POPULARITY
52 episodes with nobel prize winners
10 episodes with nobel prize winners
14 episodes with nobel prize winners
5 episodes with nobel prize winners
5 episodes with nobel prize winners
2 episodes with nobel prize winners
4 episodes with nobel prize winners
2 episodes with nobel prize winners
2 episodes with nobel prize winners
Around 25 years ago, Ardem Patapoutian set out to investigate the fundamental biology behind our sense of touch. Through a long process of gene elimination, he identified a class of sensors in the cell membrane that turn physical pressure into an electrical signal. He changed the game in the field of sensation and perception, and in 2021 shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work. He joined Host Flora Lichtman in November 2025 to talk about his research, the odd jobs he worked along the way, and how he found a sense of belonging in science. Guests: Dr. Ardem Patapoutian is a professor and the Presidential Endowed Chair in Neurobiology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Follow our show on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Bluesky @scifri and sign up for our newsletters. Got a science question that's keeping you up at night? Call us: 877-472-4374 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
A Nobel laureate in economics argues the bans we pass to protect our morals are quietly killing people and the data backs him up. Why the line between a market we allow and one we forbid is mostly an accident of disgust. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. My guest won the 2012 Nobel Prize for designing the systems that match kidney donors to patients who would otherwise die waiting. We cover why it's easy to buy heroin but hard to hire a hitman, what surrogacy bans actually do to the babies they're meant to protect, why paying kidney donors could end a shortage that kills thousands a year, and the trade-off statement he wants every lawmaker to say out loud. He has been called an organ trafficker. He explains why that's the point. What you'll hear: Why banning something that people want often makes it more dangerous The kidney market America won't build and what that silence costs What the hitman vs. heroin ban asymmetry tells us about effective prohibition The McCormick statement: the trade-off acknowledgment most policy debates refuse to make How prediction markets are eroding the boundary between public and private information Whether Milton Friedman was right to be embarrassed by the economics Nobel There's no such thing as a solution. There are only trade-offs. CHAPTERS 00:00 Who gets called an organ trafficker? 02:26 What makes a transaction repugnant? 03:14 Why bans without support create black markets 03:36 Heroin is easy. Hitmen are not. Why? 04:44 Prohibition, NASCAR, and moonshine 07:26 Surrogacy: legal here, criminal in Europe 12:30 When money turns something legal into a crime 14:28 Can religion corrupt a market? 15:56 Who actually pays for college? 21:38 The Enhanced Games: drugs as a marketing platform 25:30 Adderall, Erd0151s, and the science of getting sharper 30:58 Why AI makes market congestion worse before better 35:00 100,000 kidney failures a year. 30,000 transplants. 36:44 Portland decriminalized heroin. It failed. 39:22 The trade-off statement politicians refuse to make 41:14 Can you legalize sex work and shrink trafficking? 47:42 Kahneman chose to die. Who should decide? 48:30 Should we put GLP-1 drugs in the water? 56:12 America is the Saudi Arabia of blood plasma 01:00:54 Prediction markets and inside information 01:01:34 Sports gambling is more addictive than it looks 01:11:40 Peter Nobel called economics a marketing stunt 01:13:32 Is economics a real science? Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon, get my weekly M.A.G.I.C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Get your three free gifts when you join my Multiverse of Minds: https://BrianKeating.com/cosmic Featured Guest: Alvin Roth website: https://web.stanford.edu/~alroth/ Moral Economics (book): https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Economics-Prostitution-Controversial-Transactions/dp/1541702018 My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #economics #NobelPrize #AlvinRoth #marketdesign #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
