← Mayim Bialik's Breakdown
Mayim Bialik's Breakdown
Part Two: Quantum Mechanics Breaks Our Idea of Time. Dr. Stephen Wolfram Explains How the Universe Contains Infinite Timelines Unfolding Simultaneously in a Multi-Threaded Structure
01:02:09
Loading summary
Transcript204 lines
- [00:05]
Mayim Bialik
Time. It's always vanishing. The commute, the errands, the work functions, the meetings. Selling your car. Unless you sell your car with Carvana. Get a real offer in minutes, get it picked up from your door. Get paid on the spot so fast you'll wonder what the catch is. There isn't one. We just respect you and your time. Oh, you're still here. Move along now. Enjoy your day. Sell your car today, Carvana. Pickup fees may apply.
- [00:35]
Marshall's buyers are hustling hard to get amazing new gifts into stores right up to the last minute. Like a designer perfume for that friend who never RSVP'd wishlist topping toys for her kids who came, too.
- [00:47]
Stephen Wolfram
Mm.
- [00:48]
Mayim Bialik
Belgian chocolates for the neighbor, A cozy scarf for your boss, and a wool jacket for your husband that you definitely did not almost forget. Marshalls, we get the deals, you get the good stuff. Even at the last minute. Find a Marshall's near you. Hi, I'm Mayim Bialik.
- [01:06]
Jonathan Cohen
And I'm Jonathan Cohen.
- [01:08]
Mayim Bialik
And welcome to our breakdown. This is part two of our conversation with Dr. Steven Wolfram. He's the creator of Mathematica Wolfram Language. He's a pioneering figure in computational thinking for over four decades. He also was the science consultant on the movie Arrival, which is something we're going to talk about with him in. In Part two, we're going to talk about his thoughts on aliens and alien communication. We're going to talk about language and how human language is actually simpler than we thought, as well as trying to understand how computers communicate as a model for how maybe we are communicating with each other. We'll discuss free will and consciousness. And is time linear? We can't wait for you to hear part two of our conversation with Dr. Stephen Wolfram. Break it down. So let's go into aliens because not just for the flashiness of it, which we are sometimes interested in. You know, what do people who are thinking at these high levels think about things like this, but from also an astrobiological perspective, from a alternate perception of reality perspective. I mean, I don't think we're asking the question, are we alone in the universe? I think it's pretty clear that we're not. But tell us where you want to talk about aliens.
- [02:26]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, I mean, you know, I think it's a sort of philosophically muddled concept that we have minds that work in a certain way. There are many things in the universe that we might say do mind like things. I mean, a favorite thing people say is, you know, the weather has a mind of its own. Right, and what does that mean? Well, there's fluid dynamics processes in the atmosphere that are doing all kinds of complicated things, Just like in our brains. There are electrochemical processes that are doing all kinds of complicated things. How do we compare kind of the electrochemistry of our brains with the fluid dynamics of the weather? They're both doing complicated things. Can we say one is fundamentally simpler than another? Well, I happen to have done a bunch of science to do with the thing I call the principle of computational equivalence. That kind of says there isn't really a way of saying no, but the weather is somehow fundamentally simpler than a brain. They're kind of computationally equivalent things. Now we say, well, the brain, the weather, might have a mind of its own, but it's not a mind like ours, It's a different kind of mind. Well, lots of things in the physical universe I think do quotes mind like things. The issue is how closely aligned are they with minds like ours? How much are they minds where we can recognize them as being kind of as being minds like ours. And I think this is a thing, you know, you're talking about sort of spirituality and so on. And there's the question, you know, the spirit of the wind, so to speak, you know, is it a mind? Is the wind a mind like thing? Well, I think at a sort of computational level, yes, the wind is a mind like thing, but it's not a mind like ours. And so the question is really out in the physical universe, there are many things which are computationally as sophisticated as our minds. In fact, many things that are much beyond the computational sophistication of our minds in terms of having more components than we have neurons in our brains or whatever else. But yet the question is, are the things that are going on in those things, are they somehow aligned? Are they minds like ours? Are they sufficiently aligned with our minds that we will. That we can, for example, communicate with them? You know, communicating the weather, you know, tough, tough, tough thing. I mean, you know, it's not communicating with a dog. A little bit closer. You know, I think that this is so to me, this question of sort of, are there aliens out there, so to speak? The answer is there are aliens all over the place. There are alien intelligences all over the place. The issue is, are they close enough in the way I try to describe these things in what I call rulial space, the space of sort of possible rules for describing how things work? Are they close enough that we can communicate with them in some way? The universe as we were talking about before is quite big. It's a long way from here to the next nearest star and so on. You know, the physical universe that you might traverse with spacecraft is pretty big. The rulial universe, as I call it, the universe of all possible rules, is in some respects vastly bigger than that. So this question of can you get from a mind like ours to this alien mind, the distance you have to go is much greater than the sort of distance you'd need to go in a spacecraft to get to the next nearest star, so to speak. So in other words, the distance to that alien mind is very great. And for us to be able to kind of align the way we think with the way that alien mind thinks is a big challenge. Now, you know, we have a test case in terms of AI because, you know, AI is a thing that is an alien mind. We attempt to align it. I mean, a raw neural net doesn't do human like things. A raw neural net just hangs out and has random bits flying around. After you train the neural net, you can align it to do things that are quite human, like, like tell pictures of cats from pictures of dogs and so on. And then the question is, well, so now we've got kind of this mind that we can sort of experiment with, that we can align with our mind by training it in the right way. I've done some little experiments which are kind of like artificial neuroscience experiments where you take a trained neural net and you say, let's say it's a neural net that makes pictures of cats. You've told it to make a picture of a cat. The ordinary neural net makes a picture of a cat. Now you start sort of changing pieces of that neural net. So you make it go from a mind that was aligned with a human mind to sort of an alien mind by changing the innards of the network.
- [07:13]
Mayim Bialik
Okay, does it make a cat?
- [07:14]
Stephen Wolfram
It does not make a cat. It starts off making a cat, but as you start changing it, it's. It actually one of the more bizarre things that happens. If you just increase the weights in this neural net, the picture it makes looks like it's blowing its mind. The cat starts turning into funny colors and it puffs out. And it's very bizarre. And it really is. It's something where you're seeing sort of in this, as you see it going to a more alien mind, it is producing a thing which we can still see it's a collection of pixels, but it looks less and less like what we would recognize as a cat. And one of the Things to realize is that to me, it's like there's in some part of the sort of space of things it can produce. This picture of a cat, there's a lot of other stuff it can produce.
- [08:05]
The way I think about it is there's things like cats that we have words to describe. There's lots of stuff out there that we don't have words to describe. I tend to call that interconcept space. It's kind of the, you know, there's little islands, tiny islands actually, that we have sort of human language to describe, and vast domains that are still producible by an alien mind, by an even slightly alien mind, but which are completely undescribable by us humans.
- [08:37]
Mayim Bialik
We talked about this with Adam Frank, we talked about it with Avi Loeb. We've talked about it, I think, with Jan11.
- [08:43]
Jonathan Cohen
The.
