#404 – Lee Cronin: Controversial Nature Paper on Evolution of Life and Universe
03:27:50 Share

The following is a conversation with league ronin, the third time in this podcast. He is a chemist from university glasgow, who is one of the most fascinating, brilliant and fund to talk to. Scientists have ever had the pleasure of getting to know.

And now a quick view. Second mention of sponsor jack now in the description is the best way to support this podcast OK next week for business manager software, Better help for mental health, sharp fy for e commerce, asleep phenix and ag one for delicious, delicious health. Choose what is.

And my friends also, if you want to work with our amazing team, was hiring element conflict iring can also get in touch with me if you got a extremement outcomes ash contact. There is so many more things that could say. Let me just keep going now onto the full ad.

Reads is always no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you must skip on friends, please still jack out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will .

do the shows brought you .

by next week and all in one cloud business measurement system. I usually do these ad reads and say whatever the like I want. But sometimes the sponsors ask politely, never require, but always politely to mention a few things.

Two things they ask me to mention. One is that that sweet turn, twenty five years old this year. congratulations. Happy birthday next day.

And also, they want me to mention thirty seven thousand companies have upgraded next week by oracle, thirty seven thousand company. I wonder how many companies are out there. It's not amazing, just companies are amazing.

A small and medium, a large collection of humans get together, much as we did in the comment days around the fire. But here, the office and tied together with a mission to do something, to build something, but do so under the immense pressures the capital system like you have to succeed. It's not zero, some, but IT is a kind of game where there's competitors you always attention, but also a little bit of a collaboration is a dance.

And it's just a beautiful thing, a dance of humans inside the company, a dance of companies in the big capitalist system that are also interacting with the four human civilization society. Such a dense ve humans. And companies selling stuff, buying stuff, creating stuff, is just all beautiful.

Anyway, if you're one of those companies, you should use good tools to manage all the stuff. And that sweet is once a good tool. You can download the sweet popular KPI checkers for free and sweet country lugs that's let's without conflict legs for your own K P I checklist.

This episode is also brought by Better help, spelled H E L P help. I think whenever I mentioned Better help, I have a lot of thoughts in my head. One of them, as I believe a Better help ad read that tim dillon is them.

I think he goes on, if I remember correctly, for a very long period of time. And ten million. hilarious.

So what working say? But also there's a meta, ironic, absurd, hilarious aspect to, of all people, ten ten with a beautiful complexities of his mind and the beautiful complexity of his upbringing and family life in the dynamics of that that he is doing an ad read for Better help. I love IT.

I love IT. I mean, there's an absurd d and an irony to me do in the same, but all of us need a bit of mental health assistance and Better help is really good for that because it's successful, affordable, all that kind stuff. It's a good first step to take.

And sometimes all you need is the first step, check them out about help the consort ash legs and save on your first month. That's Better, helps accomplish h legs. This shows also about to by sharp fy, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great looking online store, the razor ideas to life and tools to manage their day Operations.

What ideas about life? Ideas brought life as a funny thing, given this conversation. The ronin ideas brought to life. So we talk about the origin of life in the universe.

A define more generally complexity, the emergence of complexity that forms life, the origin of life on earth and the evolution of life as being part of the same system that integrates physics and chemistry, biological stuff. What ideas? Ideas as organisms brought to life is interesting to think ideas as organisms in the same way that all the other emergent complex organisms come to be.

It's interesting sharp lifes, the company which is a complex organism of its own that allows individual creators from the idea to bring their idea to life and um manifested into the physical world. So the the imagination is a creative engine that starts from a some kind of a serial thing that just set our mind and projects out into the physical world and create a thing. A store that can then interact with thousands, millions of people is fascinating.

It's really fascinating to think of ideas is living organisms. Anyway, you can sign up for a one dollar per month trial period. A chop fied dog contrasted spector reality for lex.

All lower case. Go to a shop for that come last legs to take your business to the next level today. This episode is also brought to you by a source of a lot of happiness for me.

Asleep and part three matches, IT calls the two sides of the bed separate. You can also heat them up. I don't know who does that. I do know people like that exist, but I judge him harshly.

No, I like a really cold, but surface with a warm blanket for a power nap dog, about fifteen twenty minutes or a full night sleep is just heaven is the thing that makes me look forward to come back home when i'm travelling. I should also mention that they currently ship america, canada, the U. K, australia.

I need to go to australia. I need to go to australia and are selected countries in the european union. I don't know why I just mention that.

Again, I don't have to say anything that the sponsors ask me to say, but there is this list of countries i'm looking at and continents, and just filled my mind with the kind of inspired energy to travel. You know, paul rossi has been on my case to travelled him in the amazon. And I want to go, I wanna go.

I want to go. I want to turn off the devices. Go with him.

He's such an incredible human, such an incredible human. I'm really glad he exists. Pai is just a beautiful human being.

The humour of the stories, the deep, deep gratitude and appreciation of nature, the fearlessness, but also the the ability to feel fear and embrace IT. And this is child, a sense of loner. I mean, just such an incredible human.

I'm glad he exists as one of the people when I think about him. Just makes me happy beer alive on the earth together with folks like him. Anyway, check that out and get special savings.

When we were talking about asleep. Check, get special savings when you go to asleep. That comes as legs. This episode is also brought you by the thing of drinking right now, A G one to drink with a much of and minerals. It's basically like a delicious multivitamin is Green and delicious.

And I think he has a lot more than any no, I don't know how much in this world, friends, but I do know that a kind of peaceful feeling comes over you when I drink age you one, knowing that all all the crazy stuff i'm going to do, mentally or physically, i'm gonna okay. When I have a nice cold bed with a sleep and a delicious A G won, everything can be okay. So you should always try, see if is gonna give you the same kind of feeling, that is when I don't bring the travel packs.

One of the things I miss what i'm traveling, have a nice cold day you want in the afternoon before, after a long run I love IT life is beautiful isn't IT anyway, they'll give you a one month supply official when you sign up at drink. Ag, one doc, flash lex, this is elected through in podcast supported please. I got our sponsors in the description and now your friends, here's lee crown.

So your big assembly theory paper was publishing nature. congratulations. thanks. I created I think it's fair to say a lot of controversy, but are also a lot of interesting discussion. So maybe I can try to summer day for IT. So somebody theory says that if we look at any object in universe, any object that we can quantify, how complexity, by trying to find the number of steps that took to created, and also we can determine if I was built by a process, a kin to evolution, by looking at how many copies of the object there are.

Yes, that spot on.

sort. I was not expecting that. okay. So let's go through definitions. So there's a central equation i'd love to a talk about, but definition wise, what is an object?

Yeah, an object. So so if i'm gonna try to be as particularly as possible, objects need to be finite and they need to be decomposable into sub units. All human made artifacts are objects um is a planet and object probably yes, in the if you scale out. So object is finite countable and decomposable I suppose mathematically. But yeah I still I still wake up some days and go to think to myself what what is an object because it's it's it's a nontrivial um question .

persists over time and calling from the paper here an object is fine, is distinguish so that's a we're adjective distinguishable. We've had to so .

many people help offering to rewrite the paper after that came out, you wouldn't believe IT so funny.

Persist over time in is breakable such that the set of constraints to constructed from elementary building blocks is quantifiable, such that the set of constrains the constructed from elementary building blocks is quantifiable.

The history is in the objects. It's kind of cool, right?

So, okay, so what defines the object is its history or memory? Where is the sexy word?

I'm happy with both, depending on the day.

okay. So the set of steps that took to create object, so there's a sense in which every object in the universe has a history.

yes.

And that is part of the thing that is used to describe its complexity, how complicated IT is. Okay, what is an assembly index?

So the assembly index, if you to take the object apart and be super lazy about IT or minimal, so what IT cause might you know is like you got a really shorter memory. So what you do, you lay all the parts on the path and you find the minimum um number of steps you take on the path to add the parts together and to to reproduce the object. And that minimum number is the assembly index is a minimum bound.

And IT was always my interests in the minimum bound in the same way. Theory was really important. That only worked out why a few weeks ago, which was kind of funny, because I was just like, no, this is sacco sine.

I don't know why IT will comes to me one day. And then when I was pushed by a bunch of mathematicians, we, we, we came up with the the correct physical explanation, which I can get to, but it's the minimum, and it's really important as the minimum. And the reason I knew the minimum was right, because we can measure IT. So almost before this paper came out with with publish papers explain how you can measure the assembly .

index of molecules. okay. So that's not so trivial to figure out. So when you look at an object, we can say molecule, we can say object more generally to figure out the minimum number of steps to take a great that object that doesn't seem like a trivial thing to do.

So with molecules, IT is is not trivial, but IT is possible because what you can do and because I am a chemist, so I am kind of like I see the lens of the world for just chemistry um I break the molecule apart, break bonds.

And if you break out, if you take a molecule and you break IT all apart, you have a bunch of atoms, and then you say, OK, i'm going to the form bond, take the items and form bonds and go up to the chain of events to make the molecule. And that's what made me realize, take a toy example, literally toy example. Take a lego object, which is broken up of lego blocks, so you could do exactly the same thing.

In this case, the lego blocks are naturally the smallest of the items in the actual composite lego architecture. But then if you maybe taking A A couple of blocks and put them together in a certain way, maybe they have a the offset in some way. That offset is on the memory.

You can use that offset again with any penalty of one, and you can make a square trying and keep going. And you remember those motives on the chain. So you can then leap from the start with all the legal blocks or items just laid out in front of you and say, write, i'll take you you you connect and do the least amount of work.

So it's really like the smallest steps you can take on the graph to meet the object. And so for molecules that came relatively intuitively, and then we started to supply the language. We've even started applying to mathematical theory soon without on my depth. But IT looks like you can take minimum state of axioms, then start to build up kind of mathematical architectures in the same way. And then the shortest path to get there is something interesting that I don't you understand.

So what's the computational complexity of fearing out the shortest path in with molecules, with language, with mathematical? Thems IT seems that once you have to fully constructed lego castle, or whatever your favourite legal world is, figuring out how to get there from the building, basic building blocks doesn't like to be hard problem is a hard problem, is a hard problem.

But actually, if you look at IT, so the best way look at IT to take a molecule. So the molecule has thirteen bonds. First, i'll take thirteen copies of the molecule, just cuttle the bonds to take cut to have bonds and then you just put them in order.

And then that's how IT works. So and you keep looking for symmetry report or or copies, so you can then shorten IT as you go down and that becomes commentary quite hard for some natural product molecules. Um IT comes very hard.

It's not impossible, but we're looking at the bounds on that the moment. But as the object gets bigger, IT becomes really hard. And but that's the bad news. But the good news is there are shortcuts and we might even be able to physically measure the complexity without computationally calculating IT, which is kind of incident.

Well, how would you do that?

Well, in the case of molecule, have you shine light on the molecule? Let's take a in for the the molecule has each of the bonds absorbs the infrared differently in this, what we call a fingerprint region. And so it's a bit like um because it's contest as well.

You have all these discrete kind of observances. And my intuition, after we realized we could cut molecules up in my spec, that was the first go at this. We did IT with using inf red and the infrared gave us and even Better correlation assembly index.

And we used another technique as well, in addition to infrared, called animal nuclear main tic residents, which tells you about the number of different mae's environments in the molecule. And that also worked out. We have three techniques, which each of them independently gives us the same or tending towards the same assembly and next molecule that we can calculate .

mathematically. Okay, so these are all methods of mass spectrum. Try that you stand molecule that gives you data in the form of a mass spectrum. And you're saying that the data court is to the assembly index.

Yeah.

how generalized was that shortcut? First one to chemistry and think i'll beyond that, cause that seems like a nice hack. And you are extremely logic about the various aspects of chemistry. C, you can say, okay, kind of correlates, but you know the whole idea behind a something theory paper, and perhaps what is so control, al, is that IT reaches bigger. IT reaches for the bigger general theory of objects in the universe.

Yeah, i'd says, so I degree so i've started assembly theory of a motor's with my lab. Believe he will not so taken mojo yeah. Picks late them yeah and work out assembly index and I yeah and then work out how many of you can make on the path of A J.

So there's the most from which all other in emerge and then you can see can then take a photograph. And by looking at short as path on by reproducing the pixel to make the image you want, you can measure that. So then you start to able to take space al data.

Now there's some problems there. What is then the definition of the object? How many pixel um how do you break, hit down and so which is learning all this right now.

So how do you compute this? How do you begin to compute the assembly index of a graphical like a set of pigs to the playing the form, a thing .

you would first will determine the resolution. So then how what is your X, Y and the number on the X, Y plane and then look at the surface area and then you take all your emotions and make sure they all look at the same resolution. yes.

And then we were basically then um do the exactly is saying thing we would do for cutting the bonds. You'd cut bits out, the emotion on and look at the you have a bag of pixel. So um and you were then at those pixel together to make the overall .

what but like first all not every pixel. I mean, this is at the core, sort of machine learning, a Better vision that every picture was that important. And there's like Michael features, this is Michael features and all that kind of stuff exactly. Know the ice piano, all of them. The smile appears in a lot of them.

So in the same way in chemistry, we assume the bond is fundamental. What we do and there here is we assume the resolution at the scale that which we do IT is fundamental. And we're just working that out and that you're right that will change, right? Because as you take your lens out a bit, IT will change dramatically but IT. But it's just a new way of looking at not just compression, what we do right now in computer science and data, one big kind of kind of misunderstanding is assembly theory telling about how impressed the object is. That's not right.

It's say how much information required on a chain of events because the nice thing is if in when you do compressions ing in computer science, we're wondering a bit here, but it's kind of worth wondering, I think and you you um assume you have instant tainting access to all the information in the memory yeah simply theory you say, no, you don't get access that memory until you have done the work and then you'd one access that memory you can have access but not to the next one. And this is how an assembly theory we talk about, the four universe is the assembly universe, the assembly possible and the assembly contingent, and then the assembly observed. And they're all all scales in this commentary. Al universe can explain .

each one of them. Yeah.

so the assembly universe is like anything goes just is just commentary al kind of explosion and everything that's the biggest one. That's the biggest .

one's massive assembly universe assembly possible assembly contingent assembly observed and on the way access is assembly steps in time yeah and you know the x is, as the thing expands through time, more, more unique objects appear.

So, yeah, so severly universe, everything goes. yeah. Assembly, possible laws of physics come in. In this case, in chemistry bonds, in assembly. So that means those constraints.

yes, yes.

And they're the only constraints of the constraints of the base, the way to look at you, go all your atoms, the contest, you can just bang them together, so then you can become a kind of. So in the wait and computer science speak, I suppose the assembly universe is just like no laws of physics. Things can fly through mountains, beyond the speed of light, in in the assembly possible.

You have to apply the laws of physics, but you can get access to all the motifs. instantaneous. Ly, with no effort. That means you could make anything.

Then the assembly contingent says, no, you can't have access to the highly assembled object in the future until you've done the work in the past on the goal chain. And that's really the really interesting shift when you go from assembly um possible to assembly contingent. That is really the key thing in assembly theory that says you cannot just have instantaneous access to all those memories.

You have to done the work somehow. The universe has to somehow built A A system that allows you to select that path um rather another path. And then the final thing the assembly observed is basically saying, oh, these are the things we actually see. We can go backwards now and understand that they have been created by this, this cause or process what.

So you say the universe has to construct the system that does the work that, like the environment that that that allows for selection, think that does the thing you could think .

about in terms of a van constructor, first election of rivers, a tesla, a plant assembling teslas. You know the the difference between the assembly universe in tesla land and the sesa factory is everyone says, note, testers are just easy. They just spring out, you know, how to make them all and test the factory.

You have to put things in sequence and outcomes. A tesler about the factory. Yes, this is, this is really nice.

Super important point is that when I talk about the universe having a memory, or that some magic is not that is that tels you that there must be a process encoded somewhere in physical reality, be a cell, a tesla factory or something else is making that object. I'm not saying there's some kind of woo memory in the universe, you know morph residents or something. I'm saying that there is actual cause process that is being directed constrained in some way. Um so it's not kind of just making .

everything yeah but way what's the factory and me the factory. So what what is the? So first, you assume the laws of physics is a just prompted existence at the beginning. Those are constraints. But what what makes the factory, the environment?

That does a selection? This is the question. Well, it's the first interesting question that I want to answer out of four.

I think the factory emerges in the entry. The interplay between the environment and the objects are being built and and hit. Let me, i'll have a go explain to the shortest path.

So why is this short? Is path important? Imagine you've got i'm going have to go chemistry for a moment then abstract, so imagine you've got uh an vira a given environment that um that you have a budget of items you just flinging together and the the objective of those items that being flung together in same molecule a um have to make, they have they decompose.

So molecules decompose over time. So the molecules are in this environment, in this magic environment, have to not die. But they do die this, they have a half life.

So the only way that molecules can get through that environment out the other side that pretend the environment is a box and go in and out without dying, and then there's just an infinite supply of atoms coming over thought, well, a large supply the the molecule gets built, but the molecule that hat is able to temp plate itself being built um and survives an environment will will basically rain supreme. Now this is that that molecule takes ten steps now and IT is using fine itself items right now. Let's say another molecule, OSS molecule will call IT comes in and can survive in that environment and can copy yourself.