NASA physicist's UAP math survives. His conclusion doesn't. Mayim Bialik ran the razor first — Brian finishes the cut. Kevin Knuth is a tenured physicist, former NASA Ames researcher, and published exoplanet scientist who has done the actual math on the Nimitz encounter. We cover: - Whether Tic Tac flight physics rules out conventional explanations - Why the 60% cross-cultural abduction pattern isn't what it looks like - The Malmstrom missile shutdowns and the three hypotheses Kevin ignores - What years of neutron analysis on alleged crash debris actually found - Why Mayim Bialik dismantled the light-day argument before Brian could. The inference move — not the data — is what fails the razor every time. Timestamps: 00:00 The cattle mutilation that started it all 01:59 What Kevin gets right — the steel man 07:14 Keating's Razor: how the cut works 11:13 Mayim catches the selection bias live 13:43 Malmstrom, the babies, and three hypotheses 15:00 The debris lab result that should change everything 19:18 The verdict: data survives, inference doesn't ———
Stephen C. Meyer has a PhD from Cambridge in the philosophy of science, and he thinks AI just handed him his strongest argument yet. I spent years pushing back on him. Today I laid three traps. Watch what he does with the third one. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. Meyer is a philosopher of science and director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. His argument: every large language model is trained on text produced by conscious agents, and when you query its own outputs iteratively, it collapses into incoherence. That dependency, he says, is a tell. AI can recombine information. It cannot originate it. And that distinction points, in his view, to something minds do that matter alone cannot explain. I push back on all of it. We go after the Oklo reactor, a natural nuclear fission reactor that ran for millions of years in Africa two billion years ago with no human input whatsoever. I ask whether that breaks his information-from-mind argument. He sees the trap before I spring it, concedes the point where concession is honest, and explains exactly where the threshold lies. We also get into the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and Vilenkin's admission that quantum cosmology may require a mind predating the universe, the junk DNA prediction that Meyer's team made in the '90s before the ENCODE project confirmed it, and why beauty in physics can lead a field astray. What you'll hear: - Why model collapse is Meyer's strongest argument and where it has limits - The Oklo reactor trap and what Meyer's honest answer reveals about design detection - What Vilenkin actually said about a mind predating the universe - Whether intelligent design makes testable predictions or only retrodictions - The junk DNA call and what the ENCODE project found - Why beauty as a guide to physics has produced mathematical castles in the air Stephen Meyer thinks AI proves minds can't be reduced to matter. Is model collapse evidence of design, or is it just bad training data? CHAPTERS 00:00 The AI argument Meyer thinks no one can crack 00:44 What is inference to the best explanation? 05:52 AI has a tell: the model collapse problem 09:38 The Oklo trap: a natural nuclear reactor with no designer 11:56 Where the design inference becomes decisive and where it doesn't 15:50 Sean Carroll's wasteful universe problem and Meyer's answer 20:00 Where did atheist scientists get access to the mind of God? 23:22 The fine-tuning of the periodic table: why are there only 500 stable nuclei? 25:52 The universe had a beginning: observational astronomy and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem 27:40 Quantum cosmology: how math alone is supposed to birth a universe 29:08 Vilenkin's question: are we saying a mind predates the physical universe? 34:06 Mathematical castles in the air: where beauty in physics goes wrong 40:00 Does intelligent design make predictions or only retrodictions? 43:52 The junk DNA prediction and what ENCODE found 46:30 James Tour, origin of life, and the hidden hand of the investigator 51:56 God-of-the-gaps vs. inference to the best explanation 56:02 The Story of Everything: where to watch and what to expect Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon, get my weekly M.A.G.I.C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Featured Guest: Stephen C. Meyer website: https://stephencmeyer.org/ The Story of Everything (film, Amazon Prime June 25): https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0NO974XWBQQNYH9TB4ESIJIVL9 Signature in the Cell (book): https://signatureinthecell.com/ Return of the God Hypothesis (book): https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/ My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #intelligentdesign #artificialintelligence #cosmology #podcast #StephenMeyer #philosophy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Play The Mighty Challenge, Monday June 22 edition to see if you have the answer!
