YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Towards A New Physics Of Living Systems and Consciousness

Towards A New Physics Of Living Systems and Consciousness — Transcript

by Essentia Foundation · 12,330 words · 1,917 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00But our physics hasn't come to terms
0:01with life, living systems, and
0:03consciousness. And our modern medicine
0:06is practiced chiefly at the level of
0:08chemistry and molecular biology. More
0:10than 20 years ago, I fell in love with
0:12these nano machines that read and write
0:15DNA. These nanom motors 99.99%
0:20efficient.
0:21Could this information processing that
0:25these nanom machines are doing, could it
0:27be quantum mechanical?
0:30>> Dr. Anita Goel, the CEO of Nanobiiosim,
0:33theorizes that the molecular machines
0:35that copy our DNA are like tiny quantum
0:39computers and she has designed a
0:42biological double slit experiment that
0:45could confirm her theory. So we modeled
0:47that this nano machine when it's moving
0:50forward it could be in a quantum superp
0:53position of these internal states. One
0:56speculation is does it use some sort of
0:58quantum search algorithm to quickly and
1:00efficiently find in this sea of
1:02candidates the right molecule could be
1:04like a sensor that's picking up quantum
1:07sensing information about its
1:08environment.
1:10If the most essential molecular
1:12machinery in our bodies indeed operates
1:15quantum mechanically, this could lead to
1:17a new physics that accounts for life and
1:20consciousness.
1:23The music that you as an organism make
1:25is an interplay of the information in
1:26your DNA base pair sequence, but also
1:29the information embedded in your
1:31environment. What if consciousness
1:35is something fundamental to the fabric
1:37of reality? Matter, energy, space, and
1:40time come out of that. That new
1:43scientific framework would lead to new
1:45technologies.
1:46Technologies we haven't even thought of
1:48yet. You could call it consciousness. In
1:51religious traditions, we'll call it God,
1:52of course, versus the classical story
1:55that pure randomness led to sort of the
1:57origin of life. What are your thoughts
2:00there?
2:01I think that
2:06>> a warm welcome at the Asencia
2:08Foundation's YouTube channel. We are
2:10here in Barcelona covering the science
2:12of consciousness conference. And at my
2:14table I have a very special guest, Dr.
2:17Anita Goell. You are a physicist,
2:21physician, and nanotechnology scientist
2:25and an entrepreneur. and you work at the
2:26intersection of quantum physics, biio
2:28medicine, nanotechnology, and AI. A very
2:31warm welcome. It's such an honor to have
2:33you.
2:33>> Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.
2:35>> You basically um propose a new physics
2:40and I think that is very interesting
2:42from your background in nanotechnology
2:45and so I'd love to dive into that. And
2:48in understanding your work, it's very
2:50important. And you started your
2:52presentation which we will share bits
2:54and pieces of with our audience. You
2:55shared in your presentation the fact
2:58that physics has been studying closed
3:00systems and living systems are open
3:03systems. They're not in equilibrium. For
3:06people to understand this fundamental
3:08difference, what are the difference
3:10between closed systems of physics been
3:12studying and the work you're doing as a
3:13physicist but open systems would be very
3:15nice to understand.
3:16>> Well, thank you very much. That's a very
3:18nice question.
3:20Um our physics for the last our our
3:24modern physics mostly developed in the
3:26context of the last century was
3:28developed
3:30primarily around inanimate matter
3:33uh closed systems that are at
3:36equilibrium or at near equilibrium where
3:38the interaction with the environment is
3:40at best a little perturbation.
3:43If you look at living systems they're
3:45fundamentally open systems. They're
3:47constantly exchanging matter, energy,
3:49and information with their environment.
3:51They're strongly coupled to their
3:53environment,
3:54and they're far from equilibrium. In
3:58fact, they're negotiable
4:07because of entropy will be
4:09disintegrated. But living systems have a
4:12way of decreasing their own entropy.
4:16So these are fascinating topics and
4:20the physics that we developed in the
4:22last hundred years was primarily focused
4:25on those inanimate closed systems that
4:29were at or near equilibrium.
4:31And
4:33what in my journey studying physics and
4:37medicine and and going deep first at
4:40Stanford, Harvard and MIT and and now in
4:42my research institute and company,
4:45I realized that our physics hasn't come
4:48to terms with life, living systems and
4:50consciousness and our modern medicine is
4:53practiced chiefly at the level of
4:54chemistry and molecular biology. We
4:56haven't really integrated these two
4:58wonderful fields that have made
5:00tremendous advances in the last several
5:02years with each other. For example, how
5:05does physics play a role in
5:07physiological processes like things like
5:10mechanical forces, electromagnetic
5:12fields, quantum effects? How could they
5:14affect molecular and cellular level
5:17processes? We haven't delved into that.
5:20So going into physics and medicine, I
5:23felt like there's a whole new vista of
5:26opportunities when we bring this
5:28together. And it's not just what physics
5:30can do for biology in terms of new
5:33tools, new instruments, and new
5:34conceptual frameworks. It's also what
5:37the study of life and living systems and
5:39biology can do to expand the boundaries
5:41of our physics. Now, if I go back to
5:45Einstein, you know, he said towards the
5:47end of his life, he actually agreed with
5:49me. He said by studying physics we can
5:52understand by studying living things we
5:54can appreciate how primitive our physics
5:56still is.
5:58>> And as you know Einstein was never happy
6:02that quantum mechanics was complete. He
6:04felt like something is missing and
6:07Schroinger felt the same way. And now uh
6:10Roger Penrose has been echoing and
6:13bringing back to life that feeling that
6:16something is missing in our physics
6:19specifically quantum mechanics. And
6:21despite over a hundred years of effort,
6:24our quantum mechanics and general
6:26relativity still haven't been able to be
6:28reconciled despite wonderful great
6:31efforts and string theory and loop
6:33quantum gravity. So there's a lot of
6:35effort that's very commendable, but we
6:37still haven't been able to reconcile
6:39that.
6:40And I would argue that there are some
6:44things missing in quantum mechanics and
6:48overall in physics and one of those
6:50things are life, living systems and
6:52consciousness. And we cannot pretend to
6:54have a theory of unified theory of
6:56everything if we haven't come to terms
6:58with these phenomena.
7:01So any unified theory of physics must
7:04incorporate this as well. So the the bar
7:08is high. We have to address the things
7:11that Einstein, Schroinger and Penrose
7:13are worried about, including the quantum
7:15measurement problem. But we also have to
7:17come to terms with life, living systems
7:19and consciousness as part of
7:22understanding where physics has to go in
7:24the future. And uh so that's one thing.
7:28Now I felt that in order to map out this
7:32new physics or explore are there new
7:34physical principles when you start to
7:36look at life and living systems
7:39one needs to expand our framework in
7:41modern physics. About a hundred years
7:44ago Albert Einstein gave us a framework
7:46to see how matter and energy are
7:48interconnected. Popularly thought of as
7:51equals mc^².
7:53I came to the conclusion that in order
7:56for physics and our current frameworks
8:00to come to terms with life, living
8:02systems
8:03and animate systems and so forth, we
8:06need to expand this frameworks instead
8:08of just matter and energy. It needs to
8:09be matter, energy and information and
8:12how they all interconnect with each
8:14other. Information has a physical
8:17tangible reality to it. Just like matter
8:20and energy have an interreationship,
8:22information, matter and energy have
8:24interconnective relationships.
8:26And even this thing called
8:28consciousness, we have to address that
8:30headon as a science problem, as a
8:32physics problem.
8:34Uh I think it was Fineman who somebody
8:37said, you know, politician, politics is
8:39too important to leave to the
8:40politicians.
8:41>> So I would say consciousness is too
8:43important to leave to the philosophers
8:44and the other kinds of people. the
8:47physicists need to take this problem
8:49head on.
8:50>> Dr. Well, to sorry to interrupt you, but
8:53because there's so much in here we we
8:55want to cover and to know for our
8:56audience what this conversation I hope
8:58it to build up to is you talking to us
9:01about a potential double slit experiment
9:03in living systems. What which would be
9:05like a tremendous breakthrough if you
9:07manage to to experimentally do that. So
9:10that's what we will be building up to
9:12and to understand that. But I couldn't
9:14agree more that um consciousness has
9:17been left out of the picture for 100
9:19years. The quantum fathers knew many of
9:21them. I mean there just um so many
9:24quotes you can find of the quantum
9:25father said we have to sort of
9:27>> as physics has to has encountered
9:29basically uh consciousness. We cannot
9:30get around consciousness. I think that
9:32that was Max Plunk saying it and
9:34Shreddinger also had these quotes and
9:36then it was left out of the picture in
9:38what we can sort of say was the shut up
9:40and calculate phase of physics building
9:42bombs computers
9:44>> and it's now back. I think that's one of
9:47the great uh amongst many other things
9:50wonderful things that Sir Roger Penrose
9:52has done for physics say hey we need to
9:53look at consciousness
9:55but then there's this criticism of
9:57course because
9:59we've visited Anton Zylinger's lab in in
10:02Vienna and just to see the amount of
10:04work to get a couple of cubits in a
10:06superp position I saw like super heavy
10:09machines and I was in a lab I had to
10:11wear glasses and that's like a couple of
10:12cubits just to study one isolated
10:15system. So the critique would beh this
10:18is all nice this speculation on quantum
10:21and living systems but we can never
10:22truly test it because how can you put
10:24that in isolation? How can we do that?