But he only needs five steps. The molecule that only need five steps because its continued, both molecules have been destroyed, but they're correcting themselves faster. They can be destroyed.

You can see that the shortest path rain supreme. So the shortest path tells us something super interesting about the minimal amount of information required to propagate that motif in time, in space. Um and it's just like kind of IT seems to be like some kind of conservation law.

So one of the intuitions you have is the propagation of motives in time, we will be done by the things that can construct themselves in the shorts path. So like you can assume that most objects in the universe are built in the shortest, in the most .

sufficient way that the so I .

just there.

yeah, yes, yeah, yes, I know, because there are other things. So in the limit, yes, because you want to tell the difference between things that required a factory to build them and just random processes. But you can find instances where the shortest st path isn't taken for an individual object, individual function, and people go out.

That means the shortest path isn't right and then say, well, I don't know, I think it's right still because so of course, because there are other driving forces is not just one molecule. Now when you start now, you start to consider two objects. You have a joint assembly space and it's not now is a compromise between not just making A M B in the shorts path, you want to make make A M B in the shorts path, which might mean that a is slightly longer. You have compromise. So when you stay slightly more nesting in the construction, when you take a given object that can look longer with us because the overall function is the object is still trying to be efficient yeah and this is still very hand wave um maybe have no legs to stand on, but we think we're getting somewhere with and .

it's probably some paralyzing yeah right so this is all this, not the council. The building is yeah, I guess you're right. When you when you talk about complex objects, you you don't have to you can get your friends together and these the thing .

we're working on right now is how to understand these parallel processes. Now there's in a new thing we've introduced called assembly depth. And the assembly depth can be lower than the assembly index for molecule when they are CoOperating together because exactly this parallel processing is going on.

And my team have been working this out in the last few weeks because we're looking at what compromises does nature may need to make when it's making molecules in the cell. And I wonder, you know, I maybe like, well, i'm always deeping out of my company, but in economic, i'm just wondering if you could apply this in economic processes. Seems like captives m is very good to find the shleter path, you know, every time.

But there are ludicrous things that happened because actually the cost functions be minimized. And so I keep seeing parallels everywhere, whether complex nested systems, where you give them enough time and you introduce a bit of hero gate, the system will adjust and finds a new shortest path. But the shortest path isn't fixed on just one molecule now, it's in the actual existence of the object over time.

And that object could be a city IT could be a cell, IT could be a factory. But I think we're going way beyond molecules and my competence that probably should get back to molecules. But hey.

before we get too far, let's talk about the assembly equation. Okay, how should we do this? I only just even read that part of the paper. We find a singly as a totally amount of selection necessary to produce an ensemble of observed objects quantified using equation one. The equation basically has Young one side, which is the assembly of the ensemble, and then are some from one to end .

or end .

the total number of unique objects. And then there is a few variables in there that could be assembly index. The copy number, which will talk about doesn't interesting and will be talking about that has an interesting addition.

And I think a powerful one has to do with what that you can create pretty complex objects randomly. And in order to know that they're not random, that there's a factory involved, need to see a bunch of them. That's the intuition.

There is an interesting intuition. And then some the moderation. What else is .

in in minus one, just to make sure that are more than one object. One object could be a one often random yeah. And then you have more than one identical object. That's interesting when .

when there when there's two of a thing.

two of a thing is super important, especially of the index assembly. Index is key.

So we can say several questions here. What in the talk about selection? What is this term selection? What is this term evolution of referred to which? Which aspect of divi an evolution? Are we referring to that? Interesting here.

So yes, so this is probably what, you know, the paper, we should talk about the paper, second paper did. What I did is IT kind of annoyed. We didn't know I may got intention. And obviously angry people, the angry people where I know there .

is angry people in the world.

that's good. So what happened is evaluated biology got angry. We we're not expecting that because before evolution, boys will be cool.

I knew that, sam, not many computational complexity people will get angry because I kind of been poking them, and maybe I deserved IT, but I was trying to poke them in a productive way. And then the physicists kindly got grumpy because the initial conditions tell everything. The three body chemists got slightly grumpy because there's not enough chemistry. And then finally, when the creation is said, IT wasn't creation's enough, I was like, no.

i've done my just the first you see in the physics they say, because your basics is saying that physics is not enough to tell the story of how biogen .

merges think and .

then they said, a few physics is the beginning in .

the end of the story yeah. So what happened is the reason why people put the phone down on the call of the paper. And if you view reading the paper like a phone call, they got to the abstract. And in the abstract.

IT for sentences pretty.

The first two sentences caused everybody.

Scientists have grappled with reconcile biological evolution with the immediate laws of the universe defined by physics. true?

right? There's nothing wrong with that statement. Totally true.

yeah. These laws underpin live origin evolution in the development of human culture technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. wow.

First I should say the title of the paper, this is paper, was accepted and published in nature. The title is assembly theory, explains and quantified selection and evolution. Very humble title and and the the entirety of the paper, I think presents interesting ideas, but reaches high.

I am not, I would do IT all again, these papers, actually, on the prevint .

server for over year.

You regret nothing? Yeah, I don't regret nothing.

Did IT your way.

What I love about being a scientist is kind of, sometimes i'm because I am bit dim. I like, I don't understand what people telling me. I wanna get to the point.

This paper says, hey, laws of physics are really cool. The universe is great. But they don't really. It's not intuitive that you just understand the model and get life out.

I think most physicists, Michael, yes, this, you know, is not just we can just go back and say that's what happened because yser s can't explain the origin of life yet doesn't mean IT won or can't. K just to be clear, sorry, intelligent designers, we are going to get there. Second point, we say that evolution works, but we don't know how evolution got going to biological evolution and biological selection.

So for me this seems like a simple continuum. So when I mentioned selection and evolution in the title, I think, and in the abstract, we should have, may be prefered that and said nonbiological selection and non biological evolution. And then that might have made IT even more cystadenoma.

I didn't think that biology, evolutionary biology, should be so bold to clean. No ownership is selection in the evolution. And secondly, a lot of evolutionary ologies seem to dismiss the origin of life questions that says obvious and and that causes a real problem scientifically.

Because when two different, when the physicists like we own the universe, universe is good, we explain all of IT look at us and even BIOS say, we can explain biology and the poor chemistry in the and in the middle. And but hang on and newspaper. Kinder says, hey, there is an interesting disconnect between physics and biology and that's that the point which memories get made in chemistry for bonds.

And hey, let's look at this clothing if we can quantify IT. So yeah, I mean, I never expected the paper to kind of get that much interest. And still, I mean, it's only been published just over months ago.

Now it's just the link on the selection. What is the broader sense of what election means?

Yeah, that's a really good for selection selection. So I think for selection, you need so this way for me, the concept of an object is something that can persist in time and and not die, but basically can be broken up. So so if I was going to kind of bolster the definition of objects, so so if if something can form and persist for a long period of time.

I'm under an an existing environment that could destroy other, and i'm gonna them for promoting ic times. I apologize that weaker objects or less robust, then the environment could have selected that. So good chemistry examples, if you took some carbon and you made a chain of carbon atoms, whether if you took some, I don't know, some carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and may change from those, you start to get different reactions and rearrangement.

So a cara chain of carbon atoms might be more resistant to falling apart under physical basic conditions versus another set molecules. So survives in that environment. So the acid pond, the molecule, the molecule, the resistant molecule can get through and and then then that molecule goes into another environment.

So that environment now may be being acid pond and is a basic pond, or maybe it's an oxidizing pond. And so if you've got carbon and IT goes an oxygen pond, maybe the carbon started oxidizing break apart. So you go through all these kind of obstacle courses, if you like, given by reality selection is the ability happens when object survives in the environment for some time.

But, and this is a thing that super at all, the object has to be continually been destroyed and made by process. So it's not just about the process, the object now, about the process in time that makes IT, because a rock could just stand on the mountain sign for four billion years and nothing happened to IT. And that's not necessarily really advanced election.

So for selecting to get really interesting, you need to have a turn over in time. You need to be continually creating objects, producing them, what we call discovery time. So there's a discovery time for an object when the object is discovered.

If I say a molecule that can then act on itself, or the chain of events that caused itself to bolster its formation, then you go from discovery time to production time, and suddenly you have more of IT in the universe. So I could be a self replicating molecule. And the interaction of the molecule in the environment, in the warm little pond or in the sea, or wherever in the bubble, could then start to build a proto factory.

The environment. So really, once your question what the factory is, the factory is the environment, but is not very autonomous, is not very redundant. There's lots of things that could go wrong.

So once you get high enough up the, the, the hierarchy of networks of interactions, something needs to happen. That needs to be compressed into a small, smaller volume and made resident robust because in biology, selection and evolution is robust that you have error correction built in. You have really, you know that there's good ways of basic making.

Short propagation goes on. So really the difference tween in organic, a biotic selection, evolution and evolution and stuffing biology is robust um the ability to to kind of propagate over over in the ability survive in lots of different environments, whereas a poor little in organic, so molecule whatever just dies in lots of different environment. So there's something super special that happens from the in organic environ leader in the environment that kills IT to a way you've evolution and sales can survive everywhere.

How special is that? How do you know those kinds of evolution factors aren't everywhere in the universe?

I I don't and i'm excited because I think selection isn't special at all. I think what is special is the history of the environment on earth that gave rise to the first cell that now has you know, has taken all those environments and is now more autonomous. And I would like to think that, you know, this paper could be very wrong, but I don't think it's very wrong.

IT mets, certainly wrong, but it's less wrong than some other ideas. And right. And if this allow inspires us to go and look for selection in the universe, because we now have an equation, what we can say, we can look for selection going on and say, oh, that's interesting.

We seem to have a this is giving is giving us high copy number. Objects also are highly complex, but that doesn't look like life as we know IT. And we use that at all. There's a hydrophoby event.

All there's a process going on this molecule of networks because the assembly equation is not only meant to identify at the higher end advanced selection, what you get I record in biology, you super baLance election and even. And you could use the same equation to look for technology and go for bid. We could talk about consciousness and abstraction, but let's keep a primitive molecules and biology.

So I think the real power the assembly equation is to, is to say how much selection is going on in this space. And there there's a really simple fault experiment. I could, do you, you know, have a little petraea on that petraea.

You put some simple food, so the assembly index of all the sugars, everything is quite low. So then and you put a single e cell of eco. I sel, yeah. And then you say, i'm going to, i'm going to measure the assembly, the amount of assembly in the box, so quite low, but the rate of change of assembly D A D T will go boom sign modal as he eats all the food.

And the number of code cells will will replicate because I take all the food they copy themselves, the assembly index of all the molecules goes up, pop up and up until the food is what exhausted in the box. So now the, now the collies stop, I mean, die is probably as strongly they stop respiring because all the food is gone. But suddenly the amount of assembly in the box has gone up gigantically, because that one ecole factory has just been in flu, mel, lots of other eco life factory has run out of food and stopped. And so that looking at that, so in the initial box, although the amount of assembly was really small, IT was able to replicate unusual the food and go up. And that's what we're trying to do in the lab actually is kind of make those kind of experiments and see if we can spot the emergence of molecular networks are producing complexity as we feed in raw materials and we feed a chAllenge, an environment, know we try and kill the molecules and and really that's the main kind of idea for the entire paper and and see .

if you can measure the changes in the something in this, okay, what what about shop to new planet will go to mars or some other planet from a different solar system and how do we use assembly index there to discover alien life um in .

very simply, actually if we say we will go to miles with a mass spectrum meter with a sufficiently high resolution, so what you have to be able to do. So good thing about my spec um is that you can um select molecule from the mass and then if it's fine a resolution, you can be more and more sure that you're just seeing um identical copies.

You can count them and then you fragment and then you count number fragments and look at the molecular way and the higher the molecular way and the higher the number of fragments of higher assembly index. So if you go to mar and you taken on my spec or hang our resolution, and you can find molecules, give god guide on earth. If you could find molecules, say, greater than three hundred and fifty molecular away with more than fifty fragments, you have found artifacts that can only be produced, at least on earth by life.

Now you would say, oh, well, maybe the geological process. I would argue very, very that that is not the case. Say, look, if you don't like the cut off on earth, go up. pie.

Thirty one hundred, right? Because there's going to be a point where you can find the molecule with so many different parts. The chances of you getting a molecule has a hundred different parts um and finding a million identical copies, you know that's just just impossible that could never happen in an infinite .

set of universe just lying on this copy number thing million different copies would you mean by copies and why is the number of copies important?

Yeah that was so interesting and the um I always understood the copy number was really important, but I never explained that properly for asia um and I kept having this IT goes back to this if I give you a um um I don't know, really complicated molecule and I say it's complicated, you could say, hey, that's really complicated but is IT just really random and so so I realize that ultimate randomness, ultimate complexity are in distinguishable until you can you can see a structure, the random, so you can see copies.

The copy is implies structure. The fact is a deep, profound thing in there because they if you just have a random. Random process. You're going to get a lot of complex, beautiful sophistic ted things. What makes them complex .

in the way .

we think life is complex or yeah something like a factory that's Operating under a selection processes. There should be copies. Is there like some elusive about copies? Like what does IT mean for two objects to be equal?

It's all to do with the the telescope, the microscope are using. And so at the the maximum resolution. So in the nice thing about the nice thing about chemist, as they have this concept of the molecule, and they are all familiar with the molecule and molecules you can hold, you know, in your hand, lots of them identical copies.

A molecule was actually a super important thing in chemistry to say, look, you can have a moll of a molecules and avocat's number of molecules and they're identical. What does that mean? That means the molecular composition, the bonding and so on the configuration is all is is distinguish or you can hold them together, you can overlay them.

So the way I do IT is if I say, is the bag um of ten identical molecules, this for the identical, you pick one out out of the bag and you basically observe IT using some technique and then you put IT, you take that away and then you put take another one out. If you observe IT, you internally can see no differences, their identical. It's really interesting to get right because if you take say to molecules, molecules can be in different vibration or rotational states in moving all the time.

So for this respect, identical molecules have identical bonding. In this case we don't even um talk about charity because we don't have a Caroli detector. So two I met dentical molecules in one conception.

Assembly theory basically considers both hands as being the same. Um but but of course they are not. They're different as soon as you have a carrot to distinguish her to detect the left in the right and they become different. And so it's to do with the detection system that you have and the resolution.

So I wonder if there's an art and science to the which detection system is used when you show up to a new planet? Yeah yes. So like you're talking about chemistry a lot today, we have kind of standard zed detection systems, right, of how to compare molecules.

So you know, when you start to talk about emogene and language and mathematical theory, and I don't know more sophisticated things at a different scale as smaller scale, the molecules at the largest scale of molecules, like what detection? If if we look at the difference in you and me, relaxing tly, are we the same? Are we different? sure.

I mean, of course we're different close up. But if you OOM out a little bit more for logically, look the same, yeah, you know, high characteristics here.

length like that, also like the species. Yes, yes, yes. And and also is a sense why we both from earth.

yeah, I I agree. I mean, this is the power of assembly theory in that regard. You, if if you so if everything is so, the way to look at if you have a box of objects, if there, if if they're all in distinguishing ble, then using your technique, you then you what you then do is you then look at the assembly index now.

The assembly index of them is really low, right? And they're all in distinguished and is telling you that you have to go to another resolution. So that would be is kind of a sign scale. It's kind of nice .

you got so those two kind of our attention with each other. Yeah, I caught the number of copies in the somebody index. Yeah, that's really, really interesting. So, okay, so you show, tell your planet you'll be doing what I would do.

Mh, back.

I would bring a sample of what? Like first. Like, how big of a scp did did you take a look? Like what so we're looking for a primitive life.

I would I would look, yes. So if you're just going to mars or titan n or in sellers or somewhere, so a number ways of doing IT, so you could take a large script or you go for the atmosphere into tech stuff so you can make a life, a life meter, right? So one of series colleagues, a she'll davies, keeps calling IT a life me, a life meter, which is quite a nice idea.

Because you think about IT, if you've got a living system is producing these highly complex molecules and they drift away and they're in a highly um kind of demanding environment, they could be burnt, right? So they could just be falling apart. So you want to sniff a little bit complexing, say, warmer, warmer, warmer.

Oh, found life. The area we found, we found the alien and elon mask smoking a joint in the bottom of the cave on mars, or elon himself. What right? Okay, found IT. So what you can do is a mastec promoter.

Um you could just look for things in the gas phase or you go on the surface draw down because you want to find molecules that you you either got to find the source living system because the problem with just looking for complexity is IT gets burned away. So in a harsh environment on on on, say, on the market surface of mars, there's a very low probability that you're going to find really complex molecules because of all the radiation and so on. If you drill down a little bit, you could drill down a bit into soil that billions of years old.

Then I would put in some solent water, alcohol or something, or take up a scoop, put IT, put the make IT volatile, put IT into the mastec roommate. Just trying detect a high complexity, high abundant molecules. And if you get them, hey presto, you can have evidence of life.