- [08:43]
Mayim Bialik
The notion that we can only see what we can see, we can only perceive what we can perceive. But in a universe that is made of the things that our universe is made of, there is no reason to not be able to project that there are other beings, other perceptions, other systems, many of which are likely far more advanced than. Than us in theory, and are using AI, possibly are farming us to be obedient underlords. No, but, but I'm just saying the notion that you can extrapolate out and say in a universe made of this, absolutely. There are many, many ways to compute this. For lack of a better word, there.
- [09:28]
Stephen Wolfram
Is computation going on everywhere. You can think of it as mind like computation going on everywhere. But the question of whether we can understand what's going on in that mind like computation, that is the role of science. Science is about going from the complicated fluid flows of turbulent fluid flow or something and saying, now we've got this narrative that allows us that we can get into our minds, that allows us to connect the ways we can think about things with what's actually going on in the natural world. What's special about minds like ours? That's one thing you might ask. Why is a mind like ours what's fundamentally different between the weather and a mind like ours? And I think one of the things that is characteristic of minds, brains like ours, is we tend to do one very definite thing, which is we take in lots of sensory input, you know, gigabytes a second or something of sensory input, and then what do we do with it? In the end, maybe 10 times a second, we decide we're going to move this muscle, we're going to do this thing we're kind of taking this vast amount of data from the outside world, and we're focusing it all down into what should we do next. And I think that's one feature of kind of. That's sort of an essential feature of our kind of consciousness, is that we have this kind of thread of experience that comes out. You know, all this stuff is going on in the world. We whittle it all down to do.
- [10:56]
Mayim Bialik
I look fat in these pants?
- [10:58]
Stephen Wolfram
Yes. Or something. Right. I mean, it's. You know. But. But the thing is, that's a feature of sort of systems like us. When it comes to something like the weather, it's not doing that. It's just doing. Every little piece of the weather is doing what it's doing. It's not doing this. Concentrating down to get this kind of one thread of experience. We're not the only things that do that. You can certainly make, certainly, AI systems do exactly that. They go from all the different possible pixel arrangements of a picture of a cat and a dog, and they say, that's a cat, that's a dog, that's doing the exact same kind of thing that we're doing when we take all that sensory input and kind of concentrate it down. So I think that's one sort of thing that, in a sense, is kind of disappointing to realize because we might have thought with our minds and brains. We're the most computationally fancy things in the universe. It's not true. We're actually ones that are rather specialized, that have a rather definite way of operating. I mean, my slight guess is that how did we get that way? I think it may be something very mundane. Like a couple of billion years ago, there had been organisms that were spread out and were just. Every little piece of the organism was doing a different thing. And then suddenly an organism realized, I can be mobile. And, you know, there's a. There's a little blob of stuff, and it has to. When you're a single blob of stuff that's mobile, you have to be able to decide, am I going to go left or am I going to go right? And once you need to make that decision, you start to have to do this thing of saying, let's take all the sensory input I have and turn it into, do I go left? Do I go right?
- [12:37]
Mayim Bialik
That's still an astounding. It's an astounding event.
- [12:44]
Stephen Wolfram
Well, yes and no. I mean, there are plenty of systems. Look, any. You know, you make a landscape, let's say, you know, out of you make a clay landscape or something like this and you put a ball, you know, ball bearing somewhere on this landscape and you rattle it around a bit, the thing will roll down to, you know, a lowest point on that landscape. It doesn't matter where you put the ball, it'll still roll down to that same, you know, if it's, if it's within that catchment basin for that place, it will rol. Lowest point. And that's an example of this phenomenon of taking lots of possible inputs and saying, yep, it's going to, you know, it's closest to that point or it's closest to that point. So I don't consider that a, you know, it's a, it's a thing that very naturally happens in lots of kinds of systems.
- [13:31]
Mayim Bialik
Okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna push you on this though, because the notion to say that, that a blob quote realized, there's no realizing.
- [13:38]
Stephen Wolfram
No, there's no realizing. That's a mere anthropomorphism on my part.
- [13:42]
Mayim Bialik
Yeah. You look at you anthropomorphizing single celled blob. And me saying, that's remarkable that a blob would do that. It, I mean, to me that's. Look, it's why I, it's why I chose to study what I studied. It may not be why you chose to study what you studied, but that's remarkable. You know, I remember the first time I started thinking, okay, I have a mother and she had a mother and then she had a mother. What, who, how far do you go back? How did we get all the people? Like that was, you know, this was as a teenager. But when I started thinking like, wait a second, what, how? And this is not that. My conclusion was that evolution didn't happen. It was this notion that how did we get here? You know, which is really the essence, I think, of, of all of these parts.
- [14:29]
Jonathan Cohen
Mind Biox breakdown is supported by Incogni.
- [14:32]
Mayim Bialik
Your personal data is everywhere online and that makes you an easy target for scammers. Websites legally publish and profit from your info. Your name, home address, even court records. Once it's out there, it is fair game for stalkers, identity thieves, or really anyone with bad intentions. Last year alone, data breaches skyrocketed by over 200%. That means your private details could already be floating around shady directories, AI summaries and people search sites waiting to be exploited. That's where Incogni comes in. Incogni hunts down your exposed personal data, not just from data brokers. But from across the entire web. Directories, search results, company databases. Gone. Their custom removals feature takes it even further. Just send them a link and your dedicated privacy expert will handle the takedown. Whether it's a random court record or a sketchy people search profile, they'll make it disappear. Reduce your risk of scams and identity theft, protect your privacy, and reclaim your online solitude. All in just three steps. Create your account, give one time authorization, and let Incogni do the rest. Remember, they can't harm you if they can't find you. Add up to three emails, addresses and phone numbers to uncover even more hidden permission profiles. With the unlimited plan, you can send in any link and watch it vanish. Plus, it's risk free. Cancel anytime or get your money back within 30 days if you're not satisfied. Scammers are getting smarter, but with Incog, you're one step ahead. They're the only data removal service independently verified by Deloitte. Because your privacy deserves proof, take your personal data back with incog. Head to incog.com mayim and use code mayim m a y I m to get 60% off an annual plan.
- [16:02]
Jonathan Cohen
That's code m a y I m@incogni.com mime mayimbalax breakdown is supported by incogni.
- [16:11]
Mayim Bialik
Guess what? Your personal data is everywhere online, and that makes you an easy target for identity theft scammers.
- [16:17]
Jonathan Cohen
Oh, yeah.
- [16:18]
Mayim Bialik
Websites legally publish and profit from your info. It's not paranoia, it's true. Your name, your home address, even court records. Once it's out there, it's fair game for stalkers, identity thieves, or anyone with bad intentions. Last year alone, data breaches skyrocketed by over 200%. That means your private details could already be floating around. Shady directories, AI summaries. People search sites waiting to be exploited. That's where Incogni comes in. They hunt down your exposed personal data, not just from data brokers, but from across the entire web. Directories, search results, company databases. Gone. Their custom removals feature takes it even further. Send them a link and your dedicated privacy expert will handle the takedown. Whether it's a random court record or a sketchy people search profile, they will make it disappear. Reduce your risk of scams and identity theft. Range, protect your privacy, reclaim your online solitude. All in just three steps. Create your account, give one time authorization, and let Incog do the rest. Remember, they can't harm you if they can't find you. Add up to three emails, addresses and phone numbers to uncover even more hidden profiles with the unlimited plan. You can send in any link and watch it vanish. Plus, it's risk free. Cancel anytime. Get your money back within 30 days if you're not satisfied. Scammers are getting smarter, but with Incogni, you're one step step ahead. They're the only data removal service independently verified by Deloitte. Because your privacy deserves proof, take your personal data back with incog. Head to incog.com mayim use the code mayim m a y I m to get 60% off an annual plan.