10:26So can you please help us out here um in
10:29in how to get there? how to sort of
10:31experimentally
10:33>> yes that's very important I think
10:35>> it's nice to dream of bold ideas but one
10:39has to be measured and very grounded in
10:42experimental reality and the data and so
10:47um
10:49I was always thinking you know how can
10:52we bring physics and life living systems
10:55under one unified framework and I wanted
10:58some kind of experimental test bed that
11:01could give us the ability to poke and
11:05probe and learn from the actual nature
11:09how the reality is instead of just make
11:11up ideas in our mind.
11:12>> Yeah.
11:13>> Which you know humans can do but tell
11:15stories.
11:15>> We need to be grounded in what is nature
11:18trying to tell us.
11:19>> And so more than 20 years ago I fell in
11:23love with these nano machines that read
11:25and write DNA.
11:28I thought they were fascinating and
11:29there were tools becoming available from
11:31quantum optics and I was very blessed to
11:34have some wonderful mentors including my
11:36undergraduate mentor who at Stanford and
11:40uh and that kind of launched me in a
11:42journey that there's a tremendous amount
11:44of experimental tools that are becoming
11:46available to for example study DNA at
11:48the single molecule level and see how
11:50these nano machines read and write DNA
11:54and I kind of wanted to
11:56understand how to approach this
11:58experimentally and through the tools of
12:00theoretical physics because I wanted in
12:03a in a field where it's kind of the wild
12:06west. You need to have experimental
12:09tools that are very good and to get good
12:11data, but you also have to map out the
12:15theory with whatever frameworks are
12:18there. So, you have to kind of take a a
12:20dual approach. M you have to build your
12:23map and you have to explore new land and
12:27keep updating your map. So you have to
12:29kind of go hand in hand. So I see it's
12:32like when they were exploring the the
12:34Wild West in the beginning, you know,
12:35they didn't have a map and they didn't
12:37have the map is like your theory and
12:39they had their tools and they were
12:40digging.
12:42So you have to kind of do both.
12:43>> I like that sort of approach both. You
12:45shouldn't get lost in a territory but
12:47also not in your maps. what I think
12:48physicists have a tendency to do you get
12:50lost in sort of the but um
12:52>> well there are mature fields where there
12:54maps have already been laid out and
12:56well- definfined experiments already
12:57exist so in the area of so one of the
13:01areas uh I got inspired by at this next
13:04so I I love the system because I felt
13:06like a living system is a laboratory
13:09especially if we can study it on small
13:10scales to study this exchange of matter
13:14energy and information in an open system
13:17>> especally If we can tease out the effect
13:19of the environment, changing one knob on
13:21the system and start to understand how
13:26information might couple into something
13:28like uh an enzyme reading a DNA
13:31molecule.
13:32>> I'll give you an example that you know
13:35DNA is very interesting. It's in my mind
13:37it's kind of like a piano and the music
13:39that you as an organism make is an
13:41interplay of the information in your DNA
13:43base pair sequence but also the
13:46information embedded in your environment
13:48and that's that environment is playing
13:51it's the fingers playing the piano of
13:54your DNA piano and the interplay makes
13:57the music. So for example, two people
13:59can have the exact same DNA that causes
14:02a certain cancer. It's called Anka gene,
14:04a certain gene. One person may get
14:07cancer, the other may not. They have the
14:09same DNA. The difference is the
14:11environment. So something in the
14:13environment, there's some layer of
14:14information that is communicating to how
14:17this enzyme replicates or transcribes
14:20the information in the DNA that is
14:22getting affected. So that's so I
14:26hypothesize that evolution at least on
14:29the molecular level could perhaps be
14:32more Lamarian than it is purely
14:34Darwinian or purely random. And how is
14:36this information in the environment
14:39important?
14:39>> Nice. I think to unpack a bit Lamarian
14:42because people will know Darwin not even
14:44not all our audience will know Lamarian
14:46forms of evolution. Could you briefly
14:48explain what what that is? at least uh
14:50you know everybody knows Darwin's theory
14:52of evolution and so in the context of
14:56this what you might think of is when a
15:00DNA polymerase is reading a DNA molecule
15:04it's a little Xerox machine reading the
15:05DNA it has a tendency to make a mistake
15:08once in a while this mistake this
15:11mutation that occurs is it purely random
15:15or does the environment somehow
15:18influence that in some way.
15:22Where does this come from?
15:23>> Where does this noise?
15:24>> The letter would be Lamarian. Darwin
15:26would say it's pure random.
15:27>> Darwin, the traditional Darwin
15:29interpretation is purely random.
15:31>> Yeah.
15:32>> Because it because it doesn't take into
15:34account that what you also called in
15:36your in your presentation, the French
15:38word, right? The environment.
15:39>> Milu. Yes. I love that word.
15:41>> I like that too. Um actually in French
15:43it mean it's sort of the underworld. Did
15:45you know that? It's they don't
15:48>> but I mean it is I like that sort of
15:50that environmental approach but nice to
15:53sort of contrast that to the story
15:55people normally understand when you just
15:57do sort of your high school uh biology
16:00then you will be told a chemical story
16:03it's all molecular interactions that was
16:05what I also understood even while making
16:07a documentary on bacteria I was still on
16:09that molecular
16:11molecular interaction but that's not
16:12what you're talking about when we
16:14talking about this or at least It's more
16:16it's it's just half the story.
16:17>> I mean there are molecular interactions
16:18but there are other kinds of signals uh
16:21and some of them are molecular. There
16:23are chemical concentrations of ATP or
16:25DNTPS there's salt concentrations
16:28there's temperature there you know at
16:31some level that's what it is but then
16:32there's things like mechanical forces
16:34electromagnetic fields are there quantum
16:36effects. So one of the questions I ask
16:38is so we have some papers we published
16:41on the how information in the
16:44environment can tune the DNA strings and
16:47affect there's a I can there's in my
16:50presentation there was a slide on that
16:52tuning DNA strings you can actually tune
16:55the speed at which it reads along the
16:57DNA and at certain critical tensions it
16:59stops and it can reverse direction and
17:01start unzipping the DNA effectively
17:03doing error correction And so it's like
17:07typing along doing its xeroxing. It
17:10makes a mistake and it in the natural
17:12body it stops and deletes backspace and
17:14then goes back again. And then us by
17:17doing the tension can slow it down, make
17:20it come to a screeching halt and then
17:21pull harder and then it goes into
17:23reverse gear and starts unzipping all
17:24the way.
17:25>> It's amazing because those visuals you
17:27showed that um first just just out of
17:30curiosity is not really relevant for a
17:32conversation, but still how on earth do
17:34you do that? It's lasers that literally
17:38connect to the DNA string and start
17:41stretching.
17:41>> That is the that's the traditional
17:43single molecule way of doing that. And
17:45there's a whole field that's developed
17:46around that now of single molecule
17:48manipulation of biomolelecules and
17:50studying
17:52>> biology at the single molecule level.
17:54>> But the visualization you show us is not
17:56I mean that's a visualization, right?
17:59what that's an animation of what our lab
18:01has been able to do with some DARPA and
18:03other projects that we've done.
18:05>> Uh so yeah that you can show that
18:08>> yeah we'll show it.
18:09>> So my point is that there's a classical
18:11aspect to that that we describe in some
18:13papers and then what I talked about is a
18:16question could this information
18:19processing that these nanom machines are
18:21doing could it be quantum mechanical? I
18:24just posed the question because
18:27traditional thinking is that biological
18:30systems are wet, warm and swampy and you
18:35will not maintain quantum coherences
18:37long enough for it to be relevant.
18:39However, Schrodinger was very passionate
18:42about this subject and his book What is
18:44Life? in 1944. He was deeply going into
18:48what is life and as you know he's one of
18:50the founders of quantum mechanics and he
18:54really deeply felt that
18:58this thing that is unsatisfactory about
19:00quantum mechanics that he complained
19:02about with the Schroinger's cat example
19:04was just just to exaggerate how the
19:08quantum measurement problem is not
19:10resolved
19:11>> to kind of echo Einstein and then Roger
19:13Penrose has built on that. Um
19:17he felt that maybe by studying living
19:20systems we might understand some of that
19:24missing aspect of our quantum theory
19:27that would help complete quantum theory.