Wouldn't let them be great if you could say, okay, we've found evidence of life. Now we want to keep, keep the life, me, to keep searching for more, more complexity. Until you actually find living cells. You get those new living cells, and then, and then you could bring them back to earth. So you could try sequence, you could see that .

they have different N A pros. How would say work together, starting new new company.

launching a life to would be the first way doing.

I just know, but that's that's that's one of the major components of IT. But i'm talking about like if it's a device, we and branding logo going to talk this later. But what's the input was the I can I get to the .

I am meter, the output so I I would take a so my my life meter, our life meter .

I thank you.

Yeah you will would have both infrared and aspect so we would have two ports so we can shine a light and say, what I would do is you would have a vacuum chAmber and you would have a electro static analyzer and you'd d have a monarchia to producing infect um you'd at the sam so you take a soop of the sump, put IT in the life meter IT would then add a solvin or heat up the samples.

Some volatiles come off the volatiles would then be put into the into the massic trade into electro static c trap and you'd wait the molecules and fragment them. Alternatively, you'd shine in for, rely on them the account number of bands. But you'd have to, in that place, do some separation because you want to separate.

And so in mastec, c is really nice and convenient, because you can separate letters statically, but you need to have that can do in real time. Yeah, pretty much, pretty much. yes.

So let's go the way back. Okay, we're really get this. Lex is life me?

Lex and lee, good, good thing to IT.

All right. So you have a, you have a vacuum chAmber, you have a little nose. The nose would have um uh some a uh uh a packing material.

So you would take your your sample, add IT onto the nose, add a solvent or a gas. You would then be sucked up to nose and that would be separate as using me, what we call chromatography. And then as each band comes off, the nose will then do mass back and informed.

And in the count, in the, in the case in for red count number bangs, in the case of mastec count number fragments way. And then the further up in molecular weight range for the mass, back in the number of bands, you go up and up and up from the, you know, dead interesting, interesting over the threshold, oh my gosh, earth life, and then write up to the batch crazy. This is definitely, you agree, an intelligence that made this life right.

You could almost go all the way there, same in the infrared, and is pretty simple. The thing that is really problem mechanical is for many years, decades, what people have done, and I can't blame them, is that they rather, they've been obsessing about small biomarkers on that we find on earth for mino assets like single mino assets or evidence of small molecules. And these things are looking for there is wrong looking for complexity.

That will A A beautiful thing about this is you can look for um complexity with our earth chemistry bias or earth biology bias. So assembly theory just a way saying, hey, complexity and abundance is evidence selection. That's how our universal life meat will work.

Complexity in abundance of evidence of selection okay, so let's a apply our life meter to earth so what in authorizes have apply assembly index measurements? The earth, what? What kind of stuff are going to be get, are going to get, what's impressive, some of the complexity on earth.

So we did this a few years ago in the, when I trying to convince NASA and colleagues this techne could work analysis so funny because almost like now i'm going to work like because the chemist was saying, of course, they are complicated molecules out there.

You can detect that just form randomly like really, really that's like that was like, you know, as a bit like I don't know someone saying, of course, Darwin textbook was just written randomly, buy some monkeys and type right. I was just for me. I was like, really and and and I pushed a lot on the chemist.

Now I think most of them are on board, but not told I really, really have some big arguments, but the copy number caught decks. I think I confuse the climate by saying one off. And then when I made clear about the copy number, you think that made a .

little bit easier. Just clarify. A chemist might say that, of course, out there, outside of earth there's complex molecules.

yes. okay. And then you're saying what that's like saying of course there's allies out .

there that exactly okay.

where you say you clarify that, that's actually very interesting question. And what should be looking for complex molecules of which the copy numbers to work greater?

Yes, exactly. So on earth to coming back to worth what we did is we took a whole bunch of samples and we were running prevalent chemistry experiments in the lab. Um we took various inorganic minerals and extracts of them.

Look at the volatile because. There is a special way of treating min rules and polymers and assembly theory well in this. In our life machine, we're looking at molecules.

We don't care about polymers because they don't they not volatile. You can't hold them or not. How can you make if you can't ascertain that the item, then it's very difficult for to to to work out if this undergone selection.

They're just random mess, same with some minerals, but we can come back to that. So basically what you do, we got whole lot of samples in organic ones, we got a load of, we got scotch whisky. And also I got took my favorite ite whisky, which is very pity. And another whist pity mean is like, so the way that on a on in scotland in isla, which is that violent, the the scotch, the scotch, the whisky is LED to mature and barrels and um the the is said that the peak the complex molecules in the pete might find their way through into the whisky and that's what gives that this intense Brown color and really complex flavor is literally molecular complexity that does that. And so you know, vote is the complete opposite, is just pure right?

With little of the whisky the higher.

the unix the highest, some inie the Better. And I really love deep pt scotish whiskies near my house there there is a one of the the low land discovery called glady aim. Still beautiful whisky, but not as complex.

So for fine, I took, took some gin, coin, whisky in our bag and put them into the mass beg and measure the assembly index. I also got ecole. So the way we do take e coi, break the sala, take IT all apart and also got some beer and and people were ridiculing of saying all beer is evidence of complexity.

One of the one of the computational complexity people was just throwing yeah, we have of his very figuration in his disagreement of assembly theory was just saying, you know, you done, know what you doing? Even bear is more complicated than human. We didn't realize is that what is not beer per say is taking the east extract, taking the extract, breaking the cells, extracting the molecules and just looking at the profile of the molecules, if is anything over the fresh old.

And we also put in a really complex model, tax soul. So we took all of these, but also NASA gave us, I think, five samples, and they wouldn't tell us what they are. They said, note, we don't believe you can get this to work.

And they really know. They gave some super complex samples, and they gave us two fossils, one that was a million years old, and one was at ten thousand years old. Seep something from antartica. See bed.

They gave us emergence and meter, right? And a few others put them through the system. So I we took all the samples, treat them all identically, put them into mass back, fragmented them, counted. And in this case, implicit in the measured was we you in my spect you only detect um peaks when you've got more than say, let's say ten thousand identical molecules. So the copy numbers already baked in that wasn't quantified, which is super important there there was in the first paper because it's like abundant of course um and when you then took IT all out, we found the biological samples um gave you um molecules that had assembly index grade in fifteen and all the a basic examples were less than fifteen and then we took the NASA samples and we looked at the ones who were more than fifteen, less than fifteen and we get him back to nothing like, oh gosh yeah dad living dead living you got IT and and that's what we found .

on earth that's .

a success yeah oh yeah resounding success.

Can you just go back to the beer and the equally so what what's .

the some index and knows so what you were able to do is like the assembly index um of we found high assembly index molecules or originating from the beer sample, an eco I sample. So that mean I didn't know which one was higher. We wouldn't really do any detail there because now we are doing that because one of the things we've done, it's a secret. But I can tell you, no.

no boy's listening well.

is that we've just mapped the tree of life using assembly theory because everyone said that you can't do in from biology. And what were able to do is so you I think there's three way, two ways doing tree of life trh all three ways actually .

what's the .

real life so the tree of life is basically um tracing back the history of life, honor full different species going back what who evolved from what and IT goes all the way back to the first kind of life forms and they branch off and like you have plant kingdom, the animal kingdom, guy, the kingdom you know in different in different branches all the way up um and the way this was classically done and i'm no evolution biologist evolution biologists very tell me every day at least ten times I wanna wonder I kind like but .

it's kind .

of cool but very cool but basically what Darwin immediate eventually these people do. They just they draw pictures, right and they they tex a they just can't able to draw pictures and and say and say this look like common classes yeah then there are artists really there.

but but they're were able .

to find out a lot, right? And looking at viBrant, viBrant Cameron explosion of this stuff. And then um then came the genomic revolution and suddenly everyone use gene sequencing and crag venters. A good example, I think, is going around the world and yet just taking examples looking for new species, just found new species of life just from sequencing. amazing.

So you have tax on to me, you have sequencing and you can also do a little bit of kind of molecular uh kind of archeology like no measure the samples and and kind of form some inference. What we did um is we were able to fingerprint, we took a load random samples from all of biology and we use mass spectrum ety. And what we did now is not just look for individual molecules, but we look for coexisting molecules where they had to look at their joint assembly space. And we were able to cut them part and and undergo recursion in the mass spec and infer some relationships. And we were able to recapitulates the tree of life using massic rocos y no sequencing and no drawing.

right? Can you try to say that again with little more detail? So creating, what does that take to recreate the tree of life? What is the verse engineering process look like? you?

So what you do is you take an unknown sample, you pang IT into the mass back, you get cause this comes from what you asked, like what you seen, the coal. And so in coal, you don't just see it's not it's it's not that the most sophisticated cells on on earth make the most ophite ticad molecules. IT is the coexistence of lots of complex molecules above a fresh hold.

And so what we realize is you could fingerprint different life forms. So, fun guy, make really complicated molecules. why? Because they can't move.

They have to make everything on site, whether you know some animals are like lazy, they can just go at the fun guy. You know, they don't need to make very much. And I am.

And so what you do is you look at the so you take, I don't know, the fingerprint, maybe the top number of high molecular ate molecules you find in the sample, you fragment them to get their assembly in disease. And then what you can do is you can infer common origins of molecules. You can do a kind of molecular um um but in the reverse engineering of the assembly space you can infer common roots and look at what's called to join the assembly space.

But what let's translate that into experiment, take a sample banging the mass back, take the top, say ten molecules, fragment them and then and that gives you one fingerprint, then you do for another sample, you get another fingerprint. Now the question is, you say, hey, are these samples the same or different? And that's what we ve been to do. And by basically looking at the assembly spaces these molecules create without any knowledge of assembly theory, you are unable to do IT with an knowledge of assembly theory, you can reconstruct the tree.

How does? How does known if they are the same or different.

give you the tree? Let's go to two leaves on different branches on the tree, right? What you can do by counting the number of differences, you can estimate how far away the origin was, and that's what we do. And IT just works. But when we realize you could even use a memory theory to recapitulate the tree of life for nogin sequencing, we are like h.

So this, this is looking at samples that exist today in the world. We're about like things that are no one to exist. The tree contains information about the past.

Some of IT is gone. Yeah.

yeah. I absolutely.

I would love to get old fossil samples and apply a second theory aspect and see if we can find new forms of life that have there are no longer remember to do sequencing as a DNA is all gone. Does D N A, D N A in R N A quite unstable, but some of them, more complex molecules might be there? I might give you a hint, something new or wouldn't be great if you if you find a sample that's worth really persevering and doing, you know, doing the proper extraction to reach to, you know, P, C, R and so on, and then sequence and then put this together.

So when the thing dies, you can still get some information about .

this complexity yeah and we can and IT appears that you can um do some dating. Now there are really good techniques as radio carbon dating. There is um longer dating, going looking at radioactive minerals and so on. And you can also in boone, you can look at the what happens in after something dies is the amid the you get what's called customization, where the the the quality in the polymers basically changes and you just get you get decomposition and the rate of the deviation from the peer uh um uh um a antimalarial mixture, you can have a hard, you give you a time time scale on a half life, you can date when he died. I wanted his assembly theory to to see if I can date, use IT date death and things and and trace the tree of life and also decomposition of molecules.

You think it's possible?

Oh yeah. Lt, without out IT may not be Better than what cause like the I was just a conference where some brilliant people looking icosahedron ichor and and looking at how life in rich's isotopes, and they're really sophisticated stuff they're doing. But I think there's some fun to be had there because we gives you another dimension of dating.

How old is this molecule in terms of, or more importantly, how long go was this molecule produced by life? The more complex molecule, the more prospect for the composition, oxidation, reorganization, loss of charity and all that jazz. But what life also does is in riches as you get older than the matter of carbon thirteen, and you goes up because of the because of the way the meta let, because of the way the bonding is in, in carbon thirteen.

So IT has a slide different strength. Bond strength for you is called the connected eeoc effect. So you can literally date how old you are, you know, or when you stop metabolizing, so you could date someone's day, how old day?

I think i'm making this up. This might be right, but I think it's roughly right. The amount of carbon thirteen you have in you, you couldn't of estimate how how old you are.

how old living work. Humans are living here. Yeah, like you could say.

all this person is ten years old, and this person thirty years old because they have mazing more carbon and accumulates. The basic idea is probably completely wrong.

Signatures of chemistry fast. So even saying a lot of chemistry examples for assembly theory. What if we zoom out and look at a bigger scale, an object, you know, like really complex objects like humans or living organisms that are made up of millions or billions of other organisms? How do you try to apply some with you to that .

at the moment, where we we should be able to do this to mythology and sales? So looking at self service and really on trying extend further, it's just so, you know, we work so hard to get this paper out and people to start discussing the ideas. And I but it's kind of funny because I think the pay the penny is falling on this. So yes.

so I mean for the I mean, no, the .

pennies dropped, right? Because of people like it's rubbish, rubbish. You've insulted me. It's wrong. And and you know I mean, the paper got published on the fourth of october. They had two point three million engagements on twitter, right, and has been downloaded over two hundred thousand times. And someone actually said to me, wrote to means the distance example, really bad writing and what not to do. And I was like, if all of my papers got read this much, because actually objective, if I have a publishing, a paper, people to read IT, I wanna write that badly again.

I don't know what's the deep side here about the negativity in the space. I think it's probably the immune system of the scientific community making sure that there's no bullshit that gets published that and I can over fire, I can do little of damage. You can shut down conversations in a way that's not productive .

and go back coming your question about the rock assembly, but let's go back to the perception. People saying that paper was badly written. I mean, of course we could improve IT. We can always improve the clarity.

Let's go there before we go to the higher chy um you know he has been criticize quite a bit the paper um what has been some criticism that you found most powerful like that you can understand and can you explain IT the yes .

the most exciting criticism came from the evolution biologist telling me that they thought that that the origin of life was a solve problem and I was like, wow, we're really on to something because it's cleaning up and when you poke them on that they just said, no, you don't understand evolution and I said, no, no. I don't think you understand the evolution had to occur before biology and we need this a gap that was ready for me that misunderstanding and that that did calls the min response, which was really interesting. Um the second thing was the fact the physicists the physicists actually really polite, right really nice about IT, but they just said, uh, we're not really sure about the initial conditions thing, but this is a really big debate that we should certainly get into because you know the emergence of life was not encoded in the initial conditions of the universe and IT can't, and I think assembly theory shows why can't be .

sure say that again.

the orient of the emergence of life was not and cannot in principle, be encoded in initial condition of the universe.

Is the problem with me by life is like what high assembly index objects.

And this costs back to your favorite subject that time.

right. So why so why? What what is time I have to do with that?

I mean, probably we can come back to IT later, but I think that might be if we have time.

But I think that I think I now understand how to explain how um you know lots of people got angry with the assembly paper but also the the ramifications of this is how time is fundamental in the universe and and this notion of commentary al spaces and there are so many layers on this but um you have to become an I think you have to become an intuition ist mathematician and you have to band in python ic mathematics and also platonic mathematics. Is that physics history? But there's a lot back there so .

we can go to the autonation mathematics or get there the biology criticize because the origin of life is understood and not IT. IT doesn't require an explanation that rolls physics. yes. Is there a statement? Well.

I mean that I think they said lots of confusing statements. Basically, I realized the evolution biology community that were vocal, and some of them were really rude, really spiteful and needlessly so right because like you know um I I I didn't people misunderstand publication as well. Some of the people have said how there is be publish in nature.

This is me know how what a terrible journal and and I and I really and I want such people look, this is a brand new idea that not only potentially going to change the way we look at um biology, it's gonna the way we d look at the universe. And everyone is like saying, how dare you? How dare you be so grand o some like, no, no, no, this is not hype.

We're we're not like saying we've invented some, uh, I dono we've discovered aliens in a closet somewhere just for hype. We have genuinely mean this to genuinely have the impact or asked the question and the way people jumped on. That was a really bad precedent for Young people want to actually do something new, because this makes a bold claim.

And the chances are that is not correct. But what I wanted to do is a couple of things that I want to make, a bold claim that was precise and tested and correctable, not a Willy, another Willy information in biology argument information turing machine. Ba, 不 拉 不 拉， 不 拉， 不 a concrete， serious, a statement that can be falsified and explored, and either the theory could be destroyed or build upon.

Well, what about the criticism of you're just putting a bunch of sexy names on .

something that's already obvious? Um yeah that's really good so so um the assembly index of the molecules, not obvious no what to measure IT before and no one has thought to quantify selection complexity and copy number before in such a primitive, quantifiable way. I think the nice thing about this paper, this paper is, is a tribute to or not to all the people that understand that the biologists does something very interesting.

Some people call IT neg entropy. Some people call IT. Think about, you know, organizational principles that lots of people were not shocked by the paper because they're done IT before.

A lot of lot of the arguments we got, some people say, oh, it's rubbish oh, by the way, I had the idea twenty years before was like, which one if is your the rubbish part? All the really revolutionary part. So this kind of clock, two strings at one pluck, the there is something interesting.

The biology is us, we can see around this, but we haven't quantified yet. And what this is the first step at quantifying that. So the the fact that people said um this is obvious but it's also um so if so, which is obvious, why have you not done IT .

sure but um there's just a few things to say that one is you know this is a in part of pha philosophical framework because no it's not like you can apply this generally to any object in the universe. It's very chemistry focus.