- [17:46]
Jonathan Cohen
That's code mayim@incogni.com mime.
- [17:53]
Mayimbial breakdown is supported by Bubs Natural Getting older hit.
- [17:57]
Mayim Bialik
Harder than you expected. I know it did for us from stiff joints in the morning Recovery from the gym Taking longer hair, thinning nails, breaking dry skin that's lost its glow Aging can really suck. But it doesn't have to. Luckily, Bub's Naturals Collagen Peptides are here to help you turn back the clock. Starting in your mid-20s, your collagen production actually starts to naturally decline. That's where Bubs Naturals Collagen Peptides comes in. BUBS helps restore collagen levels closer to what your body naturally had in its youth so your joints feel stronger, your hair and nails grow healthier and your skin looks smoother. Collagen is the most abundant protein. It's often referred to as the glue that's holding us all together.
- [18:34]
Jonathan Cohen
I want extra glue to hold me together. That's why I use BUBS and I found a really big difference. I'm actually very impressed.
- [18:41]
Mayim Bialik
You are bouncing back faster after workouts. It's allowing you to play more, which is great.
- [18:45]
Jonathan Cohen
I'm actually bouncing specifically. I'm doing a lot of jump training and it's helping a lot more.
- [18:50]
Mayim Bialik
Bouncing no complaining about joint pain. Bubs is different than other collagen products with no junk, zero sugars, sweeteners or fillers. They're three third party tested and NSF certified for sport and Whole 30 approved. You know it's clean and trustworthy. Bubs is sustainably sourced from grass fed pasture raised cattle and dissolves seamlessly in coffee, water or smoothies without taste or clumps. They have over 100,000 happy customers and were voted 2024's best collagen by health.com Bubs Naturals also sells electrolyte supplements, MCT oil creamer and more. Live better, longer for a limited time only, our listeners are getting 20% off at Bubs Naturals by using code BREAK at checkout just head to Bubs Naturals.com use code BREAK and you're all set. After your purchase, they're going to say, where'd you hear about us? Please support our show. Tell them we sent you.
- [19:39]
So the real thing that I have been waiting to talk to you about, and I wanted to talk about all these other things so you would think that I'm a legitimate person, is Arrival is one of my favorite movies. And it's a movie that means a lot to me because of its significance. And I didn't know that it was essentially because of you.
- [19:59]
Stephen Wolfram
No, not because of me. I was just a small piece in the machine.
- [20:04]
Mayim Bialik
But now that I know where you fit into this, it's really, really beautiful. And I've read the piece that you wrote, and even. Just even looking at the diagrams, I mean, it makes me emotional because this was a movie that, I mean, I've showed my kids, like, it's like many conversations, it brings up so many things about, is time linear? Is love linear? Is love. The ultimate glue? Right. That's binding us together. And what does it look like? And what are the risks of stepping out of the way? We think things operate into a completely different level of understanding. And that is what is needed if you're going to think about aliens. It's what's needed if you're going to think about quantum mechanics. It's what is needed if you're going to think seriously about anything outside really of the reality that you were dropped into. So can you talk a little bit about your relationship with this movie and what you were able to bring from your research that is immortalized in, I think, one of the most beautiful movies about not only the possibility of aliens, but communication, love and time.
- [21:19]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, I mean, you know, the dynamics of these things. You're in the movie business, I'm not. This is one of my rare, you know, dippings into that kind of world. It's, you know, I think one feature of that movie. You know, one of my kids worked on that movie with me, and he wrote one feature of that movie that's kind of fun is that, you know, there are all these sort of images that come from the aliens. And the question is, what do they mean? And there's a bunch of code you see in the movie that's an attempt by the scientists to understand those images and so on. The code that makes the sort of the things the scientists are figuring out, if you run that code, it actually makes those images. It's, I think, a pretty much unique movie. In which the code that you see is the code that actually makes the ways of analyzing those images. And it was kind of was also fun because that was done on the set, a bunch of that movie. That code was written in real time, so to speak, of, you know, this is what we get. This is the technology stack I've been building for years that I have to say my youngest son is probably better at operating than I am. That's just the way it works.
- [22:42]
But no, in terms of the.
- [22:45]
Movie, the whole sort of notion of the way that you describe things affects the way you think about things. That's a. That's a very interesting kind of question of, you know, much debated by people.
- [23:02]
The question of. Is the language that you use to describe things, the thing that drives the way you can think about things. And that's certainly a central idea in that movie. And it's something which, for me, as a person who spent a large part of my life as a computational language designer, I like to believe that the things that I'm inventing in the language that I'm inventing affect the ways that people think about things. And I. And I think that is very demonstrably true for computational language. It's something that's less obviously true for human languages. But, you know, I think the other. I mean, in the dynamics of the practicalities of movies, you know, the movie has a bunch of interstellar spacecraft, and there was a moment when it was like, there's a whiteboard. And I guess it was, Amy Adams is doing something in front of the whiteboard. And it's like, can you draw a whiteboard that has a sort of plausible theory for what physicists in the 21st century would say about, you know, about these interstellar spacecraft? And by the way, leave a piece of the whiteboard, you know, blank, because, you know, AB Adams hair goes in front of that part. And it's really hard to composite, you know, with. With the frizzy hair type thing.
- [24:14]
Mayim Bialik
One of the, I think, neat things about arrival. Um, and I. I don't. I mean, if people haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. I mean, if you. If you watch Contact, that's obviously, you know, that's one perspective from a very different era about, you know, communication. If you watch Interstellar, you know, Kip Thorne, you know, if you watch Interstellar, that's also. That's leaning kind of closer. But Arrival, you know, is this notion of, you know, what happens if the person who is trying to understand what possible alien communication is, was a linguist And I remember when I saw the movie, I was thinking, what? She's a language specialist. Like what? Cause I'm thinking, aliens, physics, right? Astronomy, all these things. And the fact is, what is revealed is. And I can't give it away because if people haven't seen it, you have to see it.
- [25:09]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, yeah. I was trying to avoid doing spoilers.
- [25:12]
Mayim Bialik
Here, but what I will say is, what if it takes someone who knows more about communication and intention than equations to be able to breach what it would be like to step outside of your own perception? Right. And the other notion that I'd love for you to touch on, and you may not have had a part in this, but I am curious your take on it. You know, we think of time as a line, right? There's I was born, then I have my hyphen, and then I die, and that's it. And if you study, you know, relativity, you get to see, like, oh, there's actually a bend, right? Like, things are different depending on the perspective you're looking from. And that's all, quote, relative. Right. But this conversation is more about is it possible that there is a plane of time or space time that either loops back on itself or exists in some sort of, you know, the way that, you know, Thomas Campbell describes it, some sort of, like, beautiful undulating fields which, if you've ever done psychedelics, you strike me as someone who may not be into it. No, but people who report, you know, essentially this kind of, like, undulating field that physicists, you know, often depicted, where each particle is also a wave and it's a simultaneous existence. Is time like that as well?