19:30Now the founders of quantum mechanics
19:32were bold enough to think quantum
19:33mechanics could be incomplete and we
19:35need to complete it. Then we went into a
19:37generation uh especially in America
19:39where there was this like shut up and
19:40calculate. Don't ask these fundamental
19:42foundational questions of physics. Stay
19:45focused on your utilitarian
19:47problems, your applications. Anyway, we
19:50won't go down that rabbit hole. But the
19:52point is
19:54now we're ask we have new tools. we have
19:57new capabilities to study things on very
19:59tiny scales especially living things
20:02which are a beautiful laboratory to
20:04study some of these things. So I think
20:07this could be a potential laboratories
20:08to study this edge cases of
20:10quantumatics. It's open systems and
20:12there living systems. And so the
20:14question I pose is could quantum
20:16mechanics play a non-trivial role in
20:19these system in this system. And
20:22specifically,
20:23uh, there's a few things that we know
20:25about these nanom machines that read and
20:27write DNA that suggest that they could
20:30potentially be exploiting quantum
20:32effects in a non-trivial way to enhance
20:35their function and efficiency. And let
20:37me just lay out a few of those examples.
20:39Number one, these nanom machines are
20:41little molecular motors that have a
20:43thermodynamic energy conversion
20:45efficiency that's more than 99.9%.
20:49Now your car is probably 20 to 40%
20:52efficient in converting oil from the
20:54Middle East into mechanical work in
20:56terms of miles per gallon, right? But
20:58these nano motors 99.99%
21:02efficient. That's a lot of thermodynamic
21:04efficiency. Now the question is what's
21:06the secret to their energy transduction
21:08that gives them such high conversion
21:10efficiency from one form of energy? uh
21:13they get their chemical energy, their
21:15fuel is coming from ATP, DNTPS, they're
21:18burning that to create mechanical work
21:20along the DNA railroad track.
21:23>> So where is that energy efficiency
21:26coming from? So that's one. The other
21:28thing is I show some calculations on how
21:31these nanom machines have tremendous
21:34information processing power. I show one
21:37calculation which I won't go into here
21:38but it's in the presentation that it's a
21:41heristic calculation that this one nanom
21:44motor makes on estimate about a 100red
21:46billion computational steps as it reads
21:49one base of DNA
21:52that's a lot of computational power
21:54>> and and just sorry to interrupt you but
21:56in in in in what time scale are we
21:57talking
21:58>> about 10 milliseconds
21:59>> in 10 milliseconds it does
22:01>> in 10 milliseconds it reads one base
22:04>> and one base reading is is equivalent to
22:06100 billion
22:07>> billion internal steps like it's
22:09thinking a hundred billion computational
22:11steps just to read one base of a long
22:13chain of DNA. So I asked the question,
22:17what is it thinking about? Like it's got
22:19to be thinking there's a lot of
22:22information processing going off.
22:23Obviously all the information is not
22:25just in the DNA. It's processing all the
22:27environmental information, the millu to
22:30understand do I go forward, backwards,
22:32do I sit here, what do I do? Anyway, so
22:35I'm getting sidetracked. So the point is
22:37that um so there's a few more
22:40experimental examples that I want to
22:42point out. So one is
22:45this nanom motor is like a little xerox
22:48machine. It sits on a template of DNA
22:51and it looks and it's swimming. It's
22:54swimming in a bath of molecules and it
22:57finds the mating molecule. If it's a A,
23:00it finds a a T. If it's a G, it finds a
23:03C in a sea of candidates. And this
23:06sitting right there, this little Xerox
23:08machine on the template DNA strand and
23:10it's going and finding the mate and
23:13making the matches as it munches along
23:16the DNA track. So one speculation is
23:20does it use some sort of quantum search
23:22algorithm to quickly and efficiently
23:24find in this sea of candidates the right
23:26molecule and keep munching it on, right?
23:28Because it has to do some kind of search
23:30algorithm. So that's one. Another one is
23:34it
23:36it is doing copying and then it makes a
23:40mistake and then it goes into error
23:42correction mode and this switching from
23:44forward to reverse. Could there be some
23:47quantum aspect to this switching? The
23:49third is um
23:53the onset of mutations, the noise. Is
23:56this an intrinsic noise? Is it thermal
23:58noise? Is it quantum noise? Where is
24:01this mutation intrinsic error coming
24:04from? Is it purely random? Is there some
24:08quantum entanglement with the
24:10fluctuations in the environment that are
24:12somehow giving rise to the these are
24:15some of the questions that have been
24:17posed. So um and then I asked another
24:21additional question on these that this
24:24real- time fine structure dynamics. So
24:26the motor bunching along the DNA now
24:28that we have the tools to start to
24:29visualize it could that give us a
24:33signature
24:35of the information in the environment
24:37that's talking to it
24:40because that in it so in that way the
24:42motor is like a sensor. We know it could
24:44be a classical sensor. Could it be a
24:46quantum sensor?
24:47>> Because it if it's truly quantum
24:49information processing, it could be like
24:51a sensor that's picking up
24:53>> quantum sensing information about its
24:55environment. Right? Then now you've
24:57turned it from a nano sensor to a
24:59quantum sensor. So that's I'm just
25:01asking a question. So
25:03>> that's why it becomes really relevant to
25:04answer this question. Are these nanom
25:06machines capable of quantum mechanical
25:09effects that are non-trivial? Now I've
25:11kind of given you the background. So
25:15the first thing is to find out is this
25:18even plausible or are we just barking up
25:21the wrong tree because the traditional
25:22thinking is they're wet, warm and
25:24swampy. There's not going to be any
25:25query. So then I show and there's a
25:28paper on this that actually I got
25:30inspired to do in my conversations with
25:33my friend Paul Davies but it um talks
25:37about how in that I estimate the
25:40decoherence times of this motor DNA
25:43complex.
25:44>> Yeah.
25:44>> And and show that there's some modes of
25:49uh you know relaxation. These polymers
25:51have these spectrum of relaxation times,
25:53but there's at least some time scales uh
25:57some modes of relaxation where you can
26:00have decoherence times that are long
26:03compared to the time it takes for the
26:06motor to read a base of DNA.
26:08>> For people to understand just very just
26:10to pause you keep your line of thought
26:12please, but not everyone will understand
26:14decoherence. So that's the quantum state
26:16in it in its quantum state that it can
26:19stay in a quantum state right before it
26:20collapses into a definitive state is
26:23that
26:24>> that's a way of saying it. I mean I
26:25think
26:25>> how in your story I just for people to
26:27understand what's important to
26:28understand that it can keep a quantum
26:29state for quite a long enough so
26:32>> it maintains its coherence in such a way
26:35that it hasn't uh equilibrated with it
26:39hasn't
26:41decohered by interacting with its
26:43environment. So it's maintaining its uh
26:47its coherence over some time scale. Um
26:52effectively you might think about it as
26:54it's it's maintaining its quantumness.
26:57Yeah.
26:58>> On that time scale.
26:59>> Yeah.
26:59>> So um to get into that a little deeper
27:02will take more time but think of it for
27:04that way for the moment. And so that
27:07quantum
27:09the critical time scale is the time
27:11scale in which that system can maintain
27:14that quantum coherence versus the time
27:17scale that you're processing that you're
27:19trying to detect at. So you have to
27:21compare those two time scales to see if
27:23this effect can be relevant. So if the
27:26quantum time scale, the coherence is
27:29long enough compared to the time it
27:32takes to read one base of DNA,
27:34>> then that means it's maintaining its
27:36quantumness
27:38while it's reading that base. If the
27:41quantum time scale was like here and the
27:43base reading time was here, that means
27:46yeah, it's quantum, but by the time it
27:48reads the whole base, it become a
27:50classical problem.
27:51>> Yeah. So this is a very critical
27:54criteria. It's one of the five. It's
27:57called the diverent I can't pronounce
27:59it. Venio criteria for a quantum
28:01computer. It's in my talk.
28:03>> So I estimate heristically that the
28:05decoherence time is long compared to the
28:08base reading time.
28:09>> Yeah.
28:10>> So by a few orders of magnitude. So
28:12that's enough for it to be plausible
28:16that it could be relevant. So that's the
28:17criteria number one. Are you even
28:19barking up the right tree? Yeah.