Yeah I think you will be able to. We just even got their robustly so say, how can you let's go up a level? So we go up from level, we go up. Let's go up from molecules to sales because you are jump to people, and I jumped to move on. And both are good.

And they will be a .

little if we go from. So if we go from molecules to assembly, and let's take a cell assembly, a nice thing about a cell, if you can tell the difference between A U, Carry out the precario, right? The organisers specialize differently when they look at the cell surface.

And the cell surface has different cy consolation panes. And these cells will stick together. Now is go up a level in multiplier.

The creatures you have sell the differentiation. Now if you think about how embryos developed all the way back, those cells undergo differentiation and the caught. That's biomechanically a feedback between the genetics biomechanics.

I think we can use assembly theory to apply tissue e types. We can even apply a to different cell disease types. So that's what we're doing next. But we are trying to walk, you know, the thing is i'm trying to leave a here. I want to leap ahead to go.

We apply to culture, but clearly you can apply to means and culture and we've also applied a sely theory to um C A and not as you think, not just you think different C A rules were invented by different people at different times. And one of my one of my co workers, very talent to chap, basically was like, oh, I can realize that different people have different ideas of different rules, and they copy each other may slightly different bit, but different cell thoma rules, and they public and look at them online. And so he was able to have assembly, index and copy number of rule, whatever, doing this thing.

But I digress. But IT does show you can apply higher scale. So what do we need to do to apply a family theory? Two things we need to agree.

There's a common set building blocks. So in a cell, well, in a, in a multi cellar creature, you need to look back in time. So there is the initial i'm so with the creature is the list and then starts grow.

And then there is so differentiation. You have to then make that calls or chain both on those that requires a development of the organism in time. Or if you look at the cell surfaces and the cell types, they've got different features on the cell, what walls and inside the cell. So we're building up. But I obviously, I want a leap to things like emoticon language.

mathematical there, a very large number of steps to get from a molecule to uh, the human brain yeah um and I think .

they are related but in high rockies of emergence, right? So you shouldn't compare them. I mean, the assembly index of a human brain, what does that even mean? Well, maybe we can look at the moth logy of human brain, say, all human brains have these number of features in common, if they have those number of, and then that, look at a brain in in a whale or adult, in or a chimpanzee, a bird. Say, okay, lets look at the assembly diseases number of features in these and now the copy number is just a number of what how many birds are there, how many chimpanzees, how many .

humans for the features that you would be looking for yeah.

and that means you need to have a united some idea, the anatomy .

because they are in the .

automate with this cover features um I I guess so I mean and I think this is A A good way .

to apply machine learning and the features used as part of the compression, as the measures of the as the thing that is search for when you're measuring assembly index and copy and .

and the compression has to be remembers the assembly universe, which is you have to go from assembly possible to assembly contingent and that jump from a because assembly ly possible or possible brains or possible features all the time but we know that on the tree of life and also on the lining age of life, going back to luca, the human brain just didn't spring into existence yesterday. IT is a long lineage of brains going all the way back. And so if we could do assembly theory to understand the development, not just an evolutionary history, but in biological development, as you grow, we are going to learn something more, what ah would .

be amazing as if you can use assembly ory this framework to show the increasing the assembly index associated with anal cultures or piece of text like language or images and so on and illustrate without knowing the data head of time just collect do with not so that you are able to demonstrate that applies in those other context I mean and that you know probably wouldn't at first you have to evolve the theory of whole, you have to change IT, you have to expand IT.

You know I .

think so h but like that um I guess this is as a paper of first step and saying, okay, can we create a general framework for measuring complexity of objects, for measuring life, the complexity of living organisms yeah that's that's what this is reaching for.

That is the first step. And also to say, look, we have a way of quantifying selection and evolution in a in a fairly in a fairly not mundane e but a fairly mechanical way because before now is, you know, this IT wasn't very the ground truth for IT was very subjective. Where is here? We're talking about clean observer ables, and there's going to be layers on that.

I mean, we've collaborate is right now we really think we can do assembly thereon language. And not only that won't be great if we can put so the if we can figure out how under pressure language is gone to involve and be more efficient because you're going to want to transmit things. And again, it's not just about compression IT is about um understanding how you can make the most of the in the architecture body, bill.

And I think this is something beautiful that evolution does. We are in reusing architects. We just abandon on our evolutionary history. And if you don't want to abandon your evolutionary history and you and you know the evolution has been happening and assembly theory works, and I think that that's a key comment I want to make is the assembly theory is great for understanding when evolution has been used.

The next jump is when we go to technology because of course, if you take the m three processor, um I wanted buy I bought one yeah I can't justify IT, but I want to at some point the m three process arguably is this quite a lot of features, a quite large number. The m two came before, then the m one all the way back. You can apply assembly theory .

to micro o processor architecture. IT doesn't take a sorry, I don't even know that there's a lot interesting stuff to ask about language like you could look at hold that work. You go like a GPT one GPT two GPT three, three, five, four. And tried to analyze the kind of language at produces I mean, that's almost trying to look at assembly index of intelligence systems yeah I mean.

I think the thing about large language models and this is a whole hobbies holes have at the moment um is that obviously there they're all about the the the in the evidence of evolution in the in the in the large around with model comes from all the people that produce all the language and that's really interesting and all the corrections in the in the in the mechanical turk, right? sure. And and so that's part of .

the history, part of the memory of the system.

exactly. So can you so so IT would be really interesting to basically use an assembly based approach to making language in the iraqi right, I think is a my guess is that you could, we might be a build a new type of large language model, uses assembly theory that IT has more understanding of the past and how things we create. IT, basically, what thing with elms is like everything, everywhere, all at once, black, and make the user happy, says not much intelligence in the model. The model is how the human interacts of the model but won't be great if we could understand how to embed ed more intelligence in the in the system.

What do you mean by interesting like you seem to uh associate intelligence with history.

Yeah well, mine I think selection produces intelligence.

You almost implying that selection is intelligence. No yeah. Kind of I would go that I would go .

out and lemon and say that. But I think is a little bit more human beings have the ability to abstract and they can break beyond selection. And this is what like Darwinian selection, because the human being doesn't have to basically do try and error like, but they can think about, that's a bad idea, when do you? That in technologies.

And so we escaped the wanted an evolution, and now we onto us some other kind of evolution. I get higher.

Yeah I I love you. And assembly there. We will measure that as well, right?

Because it's all that in the age. okay. Another piece of criticism or by way of question is how's assembly theory may be assembly index different from coming graph complexity. So for people don't know a commotion PH complexity of an object is the length of the shortest computer program produces the object of output.

Yeah, I I seem to there seems to be a disconnect between the computational approach is so yes, a conga of measure requires a cheering machine, requires a computer um and that's one thing and the other thing is assembly theory opposed to trace the process by which life evolution emerged. Now there's a main thing there. There are lots of other layers.

So common goal of complexity, you can you can approximate common girl of complexity. But it's not really telling you very much about the actual um IT is really telling you about like your your data set compression of your dataset 是 and so that doesn't really help you identify the the turtle in this cases the computer。 And so what assembly theory does is I am gonna say a trickle warning for anyone listening is a he loves complexity theory.

I think that we're going to show that A I T is a very important subset of assembly theory because he is what happens. The um I think the assembly theory allows us to build a go understand when with selections occurring, selections produces factories and things. Factories in the end produce computers and you can get the algorithms c information theory comes out of that. The frustration i've had with we've looking at line through this kind of information theory as IT take into account causation. So the main difference between assembly theory and all these complexity measures is there's no courts or chain yeah and I think that's .

the main as the caul chance at the at the at the core of uh, assembly theory.

exactly. If if you got your data in a computer memory, all the data the same, you can access the in the same. Don't way, you don't care, you just compressive IT and and you either look at the program run time or the shortest programme and that for me, uh, I can, is absolutely not capturing what IT is, what IT selection does.

But assembly theory looks at objects. IT doesn't have information about the object. History is going to try to infer that history by looking for the shortest history, right? The object, the object doesn't like have a what kip dia page that goes H I the story.

I would say IT doesn't away and IT is fast. Man, look at so you've just got the objects and you have no information about the object. What assembly hearing that is you to do with just what the object is to? And the word in fur is correct.

I agree with him fur. So if you like, say, well, that's not the, that's not the history. But something really interesting comes from this.

The shortest path is insert from the objects. That is the worst case scenario if you have no machine to make IT. So that tells you about the depth of that object in time. And so what assembly theory allows you to do is, without considering any other circumstances to save in this object, how deep is this object in time?

If we just treat the object as itself without any other any other constraints, and that super powerful because as short as path then says allows you to say whole, this object wasn't just create randomly. There was a process. And so assembly theory is not meant to, you know one up a IT or to ignore the factory is just to say, is just to say, hey, there was a factory and how big was that factory and how deep in time is IT.

but is still competition's very difficult? Compute the history, right? For complex objects.

IT is that becomes harder. One, the thing that super nice is the um IT constrains your initial conditions, right? You can strains where you're going to to be.

So if you take, say, imagine. So one of the things we're doing right now is applying assembly theory to drug discovery. Now what everyone's doing right now is taking all the proteins and looking at the proteins and and looking at molecules, doctor, proteins.

Why not instead take the look at the molecules that are in solved, interacting with the receptors over time, rather thinking about and use the molecules evolve over time as a proxy for how the proteins evolved over time, and then use that to constrain your drug discovery process. You flip the problem one A E, and focus on the molecule evolution around the protein. And so you can guess in the future what might happen, so that, so that, so you rather than having to consider all possible molecules, you know where to focus. And that's the same thing if you're looking at in assembly spaces for egg object where you don't know the entire history but you know that um you know in the history of this subject is not gonna some other motels th the the the um IT doesn't apply .

doesn't appear in the past but I just want for the drug discovery point you made isn't don't have to simulate all of chemistry for uh to figure out how to come up with constraints no the molecules and no I don't I don't enough about protein .

thing that I think causes because this paper goes across so many boundary so chema look to this and said, um this is not this is not a react. Not correct reaction like no is a graph.

sure. There there's a assembly index, shortest path examples here on chemistry .

yeah and so on. What you do is you look at the minimal constrains on that graph, of course, that has some mapping to the synthesis, but actually you don't have to know all of chemistry, you just have to understand, can build up the constraints space rather nicely. But this is just at the beginning, right? There are so many directions this could go in. And I said, IT could all be wrong, but hopefully it's less wrong.

What about the little criticism I saw of you by we have questioned you consider the different probabilities of each reaction in the chain. So like that, there could be different. When you look at a chain of events that LED up to the creation of an object, doesn't IT matter that some parts in the chain are less likely than the others.

No, IT doesn't. No, no. Well, let's go back. So, no, not less likely, but react. So, so, so, no.

So let's go back to what we're talk, looking at you. So the assembly index is the minimal path that could have created that object obliges. ally. So imagine you have all your atoms in the plasma. You got enough energy, you got enough ah yeah um this collision, what is the quickest way you could zip out that molecule with no reaction constraints?

How did define quickies there there?

But it's just basically what walk on random graph are you? So we make an assumption that basically the time scale for forming the bonds. So now I don't want to say that because it's people getting obsessing about this point and your criticism is really good one. What we trying to say is like this, this puts a lower bound on something. Of course, some reactions are less possible than others, but actually, I don't think chemical reactions exist.

Boy, what does mean? Why don't good reactions exist?

I'm writing a paper right now that I keep being told I have to finish. It's called the origin of chemical reaction ism and IT merely says the reactivity exists, controlled by the laws, economy, mechanics and reactions.

We put name chemist, put names on reactions like so you can have like I don't know the vote reaction, which is by a vote um you could have the suzuki reaction wishes by zoo ki, now what are these reactions? So these reactions are constrained by the following. They're constrained by the fact on planet earth, one j two, nine, eight, calvin, one bar.

So these are constraints. They are also constrained by the chemical composition of birth, oxygen availability of this stuff. And that then allows us to focus on our chemistry.

So when a chemist does a reaction, that's a really nice compressor hand for constraint application blast last pure agent, temperature pressure bombing, bomb control, control, control, control, control so of course, we have bond energies, this, so the bond energy are kind of intrinsic and evacuation. If you say so, the bond energy, you have to have a bond. And so for assembly theory to work, you have to have a bond, which means that bond has to give the molecule certain laugh on a half life.

So if you're probably onta find later on that some bonds are weaker and that you are gonna miss in aspect, when you count, look at the assembly of some molecules, you can to miscount the assembly of the molecule, because IT falls apart too quickly because the bonus form, but you can solve that. We're looking in for IT. So so when people think about the probability, that kind of misunderstanding.

Assembly theory says nothing about the chemistry, because chemistry is chemistry, and the constraints are put in by biology. There was no chemist in the origin of life baking, unless you believe in the chemist in the sky. And they were, you know, like Sandy claws. I had a lot of work to do. But but chemical reactions do not exist in the constraints that allow chemical transformations to a cur .

do exist OK OK. So it's constraint application. So if there's no chemical reactions is all constraint application yeah which enables the margins of was a different word for chemical reaction translation transformation yeah like a function .

is a function but but I love chemical actions in the short hand. And and so the chemists don't all go mad. I mean, of course, chemical reactions exist on short and it's a short .

hand constraint. So assuming all these constraints that would be using for so long that .

we're just as soon as of chemistry, of course, emerges in reactions and we can use and reliably, but I do not think the voter reaction is accessible on vanus.

right? And this is useful to remember, you know, to frame IT as constraints. Applications is useful for when you zoom out to the bigger picture of the universe and looking the chemist, the universe and then starting to apply some with three.

Ah that's interesting. That's really interesting. But we've also pissed off the chemist.

Okay, that's pretty happy.

But what most of them everybody everybody deep down is happy. I think there's just sometimes fisty, that's how they show. That's how fun .

everyone is group yond. Some days when they when you the problem with this paper is what is like is almost like I went to apart. It's like you, I do used to do this occasionally.

You want a Young go to a meeting and just find a way to find, find, offend everyone at the meeting simultaneous ly, even, even the factions that don't like each other. They're all unified in their hatred of view, just defending them. This paper that feels like the person that went to the party and offended everyone's simultaneously. So stop themselves and just focus on this paper.

maybe just a little insider interesting information. What were the editors? 那 是我 the reviews and so on。 How difficult is that process? Because this is a pretty like big paper.

Yeah I mean the so um we when we originally sent the paper, we sent the paper and the editor said, um you know this was like this is a quite a long process so we sent the paper on the other that gave us some feedback instead you know I don't think is that interesting. It's not you know that what it's hard. It's it's hard concept. And we asked and the added that gave us some feedback and we and and Sarah, I took a year to rewrite the paper.

Was the nature, the fee back very specific gun like this part, this part or was IT like, what do you guys smoking?

Yeah, he was fun of the latter. What you smoking? okay. And you know.

but polite in this promise?

yeah. Well, the thing is, was the editor was really critical, but in a, but in a really professional way. yeah.

And I mean, for me, this was a way science should happen. So when I came back, you know, we had too many equations in the paper. If you look at the preprint, that just equations everywhere, like twenty three equations.

And when I said to abb shake, he was the first offer. We ve got ta removal the equations, but my assembly equations staying abroad was like, you know, no, we can't as well. Look, if we want to explain this to people as a real chAllenge.

And so saran, I went through the, I think IT was actually hundred and sixty versions of the paper, but we basically, we got to version forty or something was a right zero. IT started again. So we wrote the whole paper again.

We knew the entire amazing. And we just went bit by bit by bit. And what is that we want to say? And then we send the paper in and to us, we expected to be rejected and not even go to review.

And then the we got notification back at gone to a review, and we're like, oh my god, it's so gonna get rejected. How are you gonna get rejected? Because he had first assembly paper that on the maspeth we sent to nature, I got went through six rounds review and rejected, right? And then by by a chemist just said, I don't believe you. You must be commit and fraught. A long story, probably a boring story. But in this case, IT went out to review the comments came back and the comments were incredibly um uh they were very they were very deep comments from all the review is there were um um but the the but the nice thing was the reviewers were kind of very critical but not dismissive though like i'll really explain this explain explain this, explain this. You sure it's not come a goal of you sure it's not this and we went through I think three rounds review pretty quick and and I went, yeah but maybe .

you could just come on on the whole process. You've published some pretty huge papers on all kinds of topics of chemistry. Am, beyond some of them, have some little space in them, a little space of crazy like tomato. I like my a little job of poison. It's not A E paper. So where what's IT like psychologically to go through all this process to keep getting rejected to h to get reviews from people that don't get the paper or um all that kind stuff just from A A question of a scientist like what is that like?

Um it's um I think it's um I mean this paper for me kind of because this wasn't the first time we try to publish assembly theory at the highest level, the nature communications paper we on the mass back on the on the idea went through, went to nature and got rejected, went through six rounds reviewing, got rejected and and and it's and I I just was so confused when when the chemist, this can't be possible.