- [26:44]
Stephen Wolfram
You had two pieces to this. So the first one is about linguists and language and so on. And I think, you know, as I've been saying a few times, you know, science is this attempt to bridge from the natural world to things that we understand in our minds. Language is this way of packaging up thoughts so that we can express them. And these are two very, you know, very related kinds of things. Now, the question of when it's a. When you're trying to understand something that hasn't been understood, it's not clear how far sort of the study of human language can take you in understanding. You know, human language has certain structure, much of which we don't understand very well. The big one of the big things that has come out of LLMs and the sort of modern AI is something people are very surprised that it's possible to have this neural net produce fluent human language. I think the main thing that that reveals is that human language is simpler than we thought. In other words, we've known that human language has the feature that, like in English, sentences are constructed with noun, verb, noun, structure. But what has never really been classified as which noun, which verb, which noun? And it turns out there is sort of a statistical structure of, well, this kind of noun goes with this kind of verb, and that's kind of what the AI discovered, and that's kind of the way those patterns work. So the thing that was the surprise was that human language is simpler in structure than we thought it was. And so if you ask the question, is human language the right raw material for understanding something, for example.
- [28:25]
From, from the natural world, My immediate take would be that it's actually not a particularly strong.
- [28:37]
The human language as such is actually pretty weak compared to what we already know in more formalized systems from computation and so on. But this is a non trivial look. For example, one question I was curious about recently is, is we humans have used compositional language.
- [28:58]
We can take pieces of sentences and fit them together with other pieces and so on.
- [29:04]
Dogs probably can't. Maybe they understand one word at a time, but they don't understand. The whole sort of compositional structure of human language is probably lost to them.
- [29:16]
Mayim Bialik
I mean, they understand fear from 100 yards away, so they have different, certain abilities.
- [29:22]
Stephen Wolfram
Yes, for sure. But this whole sort of structure, this formalized structure that we have of compositional language, they probably don't have. And it's sort of interesting that if you look at our brains, their brains a thousand times smaller or whatever, one of the discoveries in the world of AI is as you make the neural net progressively bigger, the set of things that it ends up being able to do gets progressively larger. Like it can start recognizing images at a certain size, it can start generating language at a certain size. So that raises the question, if we had brains that were a thousand times bigger than our brains, what kinds of abstract concepts would we invent that are really not accessible to us right now? And that's for somebody like me who likes to think about sort of foundational questions and abstract things. It's a little bit frustrating to imagine that there might be a level of abstraction that, sorry, but brains like ours just don't manage to reach that.
- [30:17]
Mayim Bialik
Right, but. But even with the development of, you know, the frontal lobe as we know it, and we sort of know a bit about that course, at least in our brief time, you know, here on this planet, tracking primate development, we do know that there was a solution. Right? How do we get the most matter through the birth canal. Right? We, I mean, I mean all those, all of those details, right. Biology helped us program. Right, right.
- [30:45]
Stephen Wolfram
There's a particular solution that electrochemical brains use. And you know, as you get bigger brains, more of the brain is full of wire, basically connecting things.
- [30:53]
Mayim Bialik
Exactly.
- [30:54]
Stephen Wolfram
And you know, if the brain is a thousand times bigger, it's all wire. The way that brains are architected like ours. But you know, the concept of having a brain like thing, it doesn't, you know, even in digital electronics, it doesn't have to be all wire in the same way. There are different solutions.
- [31:12]
Mayim Bialik
Well, I mean, but also it makes me wonder, you know. Well, never mind. We can talk about this over drinks sometimes, Stephen, but you know, I'm thinking like, is there more association cortex? Would we have a further, you know, involution in the frontal lobe? Like, is there. I mean, I, I'm going to sort of go on, you know, what the evolution of, of structures are like. And those are similar from basically reptiles on, well, even, yeah, you could even say fish in some case. Well, even the sea slug. But you know, there's a certain, I don't know, there are certain limiting factors. Right. To what's going to expand. Is it more association cortex? Right. Is that what AI is essentially modeling?
- [31:50]
Jonathan Cohen
Think about how many more song lyrics you would.
- [31:52]
Mayim Bialik
I could remember so many more song lyrics.
- [31:55]
Jonathan Cohen
Surety has a lot, right?
- [31:56]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, right. No, I mean, but there's always, there's complicated trade offs because if you have like we have 50,000 words in typical languages, that is probably determined by the size of our brains. That number is 50,000. In other words, if we had smaller brains, probably the number of distinct concepts that we could deal with, probably. We don't really know how this works, but would probably be smaller.
- [32:21]
Mayim Bialik
Doesn't President Trump only use a certain number of words? I once heard an analysis that says that he just uses a smaller number of words, like everything's great.
- [32:31]
Stephen Wolfram
I thought he was accused of inventing words. That was the.
- [32:34]
Mayim Bialik
Also because he doesn't have enough in there. Different story.
- [32:38]
Stephen Wolfram
One thing to realize is if you had more words, you don't have to have as much depth in describing things. In other words, if every, you know, if the shape of that plant behind you was, you know, if I could say that was a, you know, a blah, blah, plant shape, I wouldn't have to, you know, I wouldn't have it 10. Use any depth.
- [32:59]
Mayim Bialik
This is fascinating.
- [33:01]
Jonathan Cohen
Yeah, it's like the number of words that certain cultures have for snow sure or love.
- [33:07]
Mayim Bialik
Yes. We will often have a conversation where there will be two words that are very similar. And I am 1000% certain that I know very subtle differences between these words. I know how I would use them differently. And Jonathan is a brilliant person, but I am the child of English teachers and I know deeply that these words have different meaning. You cannot interchange them. I mean I could literally teach a class right about these different things and some people just don't hear it the same way. I feel like I can be very articulate because I've got all these intricate words. But it also depends who you're speaking to because to him it may all feel the same. So like maybe we would never have to speak if we could just neural net all of the words that I like distinctions of into your brain.
- [33:55]
Stephen Wolfram
Well, you know, that's of course an issue. I mean this relates to this thing we were talking about, about, you know, you have to take the internal thoughts that you have, you know, encoded in lots of neuron firings and package them up in a kind of transportable way. For example, if you imagined, you know, connecting the neurons directly, the neurons in your two brains are definitely not architected in detail in the same way.
- [34:19]
Jonathan Cohen
Her like salsa dancing and minor like relaxing.
- [34:24]
Stephen Wolfram
But, but you know, it's not like this is neuron number, you know, 2 billion whatever is going to be the neuron that represents the color red or something and you can connect that to somebody else's neuron of the same kind. It's the, you know, the encoding of, of what's going on is very different. And the fact that we can package it in terms of concepts that are transportable is a non trivial fact about the world and about the way that we perceive the world. Because it's not obvious. It could be the case that everything about the world was kind of this incoherent mush that you know, the random collection of pixels and so on that we couldn't have any higher level description of. The fact that there are higher level descriptions is, I mean from a science point of view, that's a very fundamental thing that makes science possible. There might not be any, any higher level descriptions that you could make, but there are maybe.
- [35:17]
Jonathan Cohen
Alex. Breakdown is supported by our place.
- [35:20]
Mayim Bialik
You know, most nonstick cookware. Guess what still contains harmful toxins?
- [35:25]
Jonathan Cohen
Oh no.