28:21>> So that was the first point. Then the
28:24second part was
28:27well how do we go about designing the
28:30equivalent of a double slit experiment
28:32so we could actually because you know
28:34this
28:36this field of quantum biology is
28:37burgeoning right now. There's been some
28:39interesting evidence uh bird navigation,
28:42photosynthesis where there seems to be
28:44some pretty interesting experimental
28:47evidence suggesting quant non-trivial
28:49quantum effects in the context of living
28:52systems. So,
28:55but there's still a lot of naysayers out
28:56there. It's not fully accepted. It's
28:58kind of on the edge.
29:00>> Yeah. And it's exactly that word
29:01suggesting is very important. It's not
29:03it's it's not sort of experimentally
29:05verified that those effects take place.
29:07Well, there there are people who feel
29:09both ways and you know it's on the it's
29:10a field that's in development. It's a
29:12fledgling field.
29:13>> So I thought and I was actually talking
29:15to some friends in DARPA and I was
29:17thinking okay so how could one design
29:20the equivalent of a double slit
29:22experiment because when you had the
29:23double slit experiment that was very
29:25clear this is classical this is quantum
29:28interference and it was very clear it's
29:30hard to deny. So we need something
29:32definitive that people can look at okay
29:35yeah I I can't argue with this right so
29:37I was thinking like how do we take our
29:39system and turn it into such a clean
29:43welldefined
29:45theoretically well- definfined and
29:46experimentally well- definfined see how
29:48you think affects the kind of
29:50theoretical questions you ask and then
29:52the theoretical
29:53models you build and the models you
29:56build help you make testable predictions
30:00And then you use the experiment to then
30:03test or falsify or or refine your
30:06theories. So you have to kind of go hand
30:08in hand. And the model has to be ground
30:11in the experimental reality. The
30:12experiment you do has to be very clean
30:14to tell you the theory. So they you know
30:16you you can make theories up here but if
30:18you're testing in a different domain
30:20you're they're not talking to each
30:22other. So I felt like they have to
30:23really you know be at one with each
30:25other. So,
30:28so that so I I present that in the talk.
30:30Let's not go in this here, but I
30:31basically explain
30:33>> uh a proposal for how we could take what
30:36we're doing and I show some preliminary
30:38data that we've done, but we're not we
30:40don't have the resolution yet to do what
30:42I'm proposing uh because that's a very
30:44hard experiment, but uh to go and try to
30:48do the equivalent of the double slit
30:50experiment in the context of these nanom
30:54machines that read and write DNA to help
30:56show is coherence maintained on a
30:59sufficient ly long time scale that we
31:03can detect an interference pattern
31:05>> or is it purely classical when we detect
31:08it
31:08>> what I got from your talk is that um I
31:11mean double slit experiments can now
31:13people can do it you can do it at home
31:15right there YouTube videos that's
31:17amazing that we've arrived at it you can
31:19establish sort of quantum nature of
31:20reality at home
31:22>> this of course is way more complex but
31:24what you're looking for are uh because
31:27in double slit experiments when we see
31:28interference pattern patterns. We know a
31:30wave function had to be sort of that
31:32that sort of points to the quantumness
31:34of the particle. Then let's not go into
31:38what the wave function is yet. I'd love
31:40>> but okay it points to the and now you're
31:42saying I I have a setup uh I know how to
31:46do it. is complex but you know
31:48theoretically how
31:49>> yeah we have like a a system where we've
31:51taken data we show we we've done it more
31:54up to the level of showing that we can
31:57visualize and measure those things but
31:59one would need very high like the whole
32:02new level of resolution upgrade of
32:05everything we're doing to get into that
32:07level of detection.
32:09>> So I have a road map but we haven't done
32:11it yet.
32:11>> Okay. and and and does it require like
32:14truly new technologies to be developed
32:16first to do it or are those technologies
32:18>> some of those are already here uh but
32:20you know it's uh
32:21>> just to hear some cool names artist like
32:23what sort of technologies are we talking
32:24about that may
32:25>> well I mean I think it's a lot of
32:26detection technology it's it's
32:29optimizing
32:30signal to noise so a lot of that um you
32:36know there's the field
32:38a lot of those kind of tools are there
32:41uh it's in the DARPA words it's still
32:44high risk high reward to put all of that
32:47together and to go after the search of
32:49trying to measure the equivalent of a
32:52you know like like a double slit that
32:54that quantum signature. So
32:57>> it's it's a combination of having a very
32:59good experimental design, a very good
33:01theoretical model and knowing exactly
33:03what you're trying to go look for and
33:05then doing all the work to get the
33:07instrumentation ready and making sure
33:09you can get that. Now you just mentioned
33:12that that road map is there. Uh do you
33:14have an estimation on how many years it
33:16might take? Is this like a decades
33:17decades or if if let's say we go for it,
33:20it could be years.
33:21>> It's a it's a function of resources
33:24and how much we invest time and
33:26resources in that. But uh
33:28>> maybe this video can help people
33:29watching. we have clarity on the
33:32intention and and and the picture of of
33:36what can be done and I think we have a
33:38good
33:39>> confidence that we could do it.
33:41>> Uh but you know it's it's one of those
33:43areas that has a bit of high stakes.
33:45Yeah, it's a moonshot of course, but I
33:47think it's amazing and it would because
33:49for over now
33:51>> I think it's almost 30 years that Roger
33:53Penrose sort of made the sort of
33:55conjecture that that consciousness had
33:57to be sort of a Now I'm I'm branching to
33:59consciousness. We'll get there later.
34:00But
34:01>> I haven't said anything about
34:02>> Yeah, we haven't yet mentioned
34:03consciousness. No,
34:04>> you're bringing that up.
34:06>> Yeah. Well, that of course you did that
34:09in your talk. Now we're making
34:11in this pres in this interview. I
34:13haven't
34:14>> no we haven't spoken about the hard
34:16problem yet right so let's say okay
34:18let's
34:18>> I said in the beginning that that is
34:20part of the inspiration of needing a new
34:23physics
34:24>> that's interesting so that has been
34:26leading up to wanting to do a double
34:28slit in living systems because you're
34:30unsatisfied with the classical
34:31explanation of of consciousness
34:33>> well no I'm saying that uh
34:38going building upon what Einstein
34:40Schroinger and Penrose have articulated
34:43Is quantum mechanics incomplete? Could
34:46there be new physical principles
34:48involved? I'm adding to the pile of
34:51complaints that our current physics does
34:54not come to terms with life living
34:55systems and consciousness. Yeah.
34:57>> With I think Penrose has made something
34:59about consciousness in the same way. Uh
35:02but I'm saying that
35:05>> we need experimentally testable
35:08uh we need test beds.
35:10>> Yeah. to figure out what these new
35:12physical principles might be if they are
35:14new physical principles. So I'm not
35:16making any claims without measuring it.
35:19I'm saying that there's a hypothesis
35:21that we need new physics or as a claim
35:23if you will and we need experimental
35:26tools to go map that out.
35:28>> Yeah. And there are phenomena in living
35:31systems whether they be
35:32self-organization or uh some of the
35:34behavior patterns that
35:37that are far from equilibrium that
35:41is not where our traditional physics
35:43sweet spot is.
35:44>> Yeah.
35:45>> So that's why I'm saying we either need
35:47to expand some of our vocabulary in
35:50physics or there may be new physical
35:52principles but we cannot ignore this.
35:54And now we have tools, we have
35:55experimental capabilities and we have
35:58refined theoretical understanding to
36:01kind of go at this multi-disiplinary
36:03problem in a very pointed way.
36:06>> Yeah. Clearly
36:07>> to attack some of those most fundamental
36:09questions. Yeah.
36:10>> And Einstein and Schroinger didn't have
36:12the tools that we have today 100 years
36:15ago. They had other tools. So I think
36:17this is an interesting time. I also want
36:19to add that because of the rise of AI
36:23>> uh and the speculation that you know
36:27material things like a circuit board
36:30could become conscious if it's just
36:31complex enough. There is an a renewed
36:34interest in this word consciousness and
36:37I think uh we have to we have to tackle
36:40headon the hard problem of
36:42consciousness. We can't sweep it under
36:44the rug.
36:45>> And so all these things in my mind are
36:47connected. The new physics is quantum
36:50mechanics incomplete the quantum
36:51measurement problem. Do living systems
36:54how do they exchange matter energy and
36:57information of their environment? Living
36:59systems by definition are conscious
37:01systems
37:02and so how's that work?
37:04>> Yeah.
37:05>> Right. So how and so they're a
37:06laboratory to study this thing called
37:08consciousness.