I do not believe you can measure complex that using my spec. And also, by the way, molecules, molecules, the complex molecules can randomly form and would like. But look at the data the data says they said, no, no, we don't believe you and and we went and I just wouldn't up um the the other in the end um was just like the different edit is actually but .

right what's behind that never giving up? It's like when you're sitting there, ten o clock in the evening, there's a melon color feeling that comes over you here. You like, okay, this is a rejection number five or is not rejection, but maybe feels like a rejection because of the comments that you told don't get IT like what gives you trank to .

keep gone there? Yeah, I don't know.

I don't only get emotional about papers, but.

It's not about giving that because we wanted get IT publish because we want the glory or anything. It's just like why don't you understand? And so. So what I did so what what I would just is try to be as as as as rational as possible and say, yeah, didn't like IT tell me why and then, sorry, silly. Never get emotional about .

papers .

Normally but but you but I think what we did just compressed like five years of banks from this.

So but it's been rough.

It's not just rough. It's like IT happened. You know, I came up the assembly equation, you know, remote from Sarah in a arizona and the people s fy.

I feel feel like I was a mad person like, you know, the guy in depicted in in a, in a beautiful mind was just like, not not the actual genius pop. But because I keep writing expanded and I have no mathematical ability, or and I was expanded, I was making these mathematical expansions. I kept seeing the same motif again as, like, I think this is a copy number, but the same string is Carrying again, again, again.

I I couldn't do the math. And then I realized the copy number fell out the equation, and everything collapsed down. I, oh, that works kind of.

So we submitted the paper. And then when IT was almost accepted by the mass spec one, and that was extra about the great, you know, aspect. Roscoe isc, great. And the cameras went, nonsense, like biggest pilot nonsense ever. Fraud, you know.

And I was like, but why fraud? And they just say just because and as I will and so so and and I could not convince the editor in this case, the edit was just so post off because I see is like a kind of are your waste in my time and I would not give up. I wrote, I went, you know, all the part and I think although, I mean, I got upset about that, I was kind of embarassing actually but but I guess beautiful. But IT was just trying to understand why they didn't like IT.

So they were part of me was like, really devastated and economy was supersize i'm like, huh they can't tell me why i'm wrong and this kind of goes back to, you know um when I was at school I was in a kind of learning difficulties class and I kept going to the teachers and say, you know you know how what I do today to prove on smart and they would like nothing you can as I give me a job, you know give me something to do, give me a job to do something to do as we um and I kind of felt like that a bit when I was arguing with the and not arguing is no at home I wasn't telling either they were idiots really like is the review is I kept IT strictly like fact and all I did is I just kept knocking IT down bit by bit by bit by bit by bit. IT was ultimately rejected and I would got publish elsewhere. And then um the actual experiment or data so this is kind of in this paper the experiment or justification was ready published.

So let me did this one and we went through the versions and then we send IT in and in the end, IT just got accepted. We will like, well, that's kind of cool, right? This is kind of like, you know, some days you had, you know the student side them.

The the first author was like, I can't believe i've got accepted like no, my is great. It's like it's good. And then when the paper was published, I was not expecting the backlash. I was expecting computational.

why? What no actually is just expecting one person. We've been trolling me for a while about IT just to Carry on trolling, but I didn't expect the backlash.

And then I I wrote, wrote the other apologize. The adult was like, what do you apologizing for? Was a great paper. Of course, IT is gonna get backlash. He said some controversial stuff, but this is awesome.

And so I think is a beautiful story of perseverance. And the backlash is just a negative word for discourse, which is beautiful.

I think you you as I said to, you know, when I got accepted and people were saying were kind of like hacking on IT, I was like, papers are not gold medals. The reason I wants to publish that paper in nature because IT says, hey, there's something before biological evolution you have to have that if you're not creation, is, by the way, this is an approach. First time someone has put a concrete mechanism oxy quick qualification.

And what comes next you're pushing on is a mechanism and that's what we need to get to is an order colic sets of replicating molecules, some other features that come in um and the fact that this paper has been so discussed for me as a dream come true like you IT doesn't get Better than that if you can't accept a few people hating IT. And the nice thing is the thing that I really makes me happy is that no one has attacked the actual physical content like you. You can measure the assembly index, you can measure selection.

Now is so either that right? Or is well, either that's helpful or unhelpful? If it's unhelpful, this paper will sink down in.

No one will use IT again. If it's helpful, it'll help people build scuffled on IT and we will start to converge for new paradise. So I think that that's the thing that I wanted to see.

You know, my colleagues, authors, collaborators and people like you just publish this paper. You a chemist, what have you done this? Like, who are you to be doing? Evolutionary theory? Like, well, I don't know. I mean, sorry.

did I need to cause is anyone to do anything? Well, i'm glad you did. Let me just before coming back to origin of life in these kinds of questions.

You mentioned learning difficulties. I didn't know about this. So what what was that like?

I wasn't very good. It's cool, right? Is when you're .

very Young, yeah yeah.

When put in primary school, my handwriting was really poor and apparently I couldn't read and and I and my mathematics s was very poor.

So I just said this is a problem they identified IT my parents kind of at the time were confused because I was busy taking things apart, buying electronic jump from a shop, build computers and things um and then was I got out of when I was I think about the major transition in my stupidity like you know, everyone thought I wasn't that stupid without basically everyone thought I was faking. I like stuff and I was faking wanting to be IT. So always want to be a scientist.

So five, six, seven years old to be a scientist, take things apart. Everyone's like this guy wants to be a scientist, business media and so and so so everyone was really confused. I think at first that I wasn't smart at the I know is claiming to be and then I just basically didn't do well in the and down and down and down and down and then and I was kindly like, huh, this is really embarrassing.

I really like math once I can't do IT. I really like kind of know physics and chemistry and all that in science. And people say, you know, you can't, you can't read and right? And so I found myself in a learning difficulties class at the end of primary school, in the beginning of secondary school in the U.

K. Secondary school is like eleven, twelve years old, and I remember being put in the in the remedial class, and the remedial class was basically full of, there are two types, three types of people. There were people that had quite violent, right, you know? And there were people can speak english and there were people that really had learning difficulties. So um.

The one thing I can objectively remember was, I mean, I could read um I like reading I read a law um but something in me I am a bit of a rebel. I refused to read what I was told to read and I found IT difficulty to read individual words in the way that are told. But anyway, I got caught one day teaching someone else to read.

And they said, okay, there, we don't understand this. I I always know what to be a scientist, but didn't really know what that meant. And I realised he had to get university, and I think langues got university like curiously like, no, no, no, you need to have these.

You have to be able to end these exams to get this great point average. And the fact is the exam should be ended into you're not you. You're just going to get C, D, A.

You can't even get A, B or c, right? The U, K, G, D, S, S. It's like, no shit. And so can you just put me into the the high example? No, no, you can to fail.

There's no chance so my my father, I have intervened and said, you know, just let him go in the exams just and they said, he's definitely going to fail, is a waste time, waste of money and he said, well, what if we paid so they said, well, okay, so he didn't actually have to pay and need to pay if a failed. So I took the exam and passed them. Unfortunately, I think like top grades, but I, you know, I got into a levels, but then that also kind of limit IT what I could do, a levels I wasn't allow to do a level mass.

I mean, you are allowed because .

I I had such a bad math grade from my G C, I, C. I, I had to see. But I they wouldn't let me go into abc for mass because of some kind, of course, work requirement.

Back then the top grade I could have got with a sea A C E O A, I got A C and then let me do uh kind of A S level mass, which is this half into media, but and get good university. But in the act like chemistry had a good chemistry teacher. So in the end I got university .

to do chemistry. So to that kind of process, I think for kids in that situation, it's it's easy to start believing that you are not ah how do I put IT the year stupid and basically give up that you're just not good at math, you're not good at school. So this is my way of advice for people, for interesting people, for interesting Young kids right now experience in the same thing. Where was the place? Where was the source of you not giving up there?

I have known what idea other than um I I was really I really like not understanding stuff for me when I not understand something. Um I didn't understand feel like I understand anything but but now but back then I was so I remember when I was like, I know I I tried I tried to build a laser when I was like eight and I thought, how heart could I be like and I basically I was going to a build A C O. I was going to build A C O.

Two lays. And I like, right, I think I need some partially coated mirrors and need some carbon dark side, and I need a high, high, high voltage. So I kind of when I was like, I didn't have, and I was so stupid, right? I was kind of so embarrassed I to make an O C O to, I actually set fire and tried to .

filled of the .

flame to O C O two. And I was like, pleasant, pleasant iled. And I bent half the garage ge down. So my parents, we're not very happy about that. But so that was one thing else like I really like first principal thinking and so you know um so I I remember being super curious and being determined at financiers.

And so the kind of when people do a give advice about this, why I ask advice about this, I don't really have that much advice than give up and one of the things I try to do um as a as a chemistry professor in my group is I I don't I hire people that I think that you know i'm kind of home. I if they're persistent enough, who am I to deny them the chance? Because that, you know, people gave me a chance and I was able to do stuff.

Do you believe in yourself?

sensual. I, I like. So I love being around smart people. And I love confusing smart people. And when i'm confusing smart people, you know, not by stealing their wallets and hiding IT somewhere, but if I can confuse smart people, that is one piece of hope that I might be doing something .

interesting that's quite like is a gradient to optimize yeah hang out with smart people who confuse them. And the more confusing IT is the more there's something there.

And as long as they're not selling, you just a complete idiot and and they give you different reasons. Yeah and I mean, I you know if they because like with assembly theory and people say that all is wrong and I like why and they are like and no one could give me a consistent reason.

They said all because it's been done before just come a goor off or is just that the other so I think the the the thing that I like to do is an in academy, it's hard, right? People are critical. But I mean, you know the criticism, I mean, although I got kind of upset about IT earlier, which is kind of silly, but not silly because obviously it's hard work being on your own or with a team basically separate, literally locked down and and try to keep everyone on board.

And and, and and I have some faith that I always wanted to have a new idea. And so, you know, i'd like a new idea, and I want, I don't. I want to nurture IT as long as possible.

And if someone could give me actionable criticism, as why I think I was try to say earlier, when I was kind of like stuck for words, give me actionable criticism. You know, it's wrong. Okay, why is IT wrong? Oh, IT doesn't equations incorrect for this? Or your method is wrong? And I say, if.

And so what I try and do is get enough criticism and from people to then try, let and go back. And i've been very fortunate in my life that i've got great colleagues, great collaborate as funders, mentors and people that will take the time to say you're wrong, because, and then why I have to do is integrate the wrongness. And I are cool.

Maybe I can fix that. I think criticism is really good. People have a go at me because i'm prety critical and like, but i'm not criticizing, you know, you as person.

I'm just criticizing the idea and trying to make IT Better and say, what what about this and you know, and sometimes i'm kind of, you know, my filters kind of, you know, truncated in some ways. And just like that, wrong, wrong, wrong to some people. Oh my god, you just told me you destroyed my life's work and my relax. No, i'm just like, let's make IT Better. And I think that we don't do that enough because we, you know, we we're either personally critical or we shish helpful, or we don't give any criticism at all because we too scared.

Yeah, I yeah, the i've i've seen you would be pretty aggressively critical. But it's every time i've seen is the idea that the person I am sure I .

make mistakes and that, I mean, I I know, I argue, I argue lots with with lots I mean, I argue lots with Sarah and she's like kind of shark have argued with yesterday in the past he is like, you just make jh a barking you like you just making that up and like, no no, not quite but kind of yeah you know I had a big argument with her about time. He was like, no time. Time doesn't exist. And like, time does exist now. And as he realized the her conception of assembly theory and my conception simply, there was the same thing necessary us to abandon the fact that time is eternal, to actually, really, fundamentally question how the universe produces commentary.

Al, novelty. So also, time is fundamental for something there. I'm just trying to figure out where you are conversion.

So I I think assembly theory is fine in this time right now, but I think IT helps us understand that something interesting is going on. So that and I am really inspired by A A guy called nicky m. I'm gonna touch her, his argument, but I love his argument a lot.

So how I hope he forgives to me if he he's about IT. But basically, um if you want free will, time has to be fundamental and we can go. And if you want time to be fundamental, 嗯， you have to give up on payton's mathematics and you have to use intuition ous mathematics by by the way.

And again, i'm gna boot to this. But basically, hilbert said that you know infinite numbers are allowed and I think that was Browner said, no, you can't all numbers find out. So kind of like quite so let's go back to because we like people in somebody theory seems to explain that large commentary.

Al space um allows you to produce things like life and technology and that large commentary al space is so big is not even accessible to a Shawn Carol, David dodge motivate the physicists saying the um that all of all of universal they exist in time. It's probably provably that's strong, not correct. The we are gonna know that the universe as IT stands, the present, the way the present builds the future.

So big, the universe can't ever contain the future. And this is a really interesting thing. I think max tegmark has its mathematical universe. He says, you know, the universe is kind of like a block. I apologize to max if i'm getting at wrong, but people think you can just move, you'd have to start, you have the initial conditions and you can run the universe and i'm right to the end and go back was and forth in that universe. That is not correct.

Let me load that. And the universe is not big enough to contain the future. Yes, that's why that's to that's another that's a beautiful way of saying that time is fundamental.

yes, and and the you can have and that's what this is why the law of the excluded middle something is true or false only works in the past. Is IT going to snow in new york next week or in Austin? You might in Austin say, probably not in new york.

You might say, yeah, if you go forward next weekend. I did IT snow in new york last week. true? false. You can answer that question. The fact that the law of the excluded middle cannot apply to the future explains why climate is fundamental.

Well, I mean that that that's a good example in tube of example, but is possible that we might be able to predict, you know, whether got snow if we had perfect information.

I think .

you're saying .

IT not impossible impossible. So he is why ah i'll make a really quick argument and this argument isn't mine. It's it's next a few other people.

Can you can you explain his view on fundamental, on time being fundamental?

Yes, so i'll give my view which kind of resonate was his but basically um is very simple actually he would say that free will, that your ability to a design and do an experiment is exercising free will. So he used that full process. I never really thought about that that way, and that you actively make decisions.

I do think that I used to think that free will was a kind of kind of consequences, just selection. But i'm kind of understanding that human freewill, something really interesting when he very much inspired me. But I think that Sarah Walkers, that that inspired me as well, that that these will converge, is that I think that the universe in the universe is very big, huge. But actually the only the place is largest in universe right now. The largest placing .

universe is earth. Yes, I i've seen you say that, and boy does that as an interesting one of the process. What do you mean by that? Earth is the biggest place in the universe.

Because we have this commentary, al scaffolding going all the way back from luka. So you you've got sales that can self, and then you go all the way to terraforming the earth. You got all these architectures, the amount of selection that's going on, biologging selection, just to be clear, biological evolution.

And then you have multiple and animals and abstraction, and went abstraction. There was another kick, because you can then build architecture and computers and a cultures and language, and these things are the biggest things exist in the universe, because we can just build architecture that could naturally arise anywhere and the further that distance goes in time. And this kind of is is just is gigantic and from .

a completely specs yeah okay with me but I mean, I know you're been poetic, but how do you know there's not other earth lake? Um how do you know you you basically is saying .

earth .

is really special, it's awesome stuff is farther ly look out there's nothing like a going on. But how do you know there's not nearly infant number of places where the cool stuff like .

this has gone on? I agree, and I would say I again, that the earth is the most giant's thing we know in the universe commentary. We know, we know now now I guess this is just purely, I guess I have no data, but other than hope, well, maybe not.

Hope, maybe no, I have some data. Um the every star in the sky probably has planets, yes, and life is probably emerging on these planets. But this the amount of contingency that has little a associated with life is that I think the commentary al space association of these planets are so different, we are never going to are caul coes and never gonna overlap or not easily. And this is the thing that makes me sad about alien life. That's why we have to create alien life in the lab as quickly as possible, because I don't know if we're gonna be able to be able to build architectures intersect with alien and intelligence architectures .

intersect. You know me an time.

My biggest .

here in way .

is that life is everywhere, but we will become infinitely more lonely because of our scaffolding. In that commentary, al space, because it's so big. And you're .

saying the the constraints created by the environment that LED to the factory of Darwinian evolution are just a list little tiny cone in a nearly infinite coal space. Other comes like IT. And but what you why can't we communicate with other? Like just because we can't create IT doesn't mean we can't appreciate the creation, right? Like that. A I detect the creation.

I truly don't know, but I is an excuse for me to ask for people to give me money to make a planet simula later. Yeah, right. If I can make .

with a different.

different kind like that, the shameless like, give me money. And .

this was all a .

long .

plug for .

a planets. And my rick garage has run out of room, you know? Okay, no.

And this is a plane simulate, mean, like a different kind of a different environment actly.

If we basically create the selection before biology, as we know if that gives rise to different biology, we should be out to put the constraints on where to look in the universe. So here's a thing, he's my, he is my dream. My dream is that by crying life in the lab, and based upon constraints, we understand this.

Look at the vine's type life, or earth type life for something. Again, do off to point out screw IT this your first point out, an earth ty point now has a different genetic alphabet fine, that's fine. Different protein alphabet fine.

Have sales and evolutional stuff. We will then be, I say, okay, life is more general phenomenon selection is more general than that. What we think is the chemical constraints on life, and we can point the jeans wear and other telescope to other planets that we are in that zone.