- [35:25]
Mayim Bialik
A study by the Ecology center in California found that 80% of nonstick pans still contain Teflon. That's a PFAS, which can be released into your food, your home and your body. We've talked about that a lot here on mind Biologics Breakdown. Also, a brand new study published in the Science of the Total Environment found that a single scratch on a nonstick coated pan can release approximately 9,100 plastic particles. Our Place though makes high performance toxin free cookware. Their products are made without forever chemicals like pfas and ptfes so you can cook confidently without wondering what's in your pan besides what you're cooking. Our Place's Cookware set will upgrade your kitchen in one fell swoop like it did to ours. The set includes two multifunctional Always Pans and two Perfect pots in mini and full sizes that replace a bulky, expensive stack of cookware. It's time to get rid of it folks. I also love the Perfect Pot. It's my favorite. I use it to cook soup with just four pieces. You can sear, saute, fry, bake, boil, roast, steam and so much more. Save 150 bucks on the Cookware set with the bundle and Save option. Their other standout products include the Wonder Oven, a revolutionary air fryer and toaster oven that's sold out eight times. Made from stainless steel and glass, offering an eco friendly, high performance cooking experience. Also, the always pan, our place's iconic best selling 10 in 1 pan. You could get rid of 10 things and just use this one. From Brazing and searing to frying and baking, it does it all while minimizing the need for excess oil. Plus the Always Pan Pro, the first nonstick pan with zero coating made from pure titanium for unbeatable durability with a limited lifetime warranty.
- [37:02]
Jonathan Cohen
I love that pan. It is really. It's the only pan I use nowadays.
- [37:05]
Mayim Bialik
You're all about titanium. This is cookware that's designed for performance and built to last. Their products are even trusted by Michelin star chefs. Our Place is having their biggest sale of the year right now. Save up to 35% sitewide now through January 12th. Head to fromourplace.com to see why more than a million people have made the switch to Our Place Kitchenware. And with their 100 day risk free trial, free shipping and free returns, you can shop with total confidence.
- [37:30]
Jonathan Cohen
Shop Our Place Holiday Sale right now. No code needed.
- [37:37]
Mayim Bialik
This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Listening to this podcast Smart move. Being financially savvy. Smart move. Another smart move having State Farm help you create a competitive price when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just another way to save with a personal price plan. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings and eligibility vary by state. Close your eyes. Exhale. Feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying. Today, while I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class, I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh, my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order. 1-800-contacts.
- [38:36]
Jonathan Cohen
Another form of communication that we're hearing more and more about these days is telepathy. Instead of having to communicate and articulate and choose the right word, some people believe that they have the ability to just send the message directly.
- [38:52]
Stephen Wolfram
It's always nice to see when these things come back. That was a big 1950s thing, right? Telepathy. And it's always interesting. It's one of these things where you could say, do computers have telepathy? Question. So back in the day when the first computer that I used, which is the size of a large desk and very primitive object, it had a tone generator and it would make. You could also, you could take a radio and put it next to that computer and it would be squawking all over the place. That's less true of modern computers. But computers emit electromagnetic radiation. Computers are affected by electromagnetic radiation. So the question is, could computers reasonably have telepathy? And the answer is probably not, for the following reason that the details of that signal are a total mess. They're the result of individual transistors doing this and that thing. The way that some other computer is working won't be exactly the same. The way that computers actually communicate is through doing things like what we do with language. That is, they package up those microscopic digital bits into larger scale things that are sort of known in common to the two computers. Our detailed thoughts and brains are encoded not in some, you know, if you're having some. Maybe if you're having an epileptic seizure, there's some large scale, you know, electrical effect in your brain.
- [40:22]
Mayim Bialik
Yes, but we're talking about like explicit memory, right? This person died. I learned it in the field. There's no other way I would have known that. I know when they died. I know how it happened because I was told telepathically. That's a leap.
- [40:40]
Stephen Wolfram
And that's in the Category of I can't imagine how that could possibly work. Which is not to say that there's no way it can work. It's just that there's some kinds of things where somebody says, I bet we can sense magnetic fields. I would say, yeah, I can kind of imagine how that might work. This question of what's possible in science, what's not possible.
- [41:02]
The story of things that are possible, things that are not possible. There's a terrible history of saying such and such a thing is not possible. I mean, give you an example. Let's say when you scramble an egg, can you unscramble the egg? You might say it's just not possible to unscramble it.
- [41:22]
Mayim Bialik
No, because the protein's been unfolded. We can't refold that.
- [41:25]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, but what if you had little nanobots that were all programmed and operating at this molecular scale and carefully re knitting the protein and so on. And it's again, it's something where you say, well, but we just couldn't actually do that. But that becomes a more complicated story. And so it's like another one that comes up is can you travel faster than light? So the usual theories of space time say, no, sorry, that's not possible.
- [41:56]
Mayim Bialik
Or if you can, I can't detect it because I can only see at the speed of light.
- [42:00]
Stephen Wolfram
That's not the only issue. I mean, so it turns out in these models that we have of space time now, we can kind of really address that question in a more serious way. So I'll give you an analogy. So if you're, you know, let's say you're in air, in a room and you're saying, can I, if I was at a molecular scale, how do I get from one side of the room to another? Well, every molecule in the room is traveling at roughly the speed of sound, but it only goes for a micron before it hits another molecule and gets sort of thrown off in a random direction. If you could know which molecule to hop on at every stage, you could go across the room at speed of sound. But in fact you say, well, but we couldn't do that because certainly we couldn't take us and make us be riding on these molecules because we're pretty big compared to these molecules. You know, maybe you could imagine a molecule, but then you have to have that molecule, has to be able to do the computation to figure out which molecule to hop on. And that's not going to work at the scale of a molecule and so on. Turns out the same kind of thing happens in space time. It turns out that if you could operate at the level of the atoms of space, you could make a thing that would sort of hop between the atoms of space and you could effectively make something which in certain conditions would be able to effectively go faster than light. The problem is you couldn't do that. The thing that could, you know, a thing like us, that is a mind like ours, just wouldn't possibly fit in what it takes and wouldn't be able to do the thing that can operate at that scale, couldn't do the computation to figure out what to do next. So the statement it's not possible has to be a little bit footnoted.
- [43:42]
Mayim Bialik
Yeah. And I think the question is also what's measurable and how? And one of the challenges with psi phenomenon is that you cannot always replicate something. It doesn't have to be a system that is observing the other laws of things that we can predict. So when people say, well, if any sort of, you know, precognitive ability was possible, everyone would always be winning the lottery. And that's not true for me. Again, I'm trying to frame this. We're talking about what are the genetic, environmental, epigenetic components that might lead a system to be able to perceive something that I do not understand and is there a way to legitimately quantify it? Right. So that we could say with some statistical significance this is meaningful. Right. And the notion that the materialist perspective is if it doesn't obey the same things it takes to get on the COVID of nature neuroscience, it doesn't hold water. To me, that's not fair. Meaning we have to adjust the expectations to the situation that we're actually trying to observe.
- [44:51]
Stephen Wolfram
Right. Well, I mean, look, one of the conceits of science is you can do reproducible experiments. It is possible to have an experiment where you can take this thing and have it work this way. And you know, if you do the same thing again now, it's not self evident that that's ever possible. It could be the case because the universe is in a different state when you next do that experiment. And it could be the case that you can't separate off the thing that is just that experiment from the rest of the universe. This question of what, you know, what matters, I mean, this is the essence of doing scientific experiments is to be able to tell what matters. I mean, in other words, you don't know whether you do some experiment and maybe it turns out the air pressure that day critically matters and you just don't know.