37:09>> Uh yeah. So we would first need to sort
37:11of maybe nice to go into the heart
37:14problem but I'd like to hear your take
37:16on it. Right. So the the the the
37:17charmers the Dave charmer's um take on
37:20hard problem is how do we get to the
37:23from the water of brain chemistry and
37:26just electrical signals neurons firing
37:29how do we get to that water to the wine
37:31of consciousness which has a different
37:32quality to it and he he philosophically
37:35>> phrased it then
37:37Roger Penrose arrived at it sort of more
37:40computationally saying hey I'm seeing in
37:43certain modes of problem solving
37:45something that seems to violate I think
37:48that goes back to go and I found it a
37:50beautiful argument in the emperor's new
37:52mind
37:53>> which led him to say we need it cannot
37:56be deterministically computable.
37:58>> Yeah.
37:58>> What's your idea on the hard part?
38:01>> So I'm going to answer this by first
38:03telling you a story.
38:04>> Okay.
38:04>> Love to hear it. So I did a a for fun I
38:08did a sbatical a mini sabbatical one
38:11summer in Santa Fe and the Santa Fe
38:13Institute and um I was ostensibly there
38:18to study networks and networks and
38:21automata and theor you know complexity
38:23and those kind of things but uh I had
38:26the privilege and honor of getting to
38:28have many lunchtime meetings with uh
38:30Murray Galman you know noble
38:33>> yes and so he though he was part of the
38:37institute and he had kind of I think it
38:38was one of the founders or something so
38:40he was more relaxed it wasn't in his you
38:43know earlier years but he was more
38:45relaxed and he could think about the big
38:46questions so I used to sit with him and
38:49ask these questions and we used to have
38:51this amazing conversation so which I
38:54cherish very much so we would debate
38:57about this consciousness and some of
38:59these things and so
39:01I'm just going to summarize so one day I
39:04said to Um uh
39:07do you agree with the following
39:09definition
39:10or description of consciousness? And
39:13would you can we agree that that's the
39:14prevailing scientific paradigm today in
39:17modern physics
39:19and this is what I got him this is what
39:22he agreed to when I said to him over
39:24that kind of lunch fun conversation is
39:26that consciousness
39:28emerges is an epiphenomena that emerges
39:31when matter attains a critical degree of
39:32complexity. Yeah.
39:34>> And I said it those words and he said,
39:36"Yeah, I would agree with that. That
39:37makes sense." And he's, you know, he's
39:38one of the world experts on complexity
39:40theory and stuff. So like, "Okay." And
39:42then I said, "Okay, great. So we agree
39:45that that's kind of the prevailing
39:47understanding of consciousness today in
39:49modern physics."
39:50>> Yeah.
39:51>> And you know, this is the same physics
39:52that really didn't deal with
39:54consciousness, but this is kind of weird
39:55because he was thinking as complex
39:57systems, he was starting to deal with
39:58it. So he was thinking of as an emergent
40:00phenomena that's coming out of matter
40:02when it attains a critical degree of
40:04complexity which makes sense given that
40:07physics wasn't developed in the context
40:09of inanimate matter. So that's how it
40:12came to it in its logical progression.
40:15So then I said what if what if this is a
40:20speculation. What if we could rewrite
40:23all the rules of physics to be
40:25compatible with all the experimental
40:27data we have and internally consistent
40:30with each other mathematically with
40:33except it was based on a completely
40:36different paradigm and that paradigm is
40:39that consciousness
40:41is something fundamental to the fabric
40:43of reality. matter, energy, space, and
40:47time come out of that.
40:49And what if we could rewrite all the
40:51laws of physics to be compatible with
40:52that framework?
40:54And in one limit, it gives you the same
40:56physics you have today that still
40:58predicts things. The same way quantum
41:00mechanics and one limit reproduces
41:02Newtonian physics
41:05or relativity in one limit is normal
41:09Galilean relativity or whatever. So what
41:11what if we could do that? would you what
41:14would you think? He said yes if you
41:16could do that I'd agree.
41:17>> I said great
41:18>> let's go do it.
41:19>> So that inspired me. So that inspired my
41:22lifelong quest of trying to say I said
41:24we have to do it.
41:26>> Yeah
41:26>> because but it's a tall order right
41:28>> and you say that let's let's try and do
41:30that. Let's turn around that pyramid
41:32that says it it was a big bang that led
41:35to physics, chemistry, biology,
41:37consciousness. Um but we know the hard
41:40problem of consciousness. um if we would
41:42turn it around we avoid of course that
41:44hard problem but now we have a different
41:46problem of course because
41:47>> well I don't I don't in that paradigm
41:50the problem of consciousness may not be
41:52hard anymore because you everything
41:55exactly
41:56>> however there's a lot of work to be done
41:57to do this right because
41:59>> you you want to build upon the beautiful
42:04physics that has happened in the last
42:06hundred years and even beyond that I
42:08mean there's tremendous capabilities
42:10that have come out of that physics the
42:12precision that I mean I I am a devote of
42:15physics right so I I don't want to I
42:17don't want to say we throw that out and
42:19start all fresh I say we want to build
42:21upon that so my approach is this is
42:25great let's build upon this and one
42:28angle I see is with information there's
42:31new advances in quantum information
42:33theory and other information you know
42:35Shannon's information theory this is and
42:37there's already hints that information
42:40is physical of John Wheeler and others
42:43uh and some string theorists to the
42:44holographic principles. So there's
42:46already a burgeoning interest in
42:49information as a thing. I'm just taking
42:52it forward and saying well in the
42:54context of these living systems it's
42:57really a thing and matter energy and
43:00information are at play and how can we
43:02map that? How can we measure the
43:05signature of that information into these
43:07systems? And how can we update I'll just
43:12use modern terminology, refresh our
43:13browser to understand how matter and
43:17information, energy and information are
43:18interconnected. Yeah, super interesting
43:21this and and
43:22>> and I do feel that if we do this right,
43:25it will help to reconcile some of these
43:28long-standing problems in our physics of
43:30the last 100 years, including the
43:33quantum measurement problem which I have
43:35a whole other passion and interest in as
43:37well as even reconciling like general
43:41relativity and quantum mechanics, the
43:42framework because as we start to solve
43:45this problem, we'll get new conceptual
43:47insights that will help us reconcile
43:50some of these challenges. That's just a
43:52feeling.
43:53>> Very interesting. Yeah, that's obvious.
43:56And before going into how this could
43:58solve for instance a measurement
44:00problem, which is of course a profound
44:02topic, um
44:03>> I'm not saying this experiment solves
44:06the new physics, the new kind of
44:08framework. Exactly.
44:09>> I'm putting I'm putting a high bar for
44:12it. I'm saying in order for this new
44:14physics or whatever it is to happen, it
44:16not only has to help us understand life
44:19living systems and consciousness in a
44:22unified framework, but it also I'm
44:25making it tougher for it to survive.
44:29>> It has to help reconcile the quantum
44:32measurement problem and the general
44:33relative quantum mechanics problems.
44:35>> Yeah.
44:36>> In order for us to accept this new
44:37physics.
44:38>> Yeah. Super.
44:39>> So, I'm like my own sketch. And you're
44:40mentioning that you only I want to share
44:42another
44:42>> I just want to say I'll be very
44:43passionate like a kid about like let's
44:45go do this but then I'll be my own
44:46skeptic and say
44:48>> this is the high bar. Yeah, you can do
44:50this but we have to make this happen.
44:51>> Yeah. But that's the mindset, right? Uh
44:53it makes me it makes me think of
44:56>> um Yeah, I loved you mentioning John
44:58Wheeler. I love John Wheeler's work.
45:00Don't understand a lot of it.
45:02>> I actually had the pleasure of meeting
45:03John Wheeler. Seriously?
45:04>> Yeah. on his 90th birthday they had a uh
45:08uh one of the conferences celebrating in
45:10honor of him in Princeton at the
45:12Institute for Advanced Study and they
45:14had invited two young physicists at the
45:16time they had some paper competition or
45:18something and about what's your future
45:20vision for the future of physics and I
45:23had written something so they had
45:24selected me and they had selected one
45:26string theorist and I was just I think
45:27finishing my PhD in physics at Harvard
45:29at the time so I got invited
45:32>> to go stand in front of the pantheon of
45:34physics of the Institute for Advanced
45:35Study which I was in awe because of
45:37Einstein and all the great souls who had
45:39walked to the that earth and uh they
45:42were all there and John Wheeler was in
45:44the audience and here I am presenting
45:46these ideas that are coming and uh and
45:49the other person was talking on string
45:50theory and I wasn't sure how they were
45:54going to take what I was saying because
45:55I was like nobody was talking about this
45:58kind of stuff and John Wheeler came up
46:01to me and he said you know I really
46:03loved what you had to say and I believe
46:06this would be the next frontier of
46:07physics and I was talking about you know
46:09matter energy information and he liked
46:12that because he talked about it for a
46:13bit so I you know
46:14>> yeah yeah
46:15>> it wasn't completely unheard of but I
46:17was you know
46:18>> that was just kind of my first feedback
46:22uh chance to hear from
46:24>> that's such an honor
46:25>> but I had not met him before I had to
46:26present this paper in front of all these
46:28people
46:29>> presenting in front of John Wheeler and
46:30then here
46:31>> there was Freeman Dyson Ed Whitner I
46:33don't know who was in the audience I
46:35remember but it was what I would call
46:36the pantheon of physics
46:38>> and I didn't even have this was like not
46:40even what my PhD this was like a side
46:43topic yeah
46:44>> that I was curious about so I presented
46:46that
46:47>> without knowing what I'm
46:48>> what's what what their reaction would be
46:51usually you know
46:52>> those were already ideas that you're now
46:54forwarding these were already ideas
46:55about this new physics that's needed
46:58>> well it was said in slightly different
46:59way but it was getting into this idea of
47:01information
47:03>> uh and how living systems are open
47:05systems and we need to
47:07>> it was similar.