We are most likely to commentaries overlap with, right? So because, you know, we bather so there are a chemistry looking for some overnight, and then we can then basically shine light on them, literally, and White look at light coming back and apply advanced assembly theory to general theory of language that we will get and say, huh? We in that signal IT looks random, but there's a copy number. Oh, this random set of things shouldn't be the looks like A A true random number generator has structure as a not come, not come mongolia of A I T type structure, but evolutionary structure given by assembly ly theory. And we start to but I would say that i'm a shameless.

a sely theory. Yeah, I IT just feels like the the cone that might be misusing the world corner, but the width of the corn is growing faster, is going really fast, where eventually all the comes .

over .

that like even in a very, very, very large commute, oral space.

Just but then .

again, if you're saying the universe is also growing very quickly in terms of possibilities that read.

I hope that as we build as we build abstractions, the main I mean one that one idea is that as we go to intelligence, intelligence allows us to look at the regularities around us in the universe and that gives us some common grounding to to discuss with and and you might be right. We will overlap there even though we have completely different chemistry, literally completely chemistry um um that we will be our past information from one another. But it's not a given. And um you know I have to kind of trying divorce hope in emotion, you know away from what I end I can logically justify, but is hard .

to into IT a world, a universe where is nearly infinite complexity objects and they somehow can detect each other but universe .

expanding. But the nice thing is I would say, I would look, you say I think cosan did the wrong that not the wrong thing he flicked the void of program and pale blue dot said, look how big universe I was done that way. That look at the void of paro that came from the planet earth, that came from luca. Look at how big earth is that IT produced, that IT produced that yeah. And that, I think, is like, completely amazing. And then that allow people in everything by well probably we should try and get um cause chains offer on to maz onto the moon wherever when is human life for martian life that we create IT doesn't matter um but but I think um this commentary al space tells us something very important about the universe and the I realized in assembly theory that the universe is too big to contain itself and I think this is and I coming back and I want I want to kind of change your mind about time because i'm guessing that your time is just uncaught yeah so i'm i'm going to .

change when you know that .

i'm change your mind in real time. At least attempt oh.

in real time go already got the tattoo so this been embarrassing if you change my but you can just.

you can just have a time onto IT right raise IT a bit. So and the argument that I think that is really most interesting is like people say the initial conditions are specify the future of the universe. Okay, fine, let's say that the case for moment.

Now let's go back to newtonian mechanics now the uncertainty between ple in nantongo um mechanics is this if I give you the coordinate of your of an object moving in space and the ordinance of another object and they collide in space and you know those initial conditions, you shouldn't exactly what's going happen. However, you cannot specify these coordinate to infinite precision. Now everyone said, you know, this is kind of like, you know um the kale syria argument and is deeper than that.

He is a problem with numbers is how this is where hubert and bra fell out to have the coordination of this object to give an ideas, a colliding, you have to have them to infinite precision. That's what hilbert says is is no problem in from the precision is fine. Let's just take that for grant.

But when the object is finite and IT can't store its own coordinate, what you do. So in principle of a final object cannot be specified to infinite precision. In principle, the initial conditions don't apply.

Well, how do you know canst or its? Well.

how do you store an infinite long number in the the finite size wall?

We're using infinity very loosely here. No, no, we're use infinite precision. I mean, not loosely.

but very precise.

You think infinite precision is required?

Well, the object, say the object is a golf golf balls a few centimeters in diameter. A we can work out how many items are on the golf ball. And let's say, we can store numbers down to atomic dislocations.

So we can work out how many atoms are in the golf poll, and we can store the coordinate in that golf pool to that number. But beyond that, we can't let's make the golf for smaller and and this is where I think that we think that we get random in quantic mechanics and some people that you can't get random quantum mechanical mastic. But uh huh, this is where this is where we realized that classical mechanics and content mechanics suffer from the same uncertainty principle.

And that is the inability to specify the initial conditions to precise enough degree to give you determinism. The universe is intrinsically too big, and that's why time exists is non deterministic. Looking back into the past, you can look at the, you can use logical arguments, because you can say, what is your all false, you really know. But this is the fact we are unable to predict the future with the precision, is not evidence of lack of knowledge, is evidence of universe, is generating new things.

okay to you? First of economic ics, you can just say statistic, what's gona happen to golf ball to each other.

statistically. But that, but sure, I can say statistic, what's going happen. But then what they do happen, you keep nesting together. You can't, I mean, goes almost back to look at, look at, look at, let's think about entropy in the universe.

So how do you how do we how do we understand um entropy change? Well, we could do the look at our process. We can use the egoi hypothesis. Um we can also have um um um we can also have the uh counterfactual where we have all the different states and we can even put that in the multiverse, right, where both those are kind of they they they're nonphysical. The multiverse kind of collapses back to the same problem about the precision so all the the what you if you accept, you don't have to have true and false going for the future. Um the real numbers are real that just just the observably we're trying .

to see exactly where time being fundamental sneakin IT in the difference between the the golf ball can contain its own position perfectly precisely if how that least time need to be fun .

let me I like, what do you do you believe or do you accept you have free will?

Yeah, I think at this moment in time, I believe that I have free will.

So then you then you have to believe that time .

is fundamental stand, that the day you've made know .

that we can logically follows because if you don't have free will, so like if you're if you're in a universe that has no time, universe is deterministic. If it's deterministic that you have no free will.

and adding the space of how much we don't know is so fast that saying the university deterministic for jumping free will, it's just too difficult of a leap.

No, I logically follows. No, no, I I disagree. No, i'm not saying any me is deep and it's important all all i'm saying and it's different of, is that actually different? What I ve said before is that if you don't require platonism mathematics s and accepts that the non determinism is how the universe looks, and that gives us our creativity in the way the universe is getting novelty, it's kind of really deeply important in assembly service.

Assembly theory starts to actually give you a mechanism why you go from boring time, which is basically initial conditions, specify everything to a mismatching creative time, and I hope will do experiments. I think it's really important to I would love to do an experiment that prove that time is and the universe is generating novelty. Um I don't know all the features that experiment yet, but bi, you know, having these conversations openly and getting people to think about the problems in a new way, Better people, more intelligent people with good mathematical backgrounds, and say, hi, i've got an idea.

I D love to do an experiment that shows that the universe, I mean, universe, is too big for itself going forward in time. And and I really, you know, this is why I I really hate the idea of the boltzman brain. The boltzman brain makes me super kind of like, you know, everyone's having a free lunch is like saying, is like what? Let's rate the orders of physics.

So a bosman brain is this idea that in a long enough universe of brain will just emerge in the universe, is conscious without. And that neglects the chain of evolution that required to produce that brain. And this is where the computational argument really falls down because the computations could say, I can calculate probability of about some brain and I can, can and they'll give you a probability I can, can probably of boston brain zero.

just because this space of possibility is so large.

Yeah, it's like when we start falling ourselves with numbers that we can actually measure and we can't ever conceive of, I think I think IT IT IT doesn't give us a good explanation. And I become I want to explain that why life is in the universe. I think life is actually novelty minor, not I mean, life basically minds novelty almost from the future, and makes IT actually zed in the present.

okay? Life is a novelty minor from the future that is actualized in the present. I think novelty, minor, first of all, novelty.

What's the origin of novelty when you go from boring time to create time? Where's that? Is IT as import as renders, like you refer to?

I am really struggling. randomness? Ss, because I had a really good argument with the bark about randomness.

Ss, nis said randomness doesn't give you free. Well, that's insane cause you just be random. But I think and I think he's right at that level yeah.

But I don't think we I don't think he is right on another level and it's not about randomness, is about is about constrained. The sound likes constrained OPPO, making this up as A O A lot. So making yourself constrained opportunity.

So what I mean is like, so you have to have so the novelty, what is novel tea? You know, this is what I think is a funny thing you ever want to discuss A I why I think everyone's kind of gone al mad is that they misunderstanding? 嗯， novelty? But I think about novelty is what is novelty? So I think novelty is a genuinely new configuration that is not predicted by the past right, and that you discovered the present right.

And um that is truly different right now. Iphone says that some people say that novels y doesn't exist is always with president. I want to do experiments that show that that is not the case.

And IT goes back to a question you ask me a few moments ago, wishes. Where is the factory? Yeah right. Because I think the same mechanism that gives us a factory gives us novelty. And I think that that is that is why i'm so deeply hung up on time. I mean, of course i'm wrong, but how wrong and I and I think the the life opens up that commentors al space in the way that that that are current laws of physics or the what has contrived in a deterministic initial condition universe, even with the get out of the multiverse David dodge style which I hate love by the way but I don't think is correct but it's it's it's kind it's really beautiful the that David dochters conception of the multiverse is kind of like given um but I think that the problem with wave particle duality economy mechanics is not um about the more diverse is about understanding how determine the past is why I don't think just think that actually this is a uh discussion I was having with Sarah about that right he was like I think we been debating for a long time now um about how we how do we reconcile novelty to determinism in determinism so okay.

just to clarify you, both you and I think the universe is not deterministic.

I I won't speak for sera, but I think roughly I I think that the universe I think the universe is deterministic looking back in the back in the past, but undetermined going going for in the future. So i'm kind of having my cake and eat, eat in here. This is because I fundament you don't understand randal's ess, right? As yash told me or other people told me.

But if I adopt a new view now, which the new view is, the universe is just non deterministic. But i'd like to refine that and say the universe appears deterministic going back in the park, but IT isn't IT, but is undetermined going for in the future. So how can we have a determined, the universe has deterministic, believe looking rules.

This non determined going in the future is this breakdown in precision in the initial conditions. And we have to just stop using initial conditions and start looking at project tories and how how the commentary al space, perhaps in expanding universe, in time, in space and assembly theory, helps us qualify. The transition to biology.

On biology appears to be novel in mining. Cause is making crazy stuff, you know. And we are unique to earth, right? There are objects on there are unique to earth. They will not be found anywhere else because you can do the .

commentary math um what is that thing you made about life? Is noelle mining from the future? Yeah was the little element of time the introducing? So what i'm kind of meaning .

is because the future is bigger than the present in the deterministic universe. How do you go from the? How did how the how did the states go from one to another? I mean, there's a mismatch, right? Yeah so so that must mean that you have a little bit of in determinism with that random this or something else I don't understand.

I want to do experiments to formulate a theory to refine that we go forward that might help us explain that. And then and I think is why i'm so um determined to try and crack the the non life to life transition looking at at networks and molecules and that might help us think about IT the the mechanism. But somehow the future is bigger than the past in my conception of the universe and some conception universe.

And by the way, that's not obvious, right? That's just kind of the future being bigger the past. Well, that that's one statement.

The statement that the U. S. Is not big enough to contain the future in another statement.

Yeah, yes, yeah. That one is a big one, is really a big one, I think so I think but I think it's entirely because we have the second law. And right now, I mean, i'm we don't need the second law if the future is bigger than the past, IT followed naturally, right? So why are we retrofitting all these these sticking class is on to our reality to hold onto a time of universe.

Yeah but that's because kind of divulge to imagine the universe sites that can contain the future.

But it's not really exciting.

It's very exciting.

But it's it's hard.

I mean, we are humans on earth and we have a very kind of four dimensions conception of the world of three deeply st. Time is just hard to into IT a world where what does that even mean? A university can contain the future.

Man, it's kind of it's kind of crazy. But I mean.

I suppose that sounds obvious. Yeah, if is true.

But the nice thing if you can say, I mean, so the reason why I assembly they returned me onto that was that you there's just start in the present and look at all the complex molecules and go backwards in time and understand how evolutionary process is go rise, is not is not at all obvious. The tax ole, which is a complex one, the most complex natural products produced by biology, was gonna. Invented by biology is an accident.

You know, taxi is unique to earth. There is no taxi elsewhere in the universe. And taxi was not decided by the initial conditions.

IT was decided by this kind of the this interplay between the, so the past simply is embedded in the present IT give some features. But why the past doesn't map to the future, one to one, is because the universe is too big to contain itself. That gives space for creativity, novelty and some things which are unpredictable.

Well OK. So given that you're disrespecting the power of the initial conditions, let me ask about how to explain that cellular time are able to produce such incredible complexity given basic goods and .

basic intial conditions. I think that this falls into the brow helpt trap. So how do you get a cell? Automatic, produce a complexity. You have a computer, you generate a display, and you map the change of that in time. There are some C A repeat by functions.

Like, it's fascinating to me that for pie, there is a there is a formula where you can go to the the million of this small place of pie and read out the the number without having to go there. But there are some numbers but you can do that. You have to just crank through this um whether it's will framing, computational reduced ability or some other thing why doesn't matter. But C S that complexity, is that just complexity or a number that is basically your mining that number in time? Um you know is that just as this place screen for that number.

that function complexity?

No because the complexity on earth um has a copy number and assembly indexation with that that C A is just a number running.

You don't forget as a copy number where I went .

in minute well IT IT does in the human kind way, way, way looking at humans producing different rules. But then it's nested on selection. Those C A are produced by selection.

yeah. I mean, the C A is such a fascinating suda complex e generation. What I would love to do is understand um quantify the degree of surprise in A C A, right? Not long enough.

But what that, I guess, that means is we have to intensive, we have to have a numbers experiments. We were generating different rules and running them time, best steps. But I got IT c on mining novelty in the view from the in the future by iteration, right? And you know all that's great.

That's great. You didn't predict IT some rules. You can predict that that what's onna happen? rules. You can. So for me, if anything, C, A are evidence that the the universe is too big to contain itself, because otherwise you'd know what the rules are going to .

do forever more, right? I guess you are saying that the physicists saying they all use initial conditions in the rules of physics, uh, is somehow missing the bigger picture?

yeah. And you know.

you look A, C, A, all you need is initial condition. 人？ And the rules and the only .

thing you need。 Three things. You need the initial conditions. You need the rules and you need time iteration to mind IT out without the corporate.

you can't get IT out. sure.

And that that, that and predict the condition, if you could.

That time is a great foundation .

of this .

is the history, the memory of each of things I created. IT has to have that memory of all the things that lend up to IT. I think it's yeah.

you have to have the resource. Now this time is a fundamental resource and and yeah i'm becoming I think I had a major. Epiphone y about randomness, but I keep doing that every two days. And then that goes away against random year.

year time fundamentals.

And you should be as well if you believe in free will. Yeah, the only conclusion is there is, time is fundamental, otherwise you cannot have free will. IT logically follows.

Well, my my the foundation, my belief in free will is just a, is an observation driven. But that I think you use logic. It's like logically seems like the universe is deterministic.

looking back was in time, and that's correct. The universe is .

and then everything else is is is a kind of leap. IT requires a leap.

I mean, I think the it's kind of this is what I think machine learning is going to provide a big a chunk of that, right? Because IT helps us explain this. So the way i'll say.

if you take that interest.

why? Well, let's this just them. My favorite one one is because I am the A I dumas are driving me mad in a, in fact, that we don't have any intelligence. I I call I autonomous systematics, just to make people grump.

Y, yeah. And because you are saying we're .

quite far away from G I, I think that we have no conception of intelligence. And I think that we don't understand how the human brain does what he does. I think that we are neurosciences making great advance, but I think that we have no idea about agi.

So I am a technological, I guess, optimist. I believe we should do everything. The whole regulation of AI is nonsensical. I mean, why would you regulate excel other than the fact that clippy should come back? And I love XL nine, seven, because we can play, you know, we can do the light flight similar.

H, uh, sorry.

Yeah, if you not played the flight is simulate or not? yeah. Seven, yes. Was that look like? It's like why a frame very, very basic. But basically I think it's x zero, y zero shift and IT opens up and you can play the fights simulate.

oh, well, IT is using excel.

excel, excel ninety seven. Okay, I reacted the other day. And so clippy again for the first time in a long time.

Well, clippy is definitely coming back, but you're saying we don't a understanding.

I am very frustrated .

underpinning the human mind.

I'm very frustrated by the way that um we're A I doing ing right now and people are bestowing some kind of magic now. Um let's go back a bit. So you say agi, we far away, major.

Yes, I do not think we are going to get to A G I anytime soon. See no evidence of IT. And the AI dome scenario is nonsensical and extreme. And the reason why I think is nonsensical, but it's not none.

And I don't think there isn't things we should do and be very worried about, right? I mean, there are things we will need worry about right now. What A I doing, whether it's fake data, fake users, right? I want authentic people, authentic data.

I don't want everything to be fake, and I think it's a really big problem. And I am absolutely want to go on the record to say I really worry about that. I'm not worried about is that some fictitious entity is going to turn a little to paper clipsed or did a nuclear bombs?

I don't know, maybe I don't know, do anything can think of why is this is an, i'll take a very simple series of logical arguments and and this is the the the A I dumas have not had the current, and they have not had the correct, they do not have the correct epidemiology. They do not understand what knowledge is. And until we understand what knowledge is, they are not going to get anywhere because they applying things fly.

So let me give you a very simple argument. People talk about the probability p doom A I um I can we can work out the probability of a asteroid hit the planet. why? Because this happened before.

We know the mechanism. We know that there's a gravity well or that, you know space time is been and stuff falls in. We don't know the probability of A G M, because we have no mechanism.