Norway restricts AI use for students, UK's attorney general says department should stop posting on X, India’s Jio Platforms is headed for a big IPO. MP3 Please SUBSCRIBE HERE for free or get DTNS shows ad-free. A special thanks to all our supporters–without you, none of this would be possible. If you enjoy what youContinue reading "Google DeepMind Loses Nobel Prize Winner John Jumper to Anthropic – DTH"
In this special live episode of Facts vs Feelings from Carson's Second Quarter Summit in Chicago, Ryan Detrick and Sonu Varghese sit down with Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Richard Thaler for a conversation that ranges from NFL draft strategy to retirement savings design to why markets keep producing events that are statistically supposed to be impossible.Thaler breaks down his "Loser's Curse" research on the NFL draft, explaining why top picks are systematically overvalued and why trading down is almost always the smarter move. Twenty years and a Nobel Prize later, teams have barely improved their ability to predict talent. The better-than-the-next-guy stat went from 52% to 53%.The conversation covers Bob Shiller's work on excess market volatility, what it actually means when 10-sigma events keep showing up every decade, and why the coming wave of major IPOs is forcing index providers into decisions that are anything but passive.On the behavioral side, Thaler walks through the three pillars that transformed 401k design: automatic enrollment, target date funds, and Save More Tomorrow and why the UK's approach to retirement mandates got the balance right. He also gets into mental accounting and why a $2 million gain in home equity has almost no impact on spending while a direct deposit hits a checking account and disappears immediately.Key Takeaways: NFL teams have had 20 years, full quant departments, and AI-powered scouting to improve on Richard Thaler's draft research. Their ability to rank players better than a coin flip moved from 52% to 53%. Tom Brady was picked 199.The first pick in the NFL draft is not worth six second-round picks. Trading down is the winning strategy, and trading a pick this year for a pick next year where the going rate is one round works out to roughly a 120% implied interest rate.When stocks get added to the S&P 500, the price pops. Andre Shleifer proved it in grad school with a paper called "Do Demand Curves Slope Down for Stocks?" The answer was yes, and it was controversial at the time. Now everyone knows it and the SpaceX IPO is about to test it at a scale the market has never seen.Buying an IPO on day one looks exciting and has historically cost investors around 30% in underperformance versus the market over the following three years, according to Jay Ritter's data.Making enrollment the default in 401k plans, rather than requiring employees to opt in, had a bigger impact on retirement savings rates than any amount of financial education. Which box comes pre-checked should be irrelevant. It isn't.A $2 million gain in home equity produces almost zero change in spending. The same money landing in a checking account gets spent. Mental accounting is not a quirk; it shapes how wealth actually moves through the economy, and you can't model the wealth effect without accounting for where the money sits.Jump to:0:00 - Live From Chicago Kickoff0:35 - Sponsor Message From Pimco1:13 - Welcoming Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler2:31 - The NFL Draft Loser's Curse9:03 - Can You Fire Your Team10:31 - Why Markets Swing Too Much18:35 - IPOs Index Rules And Demand Shocks24:24 - Live T-Shirt Toss Intermission25:47 - Nudges That Fix Retirement Saving34:33 - Education Versus Mandates In Policy38:45 - Fees Transparency And Trust41:09 - Mental Accounting And The Wealth Effect45:13 - Final Thanks And Sign-Off45:42 - Important DisclosuresConnect with Ryan:• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryandetrick/• X: https://x.com/RyanDetrickConnect with Sonu:• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonu-varghese-phd/• X: https://x.com/sonusvarghese?lang=enQuestions about the show? We'd love to hear from you! factsvsfeelings@carsongroup.com
Roman Yampolskiy has spent two decades trying to prove that superintelligent AI can be controlled. He couldn't. I invited him on to make his case. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. Roman is a professor of computer science at the University of Louisville and one of the earliest researchers in AI safety. His book AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable started as an attempt to solve the alignment problem. After decades of work, it became a proof that the problem cannot be solved. Not difficult. Mathematically impossible. I push back hard. We go after the Einstein test: can a large language model trained only on pre-1911 physics reproduce what Einstein did with the same data? We ran that experiment. It failed. Roman and I disagree about what that means. We also get into the halting problem and what it actually tells us about predicting smarter-than-human behavior, whether value alignment is a real problem or a well-funded category error, the case for a government moratorium on frontier model development, and why Roman thinks giving an AI agent access to your computer is the dumbest thing a smart person can do. What you'll hear: Whether AI control is mathematically impossible or just unsolved Why Roman thinks all current AI safety work is security theater What the halting problem actually means for superintelligence The alignment problem: real issue or well-funded category error Why Roman wants a moratorium on frontier model development What to tell your kids about careers in a world where Roman might be right If you listen to other people, the best you can become is average. CHAPTERS 00:00 Creating a mind without an off switch 01:34 Solving problems beyond our own intelligence 04:08 Einstein's epiphany and the limit of AI intuition 08:18 Assessing the Einstein test: Why the experiment failed 12:22 Path dependency: Are LLMs and GPUs our QWERTY? 