- [45:39]
Mayim Bialik
Well, and with humans, you know, one of the things that. In the telepathy tapes, which we've spoken about a lot here, in terms of veracity and, and many other things, you know, if you take a child, let's say, that's non verbal, and you try and, you know, say, is this child really able to read minds, whatever that means. You know, if you remove them from the person that they're closest to and you try and do it with an experimenter, in many cases this introduces a level of strangeness for them, especially if they're nonverbal. If they're on the spectrum, they don't feel safe, they don't feel comfortable. So yeah, this is a question of. Also, of course, you want to eliminate the possibility that they're getting some sort of coding right, from the parent or the person they're close to. But also, if someone's got these special abilities, my guess is they need to be in some sort of safe state to be dropping into a place where they can even access whatever's going on. And that's true of anyone.
- [46:30]
Stephen Wolfram
This is where it all gets very muddy and complicated, right, because it's like, you know, did they pick up some micro facial expression from somebody or, you know, or is it a thing? And then is the actual ability one that is about picking up microfacial expressions?
- [46:45]
Mayim Bialik
Which is also fascinating, right?
- [46:47]
Stephen Wolfram
I mean, you know, it could be that people have, you know, some people have, you know, greater ability to do that. That's a thing. That wouldn't be super surprising from a neuroscience point of view. You know, in the 1950s, sort of people had the view that telepathy would just be a thing. And, you know, and then it sort of disappeared. And it's interesting to hear that it's back my own guess about sort of looking at the arc of sort of the history of science and things which people thought were implausible and so on. Usually what seems to happen is there's sort of possibility A and possibility B. And there are definite schools of thought that go after one or other of those possibilities. The truth ends up being something bizarre that's in the middle.
- [47:26]
Mayim Bialik
You prepare for A and B and X, Y and Z happens.
- [47:29]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, like, you know, you think you're doing some telepathic thing and it turns out, you know, there's pheromone secretions from humans that people pick up in some olfactory way that, you know, goes directly into some part of the brain or something like this, which was just something that wasn't, you know, just wasn't Part of what you were thinking might or might not be happening.
- [47:49]
Mayim Bialik
We recently spoke to Federico Fagin, who, among other things, created the microprocessor and also had a very, very profound spiritual experience. Inexplicable. And also his book is called irreducible, which is a word that you also favor. So I thought that was sweet. One of the things that he says, though, and this goes back to really what you talked about in the opening, he says that consciousness and free will have always existed, meaning they are foundational, kind of to our understanding of the formation of the universe. He believes that there's this sort of one which, you know, I think some of us would call God, but that there's some one unity that is part of this sort of evolution, but that consciousness and free will both exist as part of this oneness, and that they're foundational.
- [48:35]
What is your sort of take? I know it's like a big question to end on, but where does this fall in terms of also our computational understanding?
- [48:44]
Stephen Wolfram
People thought, you know, in the science fiction movies in the 1950s, for example, once there was a program for the robot. Everybody knew what the robot was going to do. And the robot clearly didn't have free will because it was programmed and you knew what it was going to do. The thing that comes out from sort of this idea of computational irreducibility is just because it was programmed doesn't mean you know what it's going to do. And I think that's the essence of what we perceive as being free will. That is, just because, you know, sort of the reductionist view of what's inside the thing doesn't mean that you can outrun the actual process of the thing doing what it does. So in other words, you say the thing doesn't have free will. If you can say, well, I can tell what you're going to do, therefore you're obviously not freely doing what you're doing.
- [49:36]
Mayim Bialik
You could just be predictable for it.
- [49:38]
Stephen Wolfram
To be free will that seems to be free of its underlying laws. What I think makes it seem free of its underlying laws is that you just have to run those laws and see what they do, rather than just saying, I know the laws, therefore I can predict what will happen. So I view sort of that notion of free will as being something that is absolutely ubiquitous in the computational universe. In the universe, in lots of systems that we see in nature, we can't predict what they're going to do, just like we can't predict what minds are going to do. So I view that as Definitely being a very ubiquitous thing as far as consciousness. I think that's much more special and in a sense much more kind of much lower level at some level in the sense that, as I was saying, I think one of the essential features of the thing that is consciousness for us is this phenomenon of taking all this external data and sort of pulling it down to this single thread of so our thread of experience, what are we going to do next? And so on. So I think that that seems to be the essence of kind of consciousness as we operate it, so to speak. And I think that's a thing that, you know, when you look at the universe as a whole, you know that's happening in different places in the universe, but it's not the generic behavior of things in the universe. Our perception of that is very significant to us. The fact that the ball can roll down into that one hollow rather than another one and so on is a similar kind of phenomenon, but less interesting to us than our own perception of consciousness. One question is, is consciousness kind of the top of the pile for what happens in the universe? And my answer is no, it's not. It's one of the things that is a sub case of one of the things that can happen in a universe like ours. And it's one that's very significant to us. But to the weather, for example, it's not terribly significant the weather's view of our oh gosh, look at those organisms. And of course I'm anthropomorphizing ridiculously here by attributing to it some kind of communication like that. It's like those organisms are doing this weird thing, taking in all this input data and just doing one thing as a result, as opposed to taking all that input data and having all those different pieces of input data all do their own separate thing. You'd asked about time and the sort of linearity of time. Quantum mechanics, you have this sort of many threads of time. There is not a single thread of time in the universe. There are many threads of time in the universe. We are aggregating some number of those threads of time. And that is the thing that we perceive. We perceive a single thread of time. And you could imagine a brain that was kind of a multi way brain that was perceiving more than one thread of experience. That's not what we do. Interestingly, inside a quantum computer, that's what's going on. And the main problem of quantum computers is can you take those many. If we had sort of quantum experience, we would be happily Using a quantum computer, we'd be following all those independent threads of quantum computation. The difficulty is that knitting all those threads together to get a definite answer of the kind that our single thread of experience brains deal with, that's a difficult thing, and that's something I don't think is going to work. But that's a quite different story. But so to this point about is there a single thread of time in the universe? The answer is, I think no. But we aggregate some number of threads and we pick out this single thread of experience. How do you know that time is passing? Well, the state of the universe is changing. And that's kind of the passage of time is the progressive changing of the state of the universe according to some kind of rules. What if the state of the universe at a later moment is identical to the state of the universe at a previous moment?
- [53:46]
Mayim Bialik
Does that mean that time has not passed?
- [53:48]
Stephen Wolfram
Right. And so there is a notion that I've just been working on that I'm calling sub time, which is what might actually happen at the level of individual sort of updates of the, of the universe. And then the question of time as.
- [54:03]
Mayim Bialik
We perceive it because there's a delta, it's because there's a change, right? We have a, an internal referential point in theory, right? I mean, not everyone, but hopefully most people, we have a reference point that tracks, right? No matter what's happening in this, it is. I'm. I'm tracking it based on my internal reference point.
- [54:22]
Stephen Wolfram
You can only sense a change in the state of the universe. If the universe is identical and your mind is identical. It's as if nothing had happened. And so what can happen is that it's. It's slightly tricky because things can happen intermediately, but then you're back to where you were before.
- [54:40]
Mayim Bialik
When you return to a place, even emotionally, right? You're never in the same place that you were before. Even if you think you're having deja vu.
