it behaves terribly. And that's really what my story, I think, does. Is it just

says, well, he completely takes the system into new territory where it's not expecting to have to

deal with somebody with these confusing sets of attributes. And I think what he's telling us is

he believes it behaves terribly. Now, if you take somebody with perfect standardized tests

and a winner of math competitions and you put them in a PhD program, they're probably going to be okay.

Okay. I'm not saying that the system breaks down for everybody under all circumstances.

I'm saying when you present the system with a novel situation, at the moment, it will almost

certainly break down with probability approaching 100%. But to me, the painful and the tragic thing

is it sorry to bring out my motherly instinct. But it feels like it's too much. It could be

too much of a burden to exist outside the system. Maybe by psychologically. First of all, I've got

a podcast that I kind of like. I've got amazing friends. I have a life which has more interesting

people passing through it than I know what to do with. And they haven't managed to kill me off yet.

So far, so good. Speaking of which, you host an amazing podcast that we've mentioned several

times, but should mention over and over the portal where you somehow manage every single

conversation is a surprise. You go, I mean, not just the guests, but just the places you take

them, the kind of ways they become challenging and how you recover from that. I mean, it's

a full of genuine human moments. So I really appreciate what you're, it's a fun podcast

to listen to. Let me ask some silly questions about it. What have you learned about conversation,

about human to human conversation? Well, I have a problem that I haven't solved on the portal,

which is that in general, when I ask people questions, they usually find their deeply

grooved answers. And I'm not so interested in all of the deeply grooved answers. And so there's a

complaint, which I'm very sympathetic to actually, that I talk over people that I won't sit still for

the answer. And I think that that's weirdly sort of correct. It's not that I'm not interested in

hearing other voices. It's that I'm not interested in hearing the same voice on my program that I

could have gotten than somebody else's. And I haven't solved that well. So I've learned that I need

a new conversational technique where I can keep somebody from finding their comfortable place

and yet not be the voice talking over that person. Yeah, it's funny. I get in a sense like your

conversation with Brett, I can sense you detect that the line he's going under down is, you know

how it's going to end. And you know, you think it's a useless line. So you'll just stop it right

there and you take them into the direction that you think it should go. But that requires interruption.

Well, and it does so far. I haven't found a better way. I'm looking for a better way. It's not,

it's not like I don't hear the problem. I do hear the problem. I just, I haven't solved the problem.

And, you know, on the, on the Brett episode, I was insufferable. It was very difficult to

listen to. It was so overbearing. But on the other hand, I was right. You know, it's like funny.

You keep saying that, but I didn't find it, maybe because I heard brothers, like I heard a big

brother. Yeah, it was pretty bad. Really? I think so. I didn't think it was bad at all. Well,

a lot of people found it insufferable. Interesting. And I think it also has to do with the fact that

this has become a frequent experience. I have several shows where somebody who I very much

admire and think of as courageous, you know, I'm talking with them, maybe we're friends,

and they sit down on the show and they immediately become this fake person. Like two seconds in,

they're, they're sort of saying, well, I don't want to be too critical or too harsh. I don't want

to name any names. I don't want to this. Don't want, he's like, okay, I'm going to put my listeners

through three hours of you being sweetness and light. Yeah. Like at least give me some

reality and then we can decide to shelve the show and never let it hear, you know, the call of

freedom in the, in the bigger world. But I've seen you break out of that a few times. I've

seen you be successful with it. I forgot to guess, but she was dressed with

where you at the end of the episode, you had to nod your head about Brett.

Agnes Collar. Agnes Collar, the philosopher at the University of Chicago.

Yeah. You've continuously broken out of her. You guys went, you know, you didn't seem pretty genuine.

And I like her. I'm completely ethically opposed to what she's ethically for.

Well, she was great. And she wasn't like, you're both going hard.

She's a grown up. Yeah, exactly.

And she doesn't like care about her. So she's awesome. Yeah.

But you're saying that some people are difficult to break out.

Well, it's just that, you know, she was bringing the courage of her conviction.

She was sort of defending the system. And I thought, wow,

that's a pretty indefensible system that you're,

but that's great though. She's doing that, isn't it?

I mean, it made for an awesome.

It's very informative for the world. Yes.

You just hated.

I just can't stand the idea that somebody says, well,

we don't care who gets paid or who gets the credit as long as we get the goodies,

because that seems like insane.

Have you ever been afraid leading into a conversation?

Gary Kasparov.

Really? By the way, I mean, I know I'm just a fan taking requests.

But I started, I started the beginning in Russian.

And in fact, I used one word incorrectly. Is that terrible?

You know, it was, it was pretty good. It's pretty good Russian.

What was terrible is I think he complimented you, right? No.

Did he compliment you? He was like me.

Did he compliment you on your Russian?

Well, he said almost perfect Russian.

Yeah, like he was full shit. That was, that was not great Russian.

But that was not great Russian.

Yeah, that was great. That was hard.

That was, you tried hard, which is what matters.

That is so insulting.

I hope so. But I do hope you continue.

I felt like, I don't know how long it went.

It might have been like a two hour conversation,

but it felt, I hope it continues.

Like I feel like you have many conversations with Gary.

Yeah. I would love to hear.

There's certain conversation I would just love to hear.

Well, it's just, you know, he's coming from a very,

it's this issue about needing to overpower people in a very dangerous world.

And so Gary has that need.

Yeah, he wasn't, he was interrupting you.

Sure. It's an interesting dynamic.

It was, it was an interesting dynamic.

Two Weinstein's going on.

Two, I mean, two powerhouse egos, brilliant.

No, you just don't say egos.

Mines.

Mines.

Spirits.

Mines. You don't have an ego.

You're the most humble person I know.

Is that true?

No, that's a complete lie.

Do you think about your own mortality death?

Sure.

Are you afraid?

Well, I released a theory during something that can kill older people.

Sure.

Oh, is there a little bit of a parallel there?

Of course, of course.

I don't want it to die with me.

What do you hope your legacy is?

Oh, I hope my legacy is accurate.

I'd like to write on my accomplishments rather than

how my community decided to ding me while I was alive.

That would be great.

What about if it was significantly exaggerated?