So let me give you another one, which was like, i'm really worried about A G was A G. A G is ani gravity. One day we could wake up an antigravity, you know, is discovered.

We're gonna die. The atmosphere is going float IT away. We're going to flow IT away. We're all doomed.

What is the probability of A G we don't know because there's no neck mechanism for A G do we worry about IT? No and I don't understand the current um reason for the for the for certain people in certain areas we generating this nonsense. I think they're not doing IT maliciously.

I think we're observing the emergence of new religions, how religions come because religions are about kinds, some controls. So you got the optimism. A is gonna kill and A I is going to kill us all.

What's the reality? Well, we don't have an eye. We have really powerful machine learning tools, and they allows to do interesting things. And we need be careful about how we use those tools in terms of manipulating human beings and faking stuff. right?

right? Well, let me, let me try to still in the addams argument. Actually, I don't know, is our AI tumors in the at cosy camps and .

is definitely kill us because this, I was on the today ious things. But I think your house is you, the coast at ninety five percent.

but to belong to the air, generally. B is there a thresh hold? I don't know the fees. I .

think well, I saw I think it's got aronson like I was quite surprised to have put to I. I saw this some lies that could be wrong. So sorry, if it's wrong says two percent. But the thing is, if you were to if you if someone said there's a two percent chance you can to die going into the lift, would you go into the .

lift in the elevator for the yeah eleven english can you will know not for the elevator.

So I would say anyone higher than two percent, I mean, like I I mean, I think there's a zero percent chance of A G item zero.

Just to push back on the argument where the end of zero on H I, we can see on earth there increasing levels of intelligence of organisms. We can see what humans with extra and intelligence were able to do to the other species.

So that is A A lot of samples of data, what adept and intelligence gives you when you have an increasing intelligence hie you able to dominate species 下。 And so the idea there is if you have a being that ten x smarter than humans, we're not to be able to predict what that's going to with that being is going to be able to do, especially if IT has the power to hurt humans, which you can imagine a lot of sectors in which the more benefit A I systems give, the more control will give to those A I systems over our power grade of are are nuclear weapons or weapons of any export. And then it's hard to know what are alter intelligence in system will be able to do in that case, find that convincing.

I think this is I I would fail that argument one hundred percent. His number of reasons to fail IT on. First of all, we don't know where the intention comes from.

The problem is that people think that keep you know, we think, I think, watching all the huxta online with a prompt engineering and other stuff. When I talk to a typical A I computer scientist, they keep talking about the A I S having some kind of decision making ability. That is a category era.

This decision making ability comes from human beings. We have no understanding of how humans make decision. We just been discussing free will for lost off now, right?

We don't even know what that is. So the intention, I totally agree with you, people who intend to do bad things can do bad things, and we should not let that risk go. That's totally here and now I do not want that to happen. And i'm happy to be regulated to make sure that systems I generate, whether they're like computer systems or you know, i'm working on a new project called called cam mr.

nice. Well done.

Yeah yes, which is basically for people .

who don't understand the point that x mark is a great uh, film about A S A G I embodied in chemist chemistry version of that.

And I only know one way to body intelligence. I think chemistry, human brains. So category are a number one is agency. They have agency category. Number two is saying that assuming that anything we make is gonna be more intelligent.

Now you didn't say superintelligent, i'll put the words into our mouths, his supermarket, that I think that there is no no reason to expect that we are gonna systems are more intelligent, more capable. You know, when people play chess computers, they don't expect to win now, right? They just the chess computer is very good at chess.

That doesn't mean it's super R N intelligence. So I think that super R N intelligence, I mean, I think even nick boston is, is pulling back on this now, because he invented this. So I see this a lot.

When does see first happen? Eric jli, na, technology atomically precise. My machines. He came up with the world, and we had these atoms cox everywhere they were. We're going to make self replicating nanobots not possible.

why? Because there is no resources to build self replicate any bots, you can't get the precision. IT doesn't work.

IT was a major category a, and the taking engineering principles down to the molecule level, the only functioning molecular technology we know that, sorry, the only functioning none molecular technology we know produce by evolution there. So let's go forward to A G. I.

What is A G I? We don't know, is super. I can do this.

So can humans can't think that I would argue the only aging eyes exist in the universal produced by evolution. And sure, we may be make our working memory Better. We might be a be able to doing more things.

The human brain is the most compared computing unit in the universe, uses twenty watts, uses a really limited volume, is not like a ChatGPT cluster, which has to have thousands of what model that's generated. And you have to be corrected by human beings. You are autonomists and embodied intelligence.

So I think that there are so many levels that we're missing out. We've discontent. Oh, we've discovered fire.

Oh, gosh, the planets just gona burn one day randomly. I mean, I just don't understand that leap. There are bigger problems we need to worry about.

So what is the motivation? Why are these people? Let's assume they have their earnest, have this conviction. Well, I think it's it's kind of they're making lips that they're trapped in a virtual reality that isn't reality.

Well, I mean, I can continue that arguments here. But also IT is true that ideologies, that fear monger are dangerous. Because you can then use this to control the to regulate in a way that a house progress to control people, to a, to cancel people, just so you have to be careful.

Reason ultimately wins, right? But there is a lot of concerns with super intelligence systems, very capable systems. When I think when I when you hear the word super intelligence, you're hearing like it's smarter than humans in every way that humans are smart.

But the paper clip manufacturing system doesn't need to be smart in every way, need to be smart specific ways. And the more uh, capable the access become, the more you can see us giving them control over, like I said, a power. Gd, a lot experts, the human life. And that means the'd build to do more, more damage when there's untended consequences come to life.

I think that that's right. The unintended the consequence as we have to think about and that I fully, I fully agree with. But let's go back a bit sentience. I mean, i'm going on far away from my comfort zone and the stuff behave.

Let's talk about IT as more I give myself a qualification and the paper clip scenario .

is just such a poor one because let's think about how that would happen um and also to think about we are being so unrealistic but how much of the earth's surface we have common deed you know for paper MIT clip manufacturing to really happen. I mean, do the math is like it's it's not going to happen.

There's not enough energy, there's not enough resource when is going to come from I think that what happens in the evolution is really is why is why is a killer virus not killed out all of, not killed all life on earth? What happens is, sure, super killer virus is that killed. The rivers have emerged.

We know what happens. They look a small space, and because they can't propagate, they will die. So they seem to play between evolution and propagation, right, and death.

And so in evolution, you don't think it's possible to engineer for examples, I to interact, but like a perfect virus. No, that's deadly enough.

No sense. Okay, I think that just wouldn't. Again, IT went works. IT was too deadly. I just kill the radius, not replicate IT.

yeah I mean, you don't think is possible .

to get A I mean, if you were soup, I mean, if you were IT not kill all .

of life on earth, but kill all humans is not many of us is only like a billion, but there's so much more so more and and they're pretty smart.

I think we the nice thing about what we where we are, I would love for the A I crowd to take a leaf out of the book of the bio warfare, chemical warfare crowd. Um I mean not love because actually people have been killed with chemical weapons in the first and second way war and people and buy weapons have been made. And you know we can argue about COVID nineteen and all this stuff.

Let's not go there just now. But I think there is a consensus that some certain things are bad and we shouldn't do them right. And um and sure IT would be possible for a bad act to to engineer something bad, but the the damage would be we would see IT coming and we will be able to do something about IT.

Now I guess what i'm trying to say is when people talk about doom and they just when you ask him for the mechanism, they just say, um you know they just make something up. I I mean, in this case on we yana, could I think you could put out very good up point about trying to regulate dear engines before we've even invented them. Yeah and I think that's what i'm saying. I'm not saying we should I just don't understand why these guys are going round making literally making stuff up about us all dying yeah when basically we need to actually really focus on now let's say there's some actors are earnest and say you the cosy is being on it's dry any really case but but he loves IT because and then you're gna die like, you know, why did we tried the same like you could do this and then you're going to be happy forever after yes.

Well, I I think there's several things to say. There are one, I think there is a wrong society for people that say what are going to die as I think, uh, IT filters through as a message is a viral message that gives us the proper amount of, uh, concern OK right? Mean not the is not ninety five percent, but when you say ninety five percent and IT filter through society, you'll give an average of like a point zero three percent, an average.

So it's nice to have people are like we're all gonna die that will have a proper concern. Like for example, I do believe we're not properly concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons currently like that. IT just seems that people have forgotten that that's the thing. And you know, there's a war in ukraine, but nuclear power and folders, nuclear power of the world, and IT just feels like one on the brink of a potential world war to a percentage that people properly calibrating like in their head were all thinking is a twitter battle, I suppose, to like actual threat. So like it's nice to have that kind of level of concern, but to me, like what I when I hear I do or what i'm imagining is with an unintended consequence as a potential situation where, uh, let's say, five percent of the world suffers deeply because of a mistake made of unconcern, maine, the entire human is dying but there's could be a lot of suffering if this is done.

I I understand that and I I kind of I guess I mean, i'm involved in the whole hype cycle, like why what I would like us to, I don't want us to. So what's happening right now is this seems to be so let me this say, having some people saying, I, I, I, I dom is a worry, fine, let's give them that.

But at what seems to be happening as there seems to be people who don't think A I is, they're trying to use that to control regulation and to push people to regulate where, which, which stops. Humans generate knowledge, and I am an advocate for generate as much knowledge as possible when they nuclear weapons. I grew up in the seven eyes where there were nuclear doing, a lot of adults would really had existential for almost as bad is now with A I doing, they were really worried.

right? There was some great, but not great. There was some horny risc documentaries. I think there's one called friends that was generated in the U. K.

Which was like this was terrible, was like so scary um and I think the the correct thing to do is obvious ly get rid nuclear weapons. But let's think about unintended consequences. We've got rid of decision on sea.

We've got rid of all the sulfate particles in the atmosphere, right? All the IT. And what's happened in the last couple years as global warming is accelerate IT, because we cleaned up the atmosphere too much.

So sure. I mean the same thing. If you get a new up.

good. exactly. That's my point. If so, what we could do is if we actually started to put the A I in charge, which is I really like an ai to be in charge of all world politics. And this sounds ridiculous, a second hanging.

But if we could all agree on the air, you just woke yeah yeah yeah yeah statement.

But I really don't like politicians who are basically just looking at local sampling. But if you could say globally, look, here's some game theory. Here is how what is the minimum number of nuclear weapons we need to strip you around the night, the world to everybody, to basically reduce war to zero.

I mean, it's just the start experiment of the united states and china, russia, major nuclear powers get together and say, I, we can distribute nuclear weapons every single nation on earth. A boy, I mean, that has a probably greater than fitty percent chance of eliminating major military conflict. Yeah yes, but it's not a whole percent.

But but I don't think anyone will use them because I think I think and look, what you've got to try and do is like food to qualify for these nuclear weapons. I is a great idea. I was the game theorists could do this right? I think the question is this.

I I really buy your question. We have too many looks from just from a feeling point of view that we ve got too many of them. So there's reducing number, but not a rid of them because we have too much conventional.

So then what is the minimum number of nuclear weapons we can just state around to remove what humans hurting each other is something we should stop doing, is in, is not out with a are conceptual capability. But right now, what about the nations? Certain nations are being exploited for their natural resources in the future, because for a short term gain, because we don't want generate knowledge.

And and so if everybody had an equal doom's day switch, I I predict the quality of life, every humor will go up faster. I am an optimist and I believe that humanity is gonna get Better and Better and Better, that we're going to eliminate more problems. But I think, yeah.

that's the probability of a bad actor of one of the nations setting off a nuclear weapon. I mean, you have you have to integrate that into the.

but we, we, we just to be the nuclear nukes like population, right? We give what we do is we very way this just just go there. They say, so if if a small nation with a couple of nuts uses, because they are a bit bored or annoyed, they can that they the likelihood that they all can be pumped out of existence immediately is one hundred percent.

And yet they're only theyve only note one of the city. I know this is crazy and apologize. No, no.

I think it's just a bit clear. We're just having a thought experiment that sensitive. But you know there's terrorist organizations that would take that would take would take that trade.

Yeah.

I think and we have to ask the question of how many, which percentage of humans would be suicide bomb? Essentially, they would sacrifice their own life to to, because they hate another group of people. And that, I believe, is a very small fraction, but is IT large enough to a.

if you give out nuclear weapons, I can predict the future where we take, say, look, there's a gap. So we get all the countries to sign up to the virtual nuclear agreement, where we all exist, we have a simulation, and where we can knew each other in the simulation and and the economic consequences .

are catastrophic. Sure, in the simulation, I love IT is not going to kill all humans, is just going to.

I don't know, I just made that up.

This seems not it's resting, I think. But it's interesting whether that would have as much power on human psychology as actual physical.

Nuclear is possible.

but people don't take economic consequences as seriously, I think, as actual nuclear weapons.

I think I do in argentina and they do in somalia and they are doing a lot of these places where, no, I I think this is a great idea. I'm a strong outvoted. Now thought so what we come up, we have burning, burning all the nuclear material to our energy.

And before we do that, because mad is good, mutually a assured destruction is very powerful. Let's take IT into the metaverse and then get people to kind of, uh, subscribed to that. And if they actually knew each other, even for fun in the meet diverse, there are dire consequences.

Yeah yeah. So it's like a video game. We want to join this metaverse video game. Yeah.

I can be the .

connect. I don't know how and it's all one by AI, as you mentioned, which to the AI doors are really terrified at this point.

They're happy to have a job for another .

fit twenty years right here monday.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We got, I believe, an equal employment.

You've mentioned that would he call IT can marka? Yeah yeah. So you mention that A A chemical brain is something interesting creating, and that's where to get conscious eye soon. Can what a chemical brain is?

I want to understand the mechanism of intelligence has gone through evolution, right? Because the way the way that um intelligence was could produce by evolution appears to be the following origin of life. Multiple liar's low emotion senses one, if you can start to see things coming towards you, and you can remember the past and interrogate the present and imagine the future, you can do something amazing.

right? So, and I think only in recent years did humans become cheering complete. right? Yeah, right. Will go. And so that cheering complete this kind gave us another kick up um but our ability to process that information um as produced in a wet brain. And and I think that we are not getting going.

We do not have the correct hardware architectures to have the domain flexibility and the the ability to integrate information. I think intelligence um also comes at a massive compromise of data. Right now.

We're obsessing about getting more and more data, more and more processing, more and more to get dopamine hits. So when when we look back on this going, yeah that was really cool cause when I ChatGPT IT made me IT made me really feel really happy. I got a hit from IT. But actually I just exposed how little intelligence I use in in every moment, because i'm easily fooled.

So what I would like to do is to say, we'll, hey, hang on, what is IT about the brain so the brain has this incredible connectivity and has the ability to um you know, as I said earlier about my nef w, you know I just why I went from bill to billion and went, hello, right li, like how did he make that leap that he was able to basically without any training, I extended his name. He went, he doesn't like he was wooled bill. He went back and said, he likes to be called ly, i'm going to call you um so human beings have a brilliant ability or intelligent beings appeared to have a brilliant 的 ability to create across all the mains all at once and to sympathize something which allows us to generate knowledge and and becoming cheering complete on our own。

I don't although a eyes are built in cheering complete, things that they're thinking is not during complete and that they are not able to build universal explanations and that lack of universal explanation means that they are just inductively and ductile. Sm doesn't get you anywhere and not not it's just basically a party trick. It's like, you know I like the, I think it's in the fabric.

C A reality from David dodge where basically you, the farmer is feeding the chicken every day and the chickens getting fast and happy. And chicken s like, i'm really happy every time the farmer comes in and fees me. And then one day the farmer comes in and doesn't, instead of feeding, the chicken just rings its neck, you know, that kind of, and had the chicken had turned in understanding of why the farmer was feeding IT.

It's interesting now because we all know what special about the humane and able to come up with these kind of generalities and this universal theory of things. So and we'll come up with novelty. I can imagine, because you gave an example, you know, about a woman new way. I feel like.

Example like that will be able to see in future versions of large language models will be really, really, really impressed by the humor, the insights, all of IT because it's fundamental, trained and all the incredible humor and insight is available out there on the internet, right? So we will be impressed. I think we will be impressed.

Oh, i'm impressed. I'm impressed. Increasingly so. But we're mining the past, yes. And what the human brain appears to be to do is mind the future.

yes. So novelty IT is interesting. Whether these large language models we will ever be able to come out with something truly novel.

I can show on the back of a piece of paper with that, impossible. And it's like, the problem is that, and again, this domain experts kind of bullshit each other. The term generative, yes, right. Average person they are is generally no, no, no.

If look, if I take the the numbers between zero and one thousand and I train a model to pick out the prime numbers by giving all the prime numbers twen zero in a thousand, he doesn't know what prime number is. Occasionally, if I can cheat IT a bit, will start to guess you never will produce anything out with the dataset because you're mind the past. The thing that i'm getting to is I think that actually current machine learning technologies might actually help reveal why time is fundamental.

So like I even saying, because they tell you about what's happened in the past, but they can never help you understand what's happening in the future without training examples. Sure, if that thing happens again is like, so I think so let's think about what large doing tomorrow are doing. So we have the land.