16:10 The barriers preventing AI from solving physics 21:54 Safety vs. Capability: Why toddlers are safe but teens are not 23:06 The halting problem: Predicting agents smarter than us 25:58 The impossibility of a system proving its own integrity 28:18 Regulation: Genuine safety or a gift to oligarchs? 33:28 Is human cognition non-computable? Penrose vs. the field 39:00 Ethical duties: Must we treat AI with humanity? 43:00 From internet memes to monsters: Decoding the book cover 46:22 Customized realities: Can everyone have their perfect world? 49:50 Von Neumann probes and the panspermia hypothesis 55:02 Categorizing AI: The one version that should terrify you 58:22 Pause AI: The movement for a development moratorium 59:58 Career advice for kids in a post-professional world 01:07:58 Cross-examining Sam Altman 01:15:48 Roman's dream debate 01:19:50 Lessons for a younger self Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon, get my weekly M.A.G.I.C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Featured Guest: Roman Yampolskiy on Twitter/X: https://x.com/romanyam?lang=en AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable: https://www.romanyampolskiy.com/books/ My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #AIrisk #artificialintelligence #aisafety #podcast #superintelligence #RomanYampolskiy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Physicist fact-checks Michio Kaku's biggest claims — quantum collapse of capitalism, Theory of Everything, black hole gateways. Does celebrity physics do more damage than good? Brian Keating breaks down Michio Kaku's viral @TheDiaryOfACEO "World-Renowned Physicist: They Are Lying To You About UFOs & Reality - Michio Kaku" https://youtu.be/opB7_JXL0LA?si=RzVyEgwKtQRzs9Ao I fact-check everything from quantum computing to black holes to the multiverse. Why quantum computers won't kill capitalism overnight String theory: candidate framework or confirmed Theory of Everything? "Read the mind of God" — Einstein's phrase or Hawking's? Tabby Star: aliens vs. dust, and why Kaku buries the retreat Black holes as gateways, wormholes as cousins of black holes, and what spaghettification actually rules out Celebrity physicists who present speculation as settled science set back the field more than any funding cut. CHAPTERS 00:00 Quantum computers and capitalism collapse 01:23 What quantum computing actually can and can't do 03:39 String theory and the Theory of Everything 06:16 Who really said "read the mind of God" 09:40 Tabby Star: aliens or something boring? 13:45 11 dimensions: prediction or math requirement? 18:19 Is dark matter made of string vibrations? 23:03 The multiverse bubble bath — poetry or physics? 28:39 Wormholes vs. black holes: not very similar 34:22 Simulation theory and Kaku's "Option Four" 37:37 Verdict: great communicator, bad epistemics ———
A practicing astrophysicist who doesn't believe in the tunnel of light, the hovering soul, or the wailing relatives — but believes in one near-death experience that changed science forever. By the end you'll believe in it too. Today on Into the Impossible: the strangest, darkest, most personal origin story behind the world's most famous prize — and what it should make you do with the time you have left.
Peter Diamandis has built more of the future than almost anyone alive. He founded XPRIZE. He co-founded Singularity University with Ray Kurzweil. He started Human Longevity with Craig Venter. And in his new book with Steven Kotler, We Are as Gods, he argues that artificial intelligence isn't just changing what we can do. It's changing what it means to be human. I'm not so sure. This is Peter's fifth time on Into the Impossible, and the conversation I've been waiting years to have. His thesis: AI will deliver not just intelligence at scale, but wisdom — and humanity is already crossing the threshold into godlike capability, whether we're ready or not. My pushback: an experiment one of my students and I ran shows large language models trained only on pre-1911 physics cannot reproduce what Einstein did with the same data. If wisdom were just scale, that shouldn't be true. We go after it for an hour. No hedging, no softening. What you'll hear: — Whether AGI can manufacture genuine wisdom or just better simulations of it — The pre-1911 Einstein test and what it reveals about the ceiling of current AI — The "five forks of humanity": longevity, BCI, off-planet speciation, creators vs. consumers, and uploading — What happens to human purpose when scarcity disappears — Why Peter thinks India dominates the next twenty years of science and technology — Peter's Fermi paradox theory and why he thinks we may be someone else's biosphere experiment — The Future Vision XPRIZE and how dystopian training data may be making AI more dangerous — David Sinclair's epigenetic age-reversal trials, now underway in human eyes Peter says what you did between breakfast and dinner would be godlike to your grandparents. We just stopped noticing. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. CHAPTERS 00:00 Diamandis: AGI will generate wisdom by simulating billions of outcomes 04:07 Brian's counterargument: wisdom requires embodiment, not just simulation 07:07 The GPU + LLM architecture may already be a local maximum 09:48 AI is outpacing most math PhDs but the ceiling is still unknown 15:30 Diamandis fires back at the doomers 17:59 AI will eventually untangle the legal systems blocking the future 23:18 The Singularity has religious qualities and both hosts take that seriously 29:37 Post-scarcity splits humanity into creators and consumers 36:08 Peter's Fermi paradox theory: we may be someone else's biosphere experiment 43:07 Dystopian AI training data may be causing misalignment 51:46 Human trials are underway for epigenetic eye age reversal ——— Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon — get my weekly M.A.G.I.C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un More: Peter Diamandis Moonshots Podcast: https://www.diamandis.com/podcast Peter Diamandis Substack: https://metatrends.substack.com/ Future Vision XPRIZE: https://futurevisionxprize.com/ Book We Are as Gods: https://a.co/d/0bfz2pBo Peter Diamandis YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@peterdiamandis Follow Peter on X: https://x.com/PeterDiamandis Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #science #physics #astronomy #cosmology #podcast #universe #peterdiamandis #ai #agi #singularity #abundance #longevity Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
An astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe argues the universe looks increasingly designed for life — while a cosmologist challenges whether fine-tuning proves anything at all. If we're alone in the cosmos, the implications are staggering. If we're not, it could change science, religion, and humanity's future forever. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist, founder of Reasons to Believe, and author focused on the intersection of science and faith. We cover: - Why the search for extraterrestrial life may be making Earth look more unique - Whether fine-tuning points to a Creator or a multiverse - What happens if AI becomes the dominant intelligence in the universe - Why scientists increasingly believe intelligent aliens exist despite lacking evidence - The cosmic time windows that make human existence possible Can hope survive in a universe that eventually dies? Timestamps: 00:00 Why Are We Here at All? 10:44 Is the Universe Designed to Kill Us? 20:25 The Evidence That Humans Are Different 29:42 Why Scientists Still Believe in Aliens 40:08 The 25 Conditions Life Needs to Exist 49:42 Does Fine-Tuning Prove a Creator? 55:37 Could an Alien Have a Soul? 1:03:26 What Happens After This Universe Ends? 1:05:59 Do Parallel Universes Solve Anything? 1:12:09 Will AI Replace Humanity First? 1:17:55 The Strongest Case Against Fine-Tuning 1:24:00 Would You Baptize an Alien? ———
An experimental cosmologist with 35 years of CMB research breaks down the curvature tension — and why the viral claim that "everything we know about cosmology is wrong" doesn't survive contact with the actual data. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. Dr. Brian Keating is Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of Physics at UC San Diego and one of the leading experimental cosmologists working on the cosmic microwave background. He has spent three decades on experiments including BICEP, BICEP2, the Simons Array, and the Simons Observatory — the same data ecosystem at the center of this debate. We cover: why a statistical preference in one dataset is not the same as a discovery, what Planck actually measured and what its curvature signal does and doesn't mean, why combining CMB data with baryon acoustic oscillations changes the picture, the difference between geometry and topology that most explainers skip, and why science communicators who sensationalize real tensions do more damage than they realize. A clickable title and a photogenic host are not the same thing as a careful inference from the data. Key Takeaways: 00:00 A flat universe means the angles of any triangle in space sum to exactly 180° 02:10 Zero curvature is a unique number — it demands explanation, which is part of why inflation matters 04:45 Geometry describes how space behaves at scale; topology is a separate question most explainers conflate 07:30 Planck's curvature preference appears in some analyses — it is real, but it is also model-sensitive 10:00 A statistical preference within one dataset is not a confirmed result 12:20 Parameter degeneracy means changing one cosmological knob shifts others — results are not isolated 14:40 When Planck data is combined with baryon acoustic oscillation data, the case for curvature weakens 17:00 The honest summary: the curvature tension is worth watching, but nowhere near decisive 18:30 Sensationalizing legitimate tensions trains the public to think science only matters when it's exploding ———