47:08>> I must say that what I what what sort of
47:10I find difficult
47:11>> I'm fascinated by by Wheeler. It's not
47:14that I understand him fully. I think he
47:15did a wonderful job by coming up with
47:17the U you know his famous picture of the
47:19the big bang and the observer
47:22>> showing their mysterious connection
47:24>> and and indeed as we say it lets you
47:28sort of play around with the idea which
47:30what do I want to take as primary? Is it
47:32that big bang? I could just as much say
47:34in that picture, you know, it's the
47:35observer and and he he knew it's
47:37connected, but of course then the
47:39question is if you want to
47:43sort of connected to where do they
47:45connect? Because it's it's it's fluid.
47:46Where where do you put the cut? And
47:48that's of course a problem in quantum
47:49mechanics, where's the object subject
47:51divide? And the theory itself cannot
47:53give that to us. So you're sort of
47:55that's the deep mystery. And but I'm
47:57curious how you think physics has has
48:00developed since Wheeler because he was
48:02on to this and I don't remember you know
48:05must might know better if he talked a
48:07lot about consciousness but he was sort
48:09of like
48:09>> well he talked about a information
48:12theoretic understanding of the universe
48:14a participatory universe
48:17um and it from bit is like his famous
48:19book so the idea that things at their
48:22fundamental nature are information
48:24>> we know that it because That's that's
48:26matter and energy right in his
48:28>> No, I think he was saying information is
48:30at the foundation.
48:31>> Yeah. But that to me has always remained
48:33abstract. So that would
48:34>> is the matter coming from the bit which
48:36is the information
48:37>> the bit and and I've always been puzzled
48:39what we're talking about when we say
48:41information because I'm like
48:44one question is in information to who
48:47that's that to me sort of just being not
48:49a physicist think information needs sort
48:52of an observer. Can information have its
48:54own antic status philosophically? Can it
48:56just be information? I'm like puzzled.
48:59Um what are we talking about? I mean
49:02what helps?
49:02>> So let let's uh come back to physics one
49:05point that we kind of touched on. Um the
49:08quantum measurement problem.
49:09>> Yeah.
49:10>> So
49:12I'm not going to tell you my whole
49:14theory about that yet. I'm just going to
49:16summarize where the field as I
49:19understand it is at. Okay. So
49:22von Noman and Eugene Wignner in the
49:25early days of quantum mechanics
49:28looked at this problem of the collapse
49:30of the wave function
49:32and this is one of the things Einstein
49:34was unhappy about right and Shorting was
49:36unhappy that's why he tried to show how
49:38ludicrous is by calling it the
49:39shortinger's cat how could it be a
49:41superp position of dead and live at the
49:42same time blah blah blah
49:44>> so um
49:47Eugene Wignner and vonyman had this idea
49:52that this thing called consciousness
49:54collapses the wave function and they
49:57advanced that theory. Then Hugh Everett
50:00had another concept called the many
50:02worlds interpretation
50:05and Roger Penrose has advanced a
50:07different theory which is a gravity
50:09induced collapse of the wave function.
50:11So I don't agree with any of those
50:14100%. Yeah, I have my own version of
50:17that, but I won't get into that today
50:19until I've made a paper on that. But,
50:23uh, what I would say is that our current
50:27quantum mechanics theory is a lower
50:32resolution theory. It's predicting
50:36not the behavior of a single particle.
50:39It's beha predicting the behavior
50:42of a probability. Yeah.
50:45>> So it's it's actually not describing a
50:48single part because we're describing an
50:49ensemble. So it's there's an artifact
50:54because your wave function is only a
50:56probability description at best. It's
50:59not going to give you
51:01>> uh so it's not telling you the
51:03trajectory of one molecule like you know
51:04how we do the single molecule
51:06experiments. It's not giving you that
51:07level of resolution in the theory.
51:10That's why I think the theory is
51:12incomplete. check that that that's
51:14indeed that we know these single
51:15particles going through the slits the
51:16word at random and we say the theory
51:18>> so that interference pattern is not one
51:21particle that's many particles
51:24and over time building a pattern
51:25>> and that's also why we can sort of put
51:27>> that wave function that pattern
51:28interference pattern
51:30>> that's it solves for is solving for that
51:33ensemble behavior of many particles
51:35>> yeah the the rule of large numbers which
51:38also helps us to put aside the
51:39philosophical problems as a physicist
51:41you I don't need to worry great
51:42philosophy we because you know you never
51:44have single it's it's always and then
51:46the theory is predictable you can start
51:47building cool technology and Einstein
51:50didn't that's so cool I think about
51:52those physicists there no no no let's no
51:54I don't buy it that that single particle
51:57is is behaving indeterministically what
52:00the what's happening here right that was
52:02Einstein's EPR paper which led Bell
52:05>> to come up with these bell inequality
52:07tests but what we now know but please
52:09fill me in here if I'm saying something
52:11incorrect fact that hidden the the the
52:15search for sort of physical a physical
52:19influence that can account for the
52:21behavior of those single particles is
52:23sort of out the out the door right we
52:25know now that sort of there cannot be
52:27cannot be what is called hidden local
52:30variables right in these bell inequality
52:31tests that's that's what I get in the
52:33foundation of physics that many people
52:35that feels out the door so it's not
52:37physical
52:38>> that's a deeper question I don't want to
52:42Okay,
52:42>> answer that in a superficial way. What I
52:44would say for now is that um
52:50I would agree with Einstein, Schroinger
52:52and Penrose that
52:55quantum mechanics is incomplete.
52:57>> Yeah.
52:58>> And my version of it is that the
53:01Schroinger wave function
53:03is describing
53:05the ensemble behavior, not a single
53:08particle behavior. Since I think a lot
53:10about single molecules,
53:12>> you want mathematical equations that
53:15describe the trajectory of a single.
53:18>> So you're looking for that.
53:19>> Yes. And that none of that entire theory
53:22is describing an ensemble.
53:24>> It's the equivalent
53:25>> Dr. are go but are you buying that that
53:28>> are you looking do you think
53:32there uh how do I put this question
53:35something is in
53:36>> you're asking me you're asking me how do
53:37we get to that version of the single
53:39molecule version of the shortinger
53:40equation from the ensemble that's what
53:42you're trying to ask me right
53:43>> yeah but I'm also trying to ask you what
53:45could be behind it because it seems that
53:47the the the consensus seems that that
53:50nature is fundamentally indeterministic
53:52it's probabilistic so we say at that
53:54level it is like pure randomness quantum
53:58random nature of reality and only at
54:01higher resolutions do we get sort of our
54:03classical world and because
54:04>> so I would I would say that look
54:07at the level of where human reasoning
54:10has taken us to up till today's point
54:13there is this lowresolution theory that
54:16predicts the behavior of an ensemble and
54:18there are experiments that seem to agree
54:20with that lowresolution theory
54:23>> period Now if we want to build beyond
54:26that we need experiments that get
54:28interesting data beyond that and we need
54:30theories that go beyond the low
54:32resolution.
54:33>> So we need like a high resolution camera
54:35to get the high-res pixels and then we
54:37need the theory to go with that data. So
54:40think of it in this analogy that these
54:42living systems in my view were a test
54:44bit to get new kinds of data
54:47>> to understand some perhaps new phenomena
54:50the edge of traditional quantum
54:51mechanics because those were closed
54:53mostly closed systems in equilibrium.
54:56These are open systems. They're living
54:57systems. They're um perhaps far from
55:01equilibrium. And there's a phenomena
55:04there. There may be some interesting
55:05things we might be able to measure. And
55:08I talk a little bit about that in the
55:09talk.
55:09>> And and when we
55:11>> and then separately, I think in
55:12parallel, we have to go back to these
55:14foundational questions of
55:15>> physics and especially quantum mechanics
55:17and readress them with fresh eyes. And
55:20so I kind of take a joint theory
55:22experimental approach. But I try to keep
55:25grounding myself with hey how do we
55:28detect it?