- [54:47]
Stephen Wolfram
I'm operating at like 10 to the minus 100 meters type scale. I'm not talking about wandering around the neighborhood type thing. That's a, that's a far reach from, from, from that low level.
- [54:59]
Mayim Bialik
So your parents were refugees, correct? They immigrated to England, where you were raised. What languages were you raised? Hearing and speaking English.
- [55:10]
Stephen Wolfram
Nothing else?
- [55:12]
Mayim Bialik
Nothing else.
- [55:12]
Stephen Wolfram
Nothing else.
- [55:13]
Mayim Bialik
I was very curious if you grew up with many languages, since you are a specialist, right, in communicating in all these different.
- [55:20]
Stephen Wolfram
You know, when I was growing up, it's like, I'm an English kid. I don't know anything about the history. So that, that, that's a, you know, I kind of didn't, didn't have that big connection. It's funny because I, I've worked a lot on language and computational language and things like that, and I have, you know, my efforts to learn language. You know, I learned Latin and Greek and French when I was a kid. French was the only one you could speak.
- [55:49]
I guess some people can speak Latin, but that's a rare case.
- [55:54]
But I never did it, and I never had the confidence to do it. And I had the definite self image that I'm absolutely useless at learning languages. This may be completely untrue and just a consequence of kind of the dynamics of my particular education. But that means I've never, I am, you know, I have some level of knowledge about kind of the, at an analytic level about languages. But, you know, and I do find it interesting that, you know, as I try and imagine what it's like to think with another language as one's base for thinking, it is interesting that, you know, I can see that, you know, that there are concepts that just aren't quite the same. But I see that much more clearly in computational language because I know it's an interesting experience for me because I've invented a bunch of constructs and once I've invented them and made them part of our language, I can think in terms of them and I can see other people who just couldn't think in those terms as I couldn't think in those terms. Once they're exposed to those constructs, they start thinking in those terms. It's really a neat thing. People don't recognize that the construction of languages, you know, which usually doesn't happen with human languages. I mean, there haven't been successful constructed human languages, but with computer languages, computational language, they're all constructed. And you know what? You get the kind of, there's a, in a sense, it's a surprisingly powerful lever that one has in determining kind of how one can think about things the way that one constructs those languages. And that's, you know, I've just spent a few decades doing those kinds of things. So I, I, I think a bunch about that.
- [57:39]
Mayim Bialik
We really, we so appreciate your time and also just the, the scope that you allowed us to kind of play in with you. And we're just, we're very grateful. Um, I, I also do want to direct people to your website. Um, you have this beautiful scrapbook. I don't know who put it together, but you can follow your progression both in pictures, in images. Like some of the drawings from when you were a child.
- [58:01]
Stephen Wolfram
Yeah, yeah. I don't know whether those should be on the Web, but.
- [58:03]
Mayim Bialik
But, no, I think it's. No, but it's like one of the first things was, like, how many spikes were on the tail of the stegosaurus. And I'm thinking that's what child Stephen was thinking about. And also, you know, I don't want to embarrass you, but there's not many people, you know who have achieved what you did, especially at a young age, you know, to get your doctorate, really, when you were, I think, 20, and to have also this much kind of, like, ability to interact and to converse on so many different levels with us. We're just so honored to get to meet you and to speak with you, so we really appreciate it.
- [58:38]
Stephen Wolfram
Nice conversation. You got me to talk about all kinds of things that I have never talked about.
- [58:48]
Jonathan Cohen
There's nothing more to say.
- [58:49]
Mayim Bialik
He was saying, you got me to talk about so many things that I never talk about.
- [58:53]
Jonathan Cohen
And he talks about a lot of things.
- [58:54]
Mayim Bialik
He talks about a lot of things, but I don't think people usually ask him about free will, consciousness, telepathy, you know, psi phenomenon and aliens, how dogs communicate. How do. I could tell that you felt insulted when he said, like, dogs don't think like that. I knew you were thinking, he doesn't know our dog.
- [59:13]
Jonathan Cohen
Last night, our dog. I was trying to go to sleep like you do. Our dog has started to try and wait me out so he can get in bed. So he can get in bed because he's got this, like, little mattress at the foot of the bed that I try to encourage him to sleep on.
- [59:31]
Mayim Bialik
And he usually does.
- [59:32]
Jonathan Cohen
And for the most part, he will. But then he'll, like, climb into bed around, like, when the sun comes up, maybe 6, 6:30, he kind of waits for the sun to come up. And then he's like, you know what? He's still sleeping, but I'm going to climb into bed.
- [59:44]
Mayim Bialik
It's a calculation he's doing.
- [59:45]
Jonathan Cohen
The last two nights, he's refused to come to bed. When I go to bed.
- [59:52]
Two nights.
- [59:52]
Mayim Bialik
Ago, he's like, don't mind me. Just hanging out on the couch.
- [59:55]
Jonathan Cohen
He just, like, stays on the couch. And I'm like, dude, who are you fooling? You were, like, the most codependent animal. I know you never want to be by yourself. And now all of a sudden, all the lights in the house are going out, and you're just, like, hanging out by like, something's fishy. And so two nights ago, I close all the lights, and pretty much as soon as I close all the lights and lay down, I hear the tick, tick, tick, tick of his nails on the hardwood. And then he tries to climb into bed. I turn the light on, and I look at him, and then he and I just have this staring competition of him looking at me, like, really? And I'm like, really? And then I'm, like, pointing to his bed, and he's, like, ignoring me. And then it becomes a whole thing.
- [60:38]
Mayim Bialik
That's a whole thing.
- [60:39]
Jonathan Cohen
Last night.
- [60:42]
Not only did he stay there, but I went and got him, and I. He wouldn't come. I gave him a treat. Nothing. I pull his paws off the couch and, like, scooch his bottom a little bit, bring him into bed. He kind of settles. I turn the lights off. He gets out of bed, goes back, and he's pacing, and he's, like, anxious, and I'm like, what's going on? Do you have to pee? We go outside, we spend 10 minutes.
- [61:09]
Mayim Bialik
Oh, no.
- [61:11]
Stephen Wolfram
He pees.
- [61:12]
Jonathan Cohen
He comes back inside. He goes back to bed. I turn the lights off. He does it again. And I'm like, dude, you are not waiting me out.
- [61:20]
Mayim Bialik
He's trying to communicate. Speaking of which, I thought that Dr. Wolfram was gonna say, like, I grew up hearing many languages, and, like, it made me able to compute language. Nope.
- [61:30]
Jonathan Cohen
Just.
- [61:30]
Mayim Bialik
He's just amazing. He's amazing. I also keep. I mean, not just from the pictures on his website, where you can kind of see him through the ages, but I think, like, what was he like to graduate college at 17? What was that like? What was he like?
- [61:45]
Jonathan Cohen
Is it that he just has a structurally different brain? His brain is the same structure as everyone else's. Like, they said Einstein's brain had more folds to it.
- [61:55]
Mayim Bialik
Said, no, it had more. I don't know if it was a white matter, gray matter. I don't remember all the matter.
- [62:02]
Yeah, I guess there were some things about.
- [62:06]
Sulci.
- [62:07]
Jonathan Cohen
Here's what I really like about him the most.
- [62:10]
Mayim Bialik
His charming smile.