The AI theorist who thinks consciousness is a software agent — and that God, AGI, and the apocalypse are all pointing at the same thing. What you think is "the world" isn't outside you. It's a simulation your brain produces, and the self that experiences it may not exist in the way you think it does.J oscha Bach is an AI researcher and cognitive scientist whose work sits at the intersection of computation, consciousness, and the architecture of the mind. He's one of the few thinkers willing to explain what experience actually is in mechanistic terms — without retreating to mysticism or handwaving. We cover: -why the world you perceive is a model your brain generates — not the physical world itself -what's actually wrong with Roger Penrose's quantum consciousness theory -why simulating a connectome won't produce behavior -what neuroscience is still missing; whether AGI is possible on current hardware -how religion functions as an operating system for civilizations -why atheists like Sam Harris may be more Protestant than they realize The self is not the substrate. You are not your neurons — you're the pattern running on them. KEY TAKEAWAYS 00:00 You Don't Live in the World — It Lives in You 10:05 Why Scientists Refuse to Explain Reality 14:50 Where Joscha Disagrees with David Deutsch 21:10 What Would a Truly Intelligent Machine Actually Do? 25:00 Why Chess Destroys Good Minds30:40 Can You Upload a Brain? What Neuroscience Gets Wrong 38:45 Why Einstein Needed a Body to Discover Relativity 46:00 AI Companies as Prophets of the New Religion 50:10 You Don't Die Because You Were Never Really Alive 57:50 Religion as a Civilizational Operating System 1:04:00 What the Torah Knew That Sam Harris Doesn't 1:12:00 What Is God, Actually? 1:18:00 What Bach University Would Teach 1:27:50 Confronting Your Own Death ———
Juan Maldacena is a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study whose 1997 paper remains the most cited in the history of theoretical physics. We cover: -why wormholes and quantum entanglement may be the same thing -what actually happens to information when you throw something into a black hole -the reason Hawking radiation accidentally gave cosmologists the equation that explains why the universe has structure -whether science-fiction wormholes are ruled out by the laws of physics -the one unsolved problem Juan says matters more than black holes. The most important problem in quantum gravity is understanding the beginning of the Big Bang — not black holes. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 What If Einstein's Two Strangest Ideas Were One? 01:15 Juan Maldacena: The Most Cited Physicist Alive 03:25 What Would Einstein Most Want to Know Today? 07:45 The Holographic Principle Explained 09:20 What Happens When You Throw a Laptop Into a Black Hole? 11:00 Is Information Actually Lost Forever? 12:25 The Problem Juan Wants to Solve Before He Dies 13:50 Why Real Black Holes Don't Emit Hawking Radiation 15:25 How Black Hole Physics Accidentally Explained the Universe 17:00 Could Primordial Black Holes Be Dark Matter? 18:30 Real Observers Solving Imaginary Problems 21:15 Why Imaginary Numbers Keep Being Right 25:00 The Origin Story of AdS/CFT 27:05 Do We Actually Live in AdS Space? 29:00 Are Wormholes Real or Just Science Fiction? 32:10 Could AI Have Helped Einstein? 33:00 Can Science and Religion Coexist? ———
A Princeton cognitive scientist says AI can't think like a child — and giving it more data won't fix that. If the field keeps scaling without solving what's actually missing, the gap between human and machine intelligence won't close. It'll just get more expensive. Tom Griffiths is a professor of psychology and computer science at Princeton, and one of the leading researchers working at the intersection of human cognition and AI. We cover: -why a child learns language from breadcrumbs while AI needs continents of data -the 250-year-old idea that quietly became the foundation of modern language models -what sycophantic AI actually does to your beliefs over time -why solving AGI might have less to do with scale and more to do with understanding what a child's mind really is. The hallucinations don't bother him — it's the sycophancy that should worry you. Key Takeaways: 00:00 The Math Behind How Minds Actually Work 00:30 Why Defining "Thought" Is Harder Than It Looks 04:30 What AI Gets Wrong About Consciousness 07:00 What ChatGPT Actually Revealed About the Field 08:10 Are Humans Really Irrational — Or Solving a Different Problem? 11:00 How Chomsky Turned Language Into a Math Problem 13:55 The Chessboard Analogy That Explains Generative Grammar 15:20 Why Aristotle Got Thought Right and Physics Wrong 19:45 The Man Who Tried to Build AI in the 1600s 22:40 What Everyone Gets Wrong About George Boole 25:25 From Boole to Turing: How Logic Became Computers 27:40 Why Your Brain Runs on Less Energy Than a Light Bulb 28:40 Jensen Huang Says AGI Is Here. Is He Right? 31:45 Why the "AI vs. Human Intelligence" Scale Is Misleading 33:50 Why a Child Still Outlearns Every AI Model 35:20 The Fuzzy Boundary Problem That Broke Rule-Based AI 37:20 How Semantic Networks Rewired the Theory of Memory 39:30 Rosenblatt Built a Brain — Then Minsky Killed It 43:15 The Plane Ride Where Backpropagation Was Solved 44:20 Hallucinations, Sycophancy, and What Should Actually Worry You 47:00 What Has to Change Before AI Can Truly Generalize 50:10 What a Layperson Should Actually Take Away From This ———
Read my new book, The Price of Becoming. www.LearningLeader.com/Becoming The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. My guest: David Epstein is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Range and The Sports Gene. A former investigative reporter at ProPublica and senior writer at Sports Illustrated. His new book is called Inside the Box: How Constraints Make Us Better. Notes Be part of "Mindful Monday" -- Text Hawk to 66