We have all the internet as we know, you know, language, but also they're doing something else. We're having human beings correcting IT all the time. Those models are being corrected. I'm .

stared .

correct. Modified tweets is yeah but I mean, cheating.

While you could say that training on human data in the first places, cheating.

that human is in the loop, yes.

so human is definitely in the loop. But it's not just human is in the loop, a very large collection of humanism. The and that could be, I mean, me is not in tude of that, he said, prime numbers that the system can generate an algorithm, right, that the algorithms that can generate prime numbers or the algorithm can tell you the numbers province on and generate algorithms that generate algorithms.

that generate algorithms .

that that start to look a lot like human reasoning. You know.

I don't think, I think again, we can share them the piece paper that, sure, I think that hat you have to have. So this is the failure in episode biology. Like, I am glad I even can say that what what that means. I said.

multifaith quit while here ahead. You don't say that again.

You did really well, I think so. But I I think so. What is reasoning? So coming back to chemical brain, if I could basically, if I could show that in a because, I mean, i'm afraid to make an intelligence in canada because we don't have brain cells, they don't have gal cells, I don't have neurons. But if I can make, if I can take a mature jail and engineer the jail to have to be a hybrid hardware for a great programme, which I think I know how to do, I will be a process, a lot more information and train at date, train models billions of times cheaper, and use cross the main knowledge. And there's certain technical, I think we can do, but it's still missing though the the abilities of human beings have had to become sure incomplete.

And so I guess the question to to give back at you and I is like how do you tell the difference tween trial and era um and the generation of new knowledge? I think the way you can do IT is this is that you come up with A A theory and explanations, inspiration and comes from out yeah and then you then test that and then you see that's going towards the truth. And human beings are very good at doing that in the transition tween philosophy, mathematics, physics and natural sciences where, and I think that we we can see that where I get confused is why people miss appropriate the term artificial intelligence, to say, hey, there's something else going on here because I think you and I both agree, machine learnings really good.

It's only get Better. We can get happier with the outcome. But why would you ever think the model was thinking or reasoning? Reasoning requires intention and the intention. If the model is in reasoning, the intentions come from the prompter and the intention is come from the personal programmed IT to do IT.

So I I um but don't you think you can prompt IT to have intention basically start with initial conditions and get IT going where the currently large language models to GPT only talks you when you talk to IT, there's no reason why you can just started talking.

But with but those initial tion conditions came from someone starting IT. yes. And that calls all chain in there.

That intention comes from the outside. I think that there is something in that calls or chain of intention that super important. I don't disagree. We're going to get to wag. I is a matter of when and what hardware. I think we're not going to IT in this hardware, and I think we're unnecessarily fetishizing really call outputs and doper because obviously, that's what people .

wanted sell us well. But there could be I mean, A G S is a lot of term, but there could be incredibly super impressive intelligence systems on the way to A G I. So these large language models, I mean, if IT appears conscious, if IT appears super intelligent, poor way to say is not.

I agree, but I, the super intelligence I want, I want to, I want to be able to have a discussion with IT about coming up with fundamental and new ideas at generate knowledge. And if, if the super intelligence to generate can mine novel ever in the future that I didn't see, and its training set in the past, I would agree, is something really interesting is coming on. I'll say that again, if the, if the intelligent system, a human being, a chat about something else, is able to produce something truly novel that we, I did, could not predict, even having full lowed IT trail from the past, then I would be sold well.

So should be clear that you can currently IT can currently produce things that are in a slow sense novel that are not in the training set. But you're saying truly novel.

I think they are in the training set. I think everything IT produces comes from the training that they might be. There's a difference tween interpret novelty in interpretation.

We do not understand where these leaps come from here. That is what intelligencies is. I would argue those lips and some people say no as as he.

Just what will happen if you just do cross the main training and all that stuff? And that may be true, and I may be completely wrong, but right now, the human mind is able to mind novelty in a way that artificial intel gent systems can. And this is why we still have a job and we still doing stuff.

And I use ChatGPT for a few. All this is cool. And then I took me too.

I had to, I, what happens? IT took me too much time. I correct. Then they got really good, and now they're y've done something to IT .

is not actually like.

good. Yeah, right?

I IT was going on here. yeah. So, I mean, that's interesting.

But I will push us humans to a characterized novelty, but characterize the novel like, what is novel? What is truly novel? What's the differently novelty and interpretation?

I think this is the thing that makes me most about these technologies is they going to help me demonstrate to you that time is fundamental. Unit future is bigger than the the the present which is why we we uh human beings are quite good um generating novelty because we have to expand our data set and and to cope of unexpected things in our environment, our environment frozen or less again, we have to survive in that environment. And I mean like that I I never say never I would be very interested in how we can get um cross the main training cheaply in chemical systems because i'm chemist and bray. The only thing in thing I know of his human brain but maybe that's just me being boring, predictable and novel.

Yeah, you mentioned the GPT for elections density. So GPT existence for generating molecules that combine to host automatically, I mean, that's that's interesting. That's really interesting. Apply this the same kind of transform mechanical.

yeah. I mean, this is one IT goes, my team. I trying to do things are non obvious, but no obvious since in areas.

And one of things I was always asking about in chemistry, people like to represent molecules as graphs, and it's quite difficult, is really hard in what you're doing. A I in chemistry, you really want to basic, have good representations. You can generate new molecules, are interesting and are thinking what molecules aren't really graphs and they're not continuous ly differential.

Could I do something that continually differentiation is like, well, molecules are actually made up late from density. And then they got thinking, say, well, okay, could there be a way where we could just basic take a take a database of readily solved electron densities for millions of molecules? So we took the electron dency of a millions of molecules and just train the model to put to learn what electron dency is.

And so what we built was a system that you literally could give IT a, let's say, you could take a protein, have a partial active side, or know, a cup of a certain hole limit, you pour noise into IT, and with a GPT, you turn the noise into extra deny. And then in this case, at halcon, ates, like all of them do, but the halcon ates are good, because IT means I don't have to train on such a large nump, such a huge data set, cause these dataset are very expensive. Because how do you produce IT? so? So go back to steps.

You've got all these molecules in this data set, but what you've literally done is a tent mechanical calculation. We produce electronic encies reach molecule. So you say all this representation of this molecule has the electronic density associated with IT.

So you know what the representation is that you train the neural network and what electronics is. So then you give me an unknown pocket, you pour in noise, you say, right? Produce me.

An electronic IT produces electron density. That doesn't look ridiculous. And what did we did? In this cases? We produce electrons density that maximize is the electro static potential to the stickiness, but mean, the miss is what we call the stereo indra.

So the overlap, it's repulsive. So, you know, make the perfect fit. And then we then used that, a kind of like a ChatGPT type thing, to turn that little on density into what's called the smile.

A smile string is is a way of representing a molecule and letters. And then we can then just just generate just generate them. And then the other thing is then we bound that into the .

computer and then just makes IT yeah .

the computer being the thing that .

so kind of we kind .

of got this into end drug discovery machine, where you can say you want to buy into this active site. Here you go. I mean, it's a bit lucky and things kind of break, but is a proof principle.

Were the whole nations? What are those still a accurate? Whether hallucinations .

are really great in this case because in the case of a large model, the hallucinations, just like just make everything up to when IT doesn't just make everything up, but he gives you an output that you're plausible, comfortable with her thinks are doing probably tics. The problem on these ultron density models is it's very expensive to solve a shouldering equation going up to many heavy atoms and and large molecules.

And so we wondered if we trained the um the the system on up to nine heavy atom where they would go be on nine and he did. He started generate molecules to twelve, no problem, but they look pretty good. And I like, well, this hallucination I will take for free.

Thank you very much. Because it's just basically this is a case where interpolating extrapolating work relatively well um and we were able to generate the really good molecules. And then what we were able to do here is, and this is a really good point.

What I was trying to say earlier, we were able to generate new molecules from the known day asset IT would bind to the the host. So a new guest to bind where these truly novel? Not really because they they they were constrained by the host where they knew to us.

yes. So I do I understand I can can see that machine learning systems, artificial intelligence systems can generate new entities. But how novel, although IT remains to be seen .

yeah and how novel the things that humans generate is also difficult to a quantify. They seem novel.

That's what a lot of people say, like, you know. So the way to really get to genuine novelty and assembly theory shows you the way is to have different calls or chains overlap and the reading this really resonate with the the the time is fundamental argument.

And if you're bringing together um a couple of object objects with different initial conditions coming together when they interact a more different there histories, the more novelty they generate in time going forward. And so IT could be the genuine novelty is basically about mix. Mix IT up little, and the human brain is able to mix IT up at all little.

And all that stimulus comes from the environment. But all I think i'm saying is the universe is deterministic, going back in time. None determines to go for in time, because the future is took.

The universe is too big in the future to contain in the present. Therefore, these collisions of known things generate unknown things that then become part of your dataset and don't appear weird. That's how we give ourselves comfort. The past looks consistent with this initial condition hypotheses, but actually would generate a more, more novelty. And that hard works simple.

So it's hard to quantify novel looking backwards, I mean, the number of the president future of the novelty generators.

But I I like this whole idea of mining novelty. I think IT is um IT is going to reveal why the limitations of current AI is a bit like a printing press, right? Everyone thought that when when the printing impress came the writing books is gonna be terrible that had evil spirits and all this, they were .

just books and saying, would be with A I yeah but I think there just a scale you going to achieve in terms of impact with a systems pretty no working.

But that's what the big companies want you to think.

but not like in terms of destroy all humans. But you can have major consequence in the social media has had major consequence, both positive, negative. So I can think about and worry about IT. But yeah people that .

fear monger you know my pet theory yeah for this you want to know is I think that um a lot and maybe i'm being and I think I really do respect um you know um a lot of the people out there who are trying to have discourse about the positive future. So OpenAI guys met a guys and all these. What I wonder if they're trying to cover up for the fact that social media had a pretty disastrous ous effect on some level and they are just try they are yeah we should do this because could covering up for the fact that we have got some problems with you know teenagers and instagram and snap chat and you know, all this stuff and maybe they're just overreacting now yeah, it's like, oh yeah, sorry. We made the people onic played and gave at you and you are all dying and no yeah but what look at this over .

here even worse yeah, a little bit of that. But there's also not enough celebration of the positive impact that all these technology has had. Tend to focus on the negative and tend to forget that is in part because it's hard to measure like it's very hard to measure the positive impact. Also, media head in the world.

Yeah, I agree. But if what I worry about right now is like i'm really I do care about the ethics of what we're doing and one, the reasons why i'm so open about the the things were trying to do in lab, make life, look at intelligence. So this is so people say, what are the consequences of this and say what the consequences of not doing IT.

And I think that what worries me right now in the present is lack of authenticated users and authenticate data. And human users. Yeah, human.

I still think that there will be A I agents that appear to be conscious, but they would have to be also than to get label as such. There's too much there's too much value, you know like friendships with the assistance. There's too much meaningful human experiences to have with the assistants that but .

that's like at all, right? It's a bit like a meditation tool, right? Some people have a meditation tool makes them feel Better. But i'm not sure you can ascribe sentence and legal rights to a chatbot that makes you feel less lonely.

sanctions? Yes, I think a legal rights. No, I I think is the same. You can never really deep me for a relationship with the dog.

with a dog cent, yes.

the chat box not right now.

using the technology we use is not can be sent in.

That's gonna a fun continue conversation on twitter that I look forward to a 呃 since you ve had also from another place some debates that were inspired red by the other theory paper， a basketball god. Is there any room for notions of god in assembly theory?

I've got, yeah, I don't know what god is. I mean, so god exists in our mind, created by selection. So the human beings have create the concept of god in the same way that human beings have create the concept of super intelligence.

sure. But does does that mean does this not is still could mean that that's a projection from the real world with a good is assigning words and concepts to think that is fundamental to the real world, that there's something out there that is created force, underline universe.

I think the university there is a create force in universe. But I don't think it's it's sent. I think that so I do not understand the universe.

So who am I to say, you know. The god doesn't exist. I am an atheist, but i'm not an angry athene's, right?

I have lots of, I have lots. There are some people. I know that angry aist, you know, say that religious people are stupid. I don't think that's the case.

I have faith in some things because I don't, I mean, when I was a key, like, I like you like what I need to know what the charge of electron is like, gave up and fave e resist works. So when IT comes to, I want to know why the universe is growing in the future, what humanity is going to become. And i've seen that the the acquisition of knowledge via the generation of novelty to produce technology has uniform, made humans lives Better. I would love to continue that tradition. And you .

said, there's that creative force, do you think just think at that point, do you think there's a creative force? Like is there like a thing, like a driver that's like that's creating stuff?

Yeah, I think so I think that we can describe .

IT like mathematic. I think election.

I think selections .

is the selection .

is the false in the university, creates novelty .

selection, somehow .

fundamental. Like, yeah, I think persistence of objects that could decay into nothing, fruit Operations that maintain that structure. Me think about IT, if is amazing, that things exist at all, that would just not become material mess. yes.

So the find exists in the the the thing that exists, persistent time.

Yeah, let's think maybe the universe is actually in the present. The things, everything that can exist in the present does exist.

Would that would mean it's deterministic, right? No.

I think the universities might. So the universe started super small. Past was determined that there wasn't much going on. It's able to mine, mine, mine, mine, mine. And so the process I mean is um somehow generating um universe is basically I try to put this you just say there's no .

free will though.

No, I didn't .

say that.

Sorry, I said there is free will. I think I think I I am saying that three will my course at the boundary between the the best of future, the part in the future.

Yeah, I do. But everything that can exist does exist.

everything that is so everything is possible to exist that this so no.

really is a lot of loaded words there. And had there's a time element loaded into this.

I think that the universe is able to do what in the prison right now. And then I think in the future there are other things that could be possible, can imagine lots of things, but they don't all happen. sure. So that's that's sneakin .

all right there.

yeah. So I guess what i'm saying is what pray exist is a com is a convolution of the past with the present and the free will going into the future.

We can still imagine stuff, right? We imagine things.

And it's amazing force, because you imagine that this is the most important thing that we don't understand, as imaginations can actually change the future in a tangible way, which is, what if the fit, the initial conditions and physics cannot predict, like your imagination has a causal consequence in the future.

This is that weird to yeah.

IT breaks the laws of physics as we know them right now.

Yeah, so you think the imagination is a causing effect in the future? Yeah, but he does exist in, they are in the head and there must be a lot of power and whatever is going on, there could be a lot of power, whatever is going on in there.

if we then go back to initial conditions, and that is simply not possible, that can happen. But if we go into if we go into a universe where we accept that there is a finite ability to represent numbers, and you have round IT or not rounding errors, you have some, the some what happens the your ability to make decisions, imagine and do stuff, is that the interface between the certain and the uncertain. It's not, as yasha was saying to me, random as go and just know randomly do random stuff IT is you are set free a little on your trajectory. Free will is about being out to explore on this narrow jacory allows you to build you have a choice about what you build or that choices you interacting with the future in the present.

What do you is most beautiful about this whole thing? The universe.

the the fact that seems to be a very undecided, very open and the fact that um every time I think i'm getting towards and answer to a question there are so many more questions that make the the chase you .

know um you hate gna be over at .

some point no I for me, I don't. So I I, I I think if you think about IT is IT overfilling now new in has had causal consequences in the future? We discuss him all the tires ideas.

but not the person.

The person just had a lot of cause of power when he was alive. But oh my god, one, the things I want to do leave as many east acts in the future when i'm gone to go. That's cool.

Would you be very upset if somebody made a good large language model that's fine tune to IT would .

be quite boring because I mean, I mean, I am velly generation. I would I mean, if it's a faith representation of what i've done in my life. That's great. That's an interesting artifact. But I think the most interesting thing about doing each other as we don't know what we're going to do next.

sure. sure.

I mean, within some constraints, i've got you know you might I I can predict some things about you, you can predict some things about me, but we can predict everything, everything. And it's because we can't predict everything is why we're exciting to come back and discuss and see is. So yeah, i'm happy that it'll be interesting that some things that I ve done can be captured, but i'm pretty sure my. Anger one, mining the alty from the future will not be capture.

Yeah yeah. That's what life is, is just a some nail ty generation. And you don't each one is just general little bit. I think I have the capacity .

to at least I think life is a selection, produces life, and life affects universe in the university. With life in them are materially, physically, fundamentally different and universe without life. And that's super interesting.

And I I have no beginnings of understanding. I think maybe this is like in a thousand years, i'll be a new discipline in the humans. We, of course, this is how IT works, right?

And in retrospect, CT will be obvious thing.

I think of seven theory. obvious. Why lot people go angry, right? They were like, oh my god, this is such nonsense, no. And like, oh yeah, now actually is not quite, but the writing is really bad.

Well, I can't wait to see word of walls. A lee, and I am glad to get to exist in this universe with you. You're fascine human.

This is always a pleasure. I hope to talk you many more, many more times. I'm a huge vanoc st watching you create stuff in this world. And thank you for the pleasure.

Always like thanks having me on.

thanks for listening to this conversation will leak ronin to support this, both guests please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words and calls. Second, we can judge your progress by the curse of our questions in the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.