55:29>> Yeah.
55:30>> As well as you know I then become my own
55:32skeptic. I think okay we need this but
55:34then I think okay well if we get this it
55:36has to satisfy all these criteria.
55:38>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And again
55:40>> so it's a tough existence.
55:41>> Yeah. Oh man.
55:42>> It's a tough journey right? you. It's
55:45like an artist. You you you think and
55:47then you scratch it and throw it because
55:49you want it to find the right thing.
55:51>> Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's it's a
55:53beautiful quest because if if
55:56um Yeah. Thinking a bit deeper, we we've
55:59touched upon information and like to
56:01bring in something just to reflect with
56:03you on um the founder of our foundation,
56:05Fred Matzer, he talks about informed
56:09that which brings
56:11form bring things in form. Thinking
56:14about information
56:16being more fundamental than we now
56:18think. And if it can act quantumly in
56:21living systems, it would be that which
56:24brings brings the form, brings the
56:26patterns, right? Would that be a way
56:29that
56:29>> that's a beautiful kind of thought. So
56:31I've always felt now this is just
56:33feeling right as a human that uh there's
56:38an underlying
56:40symmetry structure information in the
56:44universe in nature and we see those
56:46patterns
56:48manifest
56:50in different ways and you know and
56:52there's different patterns like in music
56:55there's there's certain structures and
56:57you you hear certain harmonics and you
57:00feel good. You hear others and you don't
57:02feel so good. So, you know, we're tuned
57:05to certain harmonics. So, our systems
57:08might be tuned to certain patterns and
57:11symmetries and information things.
57:13There's like a I love mathematics and so
57:15mathematics kind of reflects some
57:17underlying, you know, symmetries and and
57:21structure of information. Yeah. And so I
57:24do feel now I'm not putting my
57:27scientists on. I'm putting my just plain
57:28human hat on that there could be
57:31information
57:33that is there in the environment that is
57:36talking to these systems. And I think it
57:39would be a bit of a holy grail to be
57:41able to measure some signature of this
57:44information in a very high resolution
57:46experiment where we can start to see how
57:49that information is talking to it. And
57:52and that's what I mean by like it could
57:53be like a quantum sensor. You turn it on
57:55its head. It's picking up that
57:57information that you I'm not just
57:59talking about the classical information.
58:00I'm talking about can it pick up
58:02>> and process quantum? Are there local are
58:05there non-local effects in the
58:07environment? How
58:08>> how does that work? Are there is there
58:09some kind of entanglement
58:12uh going on between you know these
58:14states and information in their
58:17environment? So these are all questions
58:19>> and the question is you know can we
58:21start to experimentally address them
58:24with these kinds of tools and so I think
58:27>> I'm I would say that
58:30>> I think uh it's an exciting time for
58:33science and physics where these fields
58:35are coming together
58:37>> and we have tools to go about trying to
58:39ex
58:40>> address it and
58:42>> we're building the I'm passionate you
58:44know to uh be working kind of at that
58:48nexus and I have this kind of quest and
58:50this belief that there has to be
58:52something missing in physics and quantum
58:55mechanics and could this be a way for us
58:59to build that new physics
59:01>> and um as a sort of final to wrap sort
59:04of this more philosophical bit of our
59:06conversation um if it's piano being
59:09played it of course invokes with people
59:12also what I what I just said I bring
59:13into form that there seems to be some
59:17form of driving intelligence behind it.
59:20You could call it consciousness. You
59:21could one in religious traditions we'll
59:23call it God. Of course, that's all
59:25giving it a label. Um
59:28versus the classical story that pure
59:31randomness led to sort of the origin of
59:33life. Um what are your thoughts there?
59:38I think that uh in the last 500 years
59:41most of our modern science and in fact
59:45most of western civilization has been
59:48very influenced by daycart right uh and
59:52it gave rise to a very reductionistic
59:55approach. Uh you break a system up into
59:58its parts and study the parts and try to
1:00:01get a picture of the whole. And many of
1:00:04our fields of discipline evolved in
1:00:06redux reductionistic silos and I think
1:00:10you know and that we had a very good age
1:00:13of materialism and to its credit it
1:00:17yielded tremendous advances in science
1:00:19technology industrialization.
1:00:22We went through one two three four
1:00:24industrial revolutions uh in these last
1:00:28500 years. So it has a tremendous impact
1:00:31on the human race. I would say that this
1:00:34fourth industrial revolution that we've
1:00:36seen with AI and digitization is a
1:00:39carrying of this materialistic paradigm
1:00:41to its natural logical
1:00:44conclusion where you have now a very
1:00:47dystopic vision of reality where you
1:00:49would have in the future these AI robots
1:00:52running the world and humans sitting
1:00:54wondering what they're supposed to do
1:00:55because they don't have a job anymore
1:00:57and uh and what's their purpose on Earth
1:01:00because there's know
1:01:03it's such a utilitarian
1:01:05focused uh um narrative that a human's
1:01:09only purpose is its utility and if the
1:01:12AI or the robot can do your job better
1:01:15than you then what's your purpose why
1:01:16are you taking up resources on this
1:01:18earth right
1:01:20>> our earth has a finite resources it
1:01:22can't support 8 billion people that's
1:01:24the narrative that naturally concludes
1:01:26from that world view
1:01:29>> if we
1:01:31were to do what I discussed with Miguel
1:01:33Man and able to rewrite the laws of
1:01:35physics and had a worldview where we
1:01:38thought of consciousness as something
1:01:40fundamental in the fabric of the
1:01:42universe and matter energy and spacetime
1:01:45came out of that. And if we thought that
1:01:47humans and human conscious and
1:01:49experience was a part of that hole, it
1:01:53would create a worldview where people
1:01:55would be more aware of how
1:01:57interconnected they are with each other
1:01:59and the rest of the earth and the
1:02:01ecosystem. If anything, they'd want to
1:02:04take better care of their earth because
1:02:06their self would be interconnected with
1:02:10the earth. Uh so it just leads to higher
1:02:13awareness, better ethics, better cons,
1:02:15higher consciousness in our science,
1:02:18technology, business, um you know, can
1:02:21we build businesses that do good for the
1:02:23planet and still build wealth? And uh
1:02:27even in geopolitics, you know, can these
1:02:30nations and cultures live in harmony
1:02:32with each other on one planet instead of
1:02:34killing each other in the name of
1:02:35religion?
1:02:36>> Yeah. So that understanding that would
1:02:39come from this kind of uh paradigm shift
1:02:43because if it's matter-based it's just
1:02:45the halves and have nots fighting for a
1:02:48finite amount of resources that are all
1:02:50matter-based. If it's a
1:02:52consciousness-based paradigm and you see
1:02:53there are civilizations on this planet
1:02:55today they're indigenous cultures.
1:02:57There's those who were apparently here
1:02:59thousands of years ago walk this planet
1:03:01who have literature that still survives
1:03:04that talk about a more um well what's
1:03:08the purpose of life what's the meaning
1:03:10of life uh you know that's these
1:03:13spiritual traditions uh a lot of the
1:03:15eastern philosophical traditions have
1:03:17this built in and they have this concept
1:03:21that you know the purpose of life is
1:03:23self-realization or self-actualization
1:03:26understanding your full potential
1:03:27potential and meditation and being at
1:03:30one with nature and connecting to that.
1:03:32So those that understanding
1:03:36would have a tremendous
1:03:39impact on our society.
1:03:42I feel this would be the fifth
1:03:43industrial revolution. It would be
1:03:45consciousnessbased.
1:03:47It would be something like it would be a
1:03:49new science similar to what I proposed
1:03:52to mar.
1:03:54uh it would be multi-disiplinary and
1:03:56more holistic trying to put all the
1:03:57pieces together but that new scientific
1:04:00framework would lead to new technologies
1:04:03technologies we haven't even thought of
1:04:05yet or maybe some of us have but the
1:04:08point is there was new kinds of
1:04:09capabilities that because we weren't
1:04:11even thinking information and
1:04:13consciousness are a thing I mean one
1:04:15simple example is in healthcare there
1:04:18might be a lot more ways to heal people
1:04:20from disease and extend the human
1:04:22lifespan to create longevity ity than
1:04:26just a handful of tools that we have now
1:04:28in modern medicine and they could be a
1:04:31part of future healthcare and many other
1:04:33kinds of industries would be
1:04:35revolutionized by this kind of thinking.