- [62:11]
Jonathan Cohen
His continual return to. There's a terrible history of science saying what's not possible.
- [62:20]
Mayim Bialik
I really loved his perspective. I loved it. Every time we talk to someone like him, I want to put Steven Pinker on with him, because I feel like there's a way. There's a way to talk about things we can't explain. And I really loved how he talked about it. He. He said it could be essentially limited perception. That's what it is. And Everything that we don't understand. Maybe instead of saying that's not true, you're wrong. I don't like your politics. I don't like this. Maybe it's just. It's not matching my perception, but you're allowed to have your own. And also think about how big the universe is. We're all made of the same things. Just. We do not need to stress so much. And you don't look fat in those pants. It's just how you look in those pants.
- [63:01]
Jonathan Cohen
Oh, here's what we didn't get to ask him. Does he think that humans and machines are going to merge and our brains are not going to have to communicate language because we'll just be able to share images and feelings that get packaged into little bits of things?
- [63:14]
Mayim Bialik
I think he would say yes.
- [63:16]
Jonathan Cohen
I think he would say yes.
- [63:17]
Mayim Bialik
Well, I think that there's components of that that he would say is a broadening of the capabilities of our computational system combined with another computational system system. Yeah. I mean, I think that he had the best answer to aliens. Do you do. Did you understand the second time I tried to get him to explain it.
- [63:32]
Jonathan Cohen
I would say that there is alien communication even amongst humans. Like some humans you just, like, can't communicate with because their operating system and your operating system.
- [63:42]
Mayim Bialik
You don't need to air our dirty laundry in front of all of our listeners.
- [63:45]
Stephen Wolfram
Compatible.
- [63:47]
Jonathan Cohen
It's like when you try to communicate.
- [63:48]
Mayim Bialik
Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. He was right.
- [63:51]
Jonathan Cohen
Sometimes the dog knows more about what it should be doing.
- [63:55]
Mayim Bialik
I think that was too far. I think this episode also demonstrates what it's like to engage with someone who really wants to be understood in a particular way and is very comfortable adapting his particular framework to include the myriad questions that we have about why we're here, how we got here, and essentially where we're going.
- [64:20]
Jonathan Cohen
Also, I'll give him a very special accolade. He may have been the best guest at tracking dropped questions and points.
- [64:30]
Mayim Bialik
He was phenomenal.
- [64:32]
Jonathan Cohen
I think you actually have to write him and tell him.
- [64:35]
Mayim Bialik
I think I will tell him.
- [64:36]
Jonathan Cohen
Both of us are just like pinging, just, yeah, we need our ADD medication. And him, he's just doesn't let a single thing drop.
- [64:45]
Mayim Bialik
We're going to go ahead and diagnose him with no, no add.
- [64:48]
Jonathan Cohen
Very impressive. That's how you make computational systems. You and I would just feel like error in the code all the time because we would have forgotten the backslash.
- [64:58]
Mayim Bialik
Can you imagine going to college and graduating college at 17?
- [65:02]
Jonathan Cohen
I was still in High school.
- [65:04]
Mayim Bialik
I'm. Wow, bro. I'm saying, can you imagine?
- [65:08]
Jonathan Cohen
Imagine. Because I was thinking, am I going to graduate high school?
- [65:11]
Mayim Bialik
Okay, so this is a different reality I'm asking you to entertain where you know how every electron has this possible spin. Pick all the other spins that you picked from like 12 till 17. Imagine a path where 17 year old Jonathan would not have been where he was. But graduating college and heading into a.
- [65:32]
Jonathan Cohen
Doctoral program, it could have done it.
- [65:34]
Mayim Bialik
What would your doctorate be in?
- [65:36]
Jonathan Cohen
Computational science.
- [65:37]
Mayim Bialik
Shut up now.
- [65:40]
Jonathan Cohen
No, I don't.
- [65:42]
It would have been in hockey trivia. No, it wouldn't have.
- [65:45]
Mayim Bialik
I'm being grateful dead.
- [65:47]
Jonathan Cohen
No, I. So in basketball, eighth grade, I straight A's in math. I was a mathematician. I really loved math. I loved understanding.
- [65:55]
Mayim Bialik
You didn't have dyslexia problems with math?
- [65:57]
Jonathan Cohen
Oh, no, not at all. But I also liked the creative of writing and of. Of literature. I probably would have ended up being in math because I like that there were right answers in the type of math that we were doing.
- [66:11]
Mayim Bialik
As in many conversations, this is the point at which if I was talking to Valerie, she'd be like, what would your doctorate have been in at 17? Mayim.
- [66:18]
Jonathan Cohen
I just assume it's the same as it would have been.
- [66:20]
Mayim Bialik
Well, that's interesting.
- [66:22]
Jonathan Cohen
Now what would it have been in? I think I racist philosophy.
- [66:26]
Mayim Bialik
Possibly adjacent women's studies. I think I actually probably would have studied like Simone de Beauvoir. I would have studied like female philosophy and in early feminism. I think that's probably what I would have done.
- [66:38]
Jonathan Cohen
So you would have been unemployed.
- [66:40]
Mayim Bialik
I think that's going to get you some hate.
- [66:44]
Jonathan Cohen
I'm just saying that there are only a certain number of positions. You would have had to have gone into academia.
- [66:49]
Mayim Bialik
You know what, there's a lot of liberal arts colleges that would have loved to have me on their staff.
- [66:53]
Jonathan Cohen
You would have been a tenured track professor at Sarah Lawrence. You would have been living. Where is Sarah Lawrence?
- [66:59]
Mayim Bialik
In Vermont.
- [67:02]
The same part. It's like Riverdale.
- [67:04]
Jonathan Cohen
Yeah, it's like upstate New York, which is basically Vermont.
- [67:08]
Mayim Bialik
No, I'd be.
- [67:09]
Stephen Wolfram
Yes.
- [67:09]
Mayim Bialik
Anyway, maybe New Hampshire. I don't even know where New Hampshire is. I'd have to look at. That's where I'd be a professor in New Hampshire.
- [67:15]
Jonathan Cohen
You would have. The seasons would be lovely. You'd have the best pair of galoshes in another universe.
- [67:21]
Mayim Bialik
I'm already doing that. And I have a shaved head and.
- [67:24]
Jonathan Cohen
Lots more piercings and a lot of mittens. It's cold.
- [67:27]
Mayim Bialik
That's right. I think that we will computationally and there.
- [67:32]
Jonathan Cohen
If you want more exploration into this conversation, particularly the notion of multiple timelines, I think we want to unpack that and the idea of how our perceptions can change. Moving for me beyond five senses, what we can experience. Join us on substack Mind Bialik's breakdown.
- [67:52]
Mayim Bialik
On substack from our breakdown to the one we hope you never have. We'll see you next time.
- [67:56]
Stephen Wolfram
It's Maya Bialik's breakdown. She's going to break it down for you. She's got a neuroscience PhD or two unfiction and now she's going to break down. So break down. She's going to break it down.
- [68:11]
Mayim Bialik
Everything feels a bit uncertain right now. A few months ago, you never would have expected eggs being factored into your monthly budget. New sources of stress equal more opportunities for breakouts to strike. Luckily, Mighty Patch original shrinks the look of pimples in just one use. We'd say that's a pretty good deal. Shop Mighty Patch at all major retailers.