1:04:38So technological revolution, industrial
1:04:40revolution, new industries popping up
1:04:44but also a new consciousness in those
1:04:47industries. It's not just the technology
1:04:49we create. It's the consciousness with
1:04:51which we deploy that technology that
1:04:53determines does it have a good impact or
1:04:54a bad impact on the planet. So this
1:04:56higher consciousness paradigm would make
1:04:59people be more aware of the impact of
1:05:01what they're doing. It's not just about
1:05:03making money but maybe hurting the
1:05:05planet. You can do both at the same
1:05:07time. You can build wealth for yourself
1:05:10and your family and for the planet and
1:05:13do good for the planet and your fellow
1:05:14citizens, right? They don't have to be
1:05:17fighting. They can be in harmony. And
1:05:20likewise,
1:05:21harmony between the nations and the
1:05:23cultures and the civilizations on this
1:05:25planet. You know, they could live in a
1:05:27in a higher state.
1:05:28>> And also, you know, things like space
1:05:30travel and all these new kind of
1:05:31futuristic things. They would be we
1:05:34would be able to focus the human race. I
1:05:37would say we would unleash a new golden
1:05:38age
1:05:40>> in America and the rest of the world for
1:05:43>> Yeah. innovation and prosperity and uh
1:05:46and self-actualization at the individual
1:05:50level and for the collective human race
1:05:53or human species.
1:05:55>> Wonderful vision. I thank you. I think
1:05:57it's a wonderful vision and we talked
1:05:59about it yesterday in prep preparation
1:06:01of this conversation. Um to relate it
1:06:03what you just said, your vision for that
1:06:05fifth revolution.
1:06:07>> What I love is that it includes all
1:06:10science we have now. It's not that you
1:06:12say by by by putting consciousness back
1:06:16at the center that you have to let go of
1:06:18any of that because that's the maps
1:06:20we've built of reality and they're
1:06:21great.
1:06:22>> But I think the problem with with our
1:06:25current worldview is that we're so lost
1:06:27in those maps, right? I mean the the
1:06:30fact that we started thinking that our
1:06:33mapping of the brain
1:06:36if we copy that sort of like in in
1:06:38neural networks will lead to
1:06:40consciousness sort of that that that's
1:06:42still a map right and and it's not even
1:06:44I mean you're working on high resolution
1:06:46maps that show us how incredibly more
1:06:48complex it is than the maps of current
1:06:49AI systems
1:06:51and getting back to that territory which
1:06:54is the unmeasurable in my opinion which
1:06:57which we cannot always measure. But it's
1:06:59so true. It's it's like truly feeling
1:07:01connected with each other, feeling
1:07:02connected with nature. It's not we're
1:07:04not feeling. And sometimes it can even
1:07:07make me emotional when I when I think
1:07:09about nature, how we treat nature by
1:07:11putting our maps between ourselves and
1:07:14and nature by measuring the world and
1:07:16only thinking that that is real and not
1:07:18connecting and feeling the harm we're
1:07:20doing to the planet and to each other.
1:07:21So that that is sort of my thoughts on
1:07:24the how how that worldview of
1:07:26materialism is sort of contributing to
1:07:29um I would say this to that point um
1:07:36there are
1:07:38um you know there's an increasing
1:07:41interest in meditation, yoga, spending
1:07:43time in nature, experiencing
1:07:46these other dimensions of reality
1:07:49and there is a hunger and search I see
1:07:53amongst the current generations. Uh
1:07:56>> absolutely
1:07:57>> for meaning and purpose in life. And so
1:08:01>> I think this artificial divorce that was
1:08:04created between science and spirituality
1:08:06maybe 500 years ago. Uh maybe it's time
1:08:11to bring it to an end and let the
1:08:13entirety of the human experience on this
1:08:17planet come into its full full-fledged
1:08:23vigor. And and the other thing I would
1:08:25say is that for the future of the human
1:08:27race, having just very good science and
1:08:32technology and materialistic
1:08:33understanding and advances and being
1:08:36mentally depressed and having all kinds
1:08:38of psychological and emotional problems
1:08:41is not healthy. and having a lot of
1:08:43spiritual principles and meditating all
1:08:45day and uh you know being able to
1:08:49achieve higher states of consciousness
1:08:51through meditation but then not being
1:08:53able to take care of basic material
1:08:56necessities may not seem right either.
1:08:58So the future of the human race needs to
1:09:00take the best of all of these
1:09:01capabilities.
1:09:02>> Yeah. And imagine humans who can have
1:09:07the best self-actualization experience
1:09:10on the planet have a sense of meaning
1:09:12and purpose
1:09:14>> as well as do the best they can with the
1:09:18tools and technologies in the outer
1:09:20world and the inner world. There needs
1:09:22to be some balance of these two. And I
1:09:24also don't believe you know you hear
1:09:25people some people will come to one
1:09:28extreme and throw out consciousness and
1:09:32all these things other people will come
1:09:33to the other extreme and want to throw
1:09:35out science and all the benefits that
1:09:37has happened. I think these are both
1:09:39radical positions. I think the the
1:09:41reasonable position is
1:09:43>> we should take the best that all of
1:09:47human experience has to offer to make
1:09:49the best we can of ourselves and our and
1:09:52our generation and our planet
1:09:54>> and maybe many planets
1:09:56>> who knows and just one final closing
1:09:59question uh Dr. Well, people watching,
1:10:02we live in a day and age that now um
1:10:06quite some people believe um that uh AGI
1:10:09is not far away. Me, myself included,
1:10:12but who some of those who also believe
1:10:14that those machines will be conscious
1:10:15and then there will be no difference
1:10:17anymore between us and machines which
1:10:19will lead to problems we've discussed
1:10:21earlier. you as uh an engineer in
1:10:25nanotech in AI also and now working on
1:10:28an experiment which can help us
1:10:29understand sort of at this nano machine
1:10:32level our own complexity.
1:10:34If you have to compare that to our most
1:10:38advanced AI systems, including the the
1:10:41near future of quantum AI, what is the
1:10:44difference between who we truly are and
1:10:46the machines we are engineering with our
1:10:48>> I think those are great questions and I
1:10:49think the true answer I would say is
1:10:52that
1:10:55we should study consciousness in living
1:10:58systems to inspire to get the most out
1:11:01of AI technology whether it's AI
1:11:04classicalally or AI, quantum AI,
1:11:08we only stand to gain by studying
1:11:10consciousness from a hardcore physics
1:11:12perspective in living systems. So that's
1:11:15another motivation for my work which I
1:11:17just showed you because if we can
1:11:19understand the phenomena of
1:11:22consciousness in a living system which
1:11:24is all around us, there's so much living
1:11:26matter on this planet. If we can
1:11:29understand how the design principles of
1:11:32that A, it might help us design better
1:11:34AI and quantum AI to get more and more
1:11:36levels of complex capabilities, but B,
1:11:41it may help us understand this whole
1:11:43problem better uh of you know and what
1:11:47is the difference and is there a
1:11:48boundary and are we able to make AI
1:11:52systems conscious or quantum AI systems
1:11:55conscious? Well, I think we need to
1:11:57first I mean I I'm arguing that we
1:11:59cannot ignore this problem of
1:12:01consciousness from a hardcore physics
1:12:03perspective. We have to take
1:12:04>> all the tools of neuroscience,
1:12:07>> traditional physics, quantum mechan, we
1:12:09have to take a multi- approach and just
1:12:10take it head-on because it's right in
1:12:12front of us.
1:12:12>> And if I say to you like I don't know if
1:12:14you know the the Douglas Rush Rushkov,
1:12:16he's this tech thinker I very much like
1:12:19who said at a certain moment, okay, I'm
1:12:21biased. I'm on team human here. Yeah. If
1:12:23I say to you I I I want to be on team
1:12:26human you are working on the the nanom
1:12:28machines that to what order of degree
1:12:31how many there are I don't know in my
1:12:32brain if you compare them them their
1:12:34computation power are we still how
1:12:37strong is team human
1:12:39>> yeah I mean I think one nano machine is
1:12:43just you know there are trillions of
1:12:45those inside of you so you're the sum
1:12:48total of all of that so you're much more
1:12:50than one nano machine I know
1:12:52>> so one nano machine has 10 to the
1:12:54whatever 11th computational steps per
1:12:58one step. You're a sum total of many
1:13:01many more orders of magnitude than that.
1:13:05>> So that's
1:13:06>> you're still the winning
1:13:08>> that I just wanted to hear. That's just
1:13:10a fun argument to close it. Thank you so
1:13:12much for this wonderful conversation.
1:13:14>> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
1:13:16>> Thank you so much for watching this
1:13:17video. We will put all links to videos
1:13:21and scientific work which we referenced
1:13:23to in this conversation below in the
1:13:24description. And if you have any
1:13:25questions to me and Dr. Goell, please
1:13:28leave them with us so we can follow up
1:13:29on that. Thank you so much for watching.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Towards A New Physics Of Living Systems and Consciousness by Essentia Foundation, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 12,330 words across 1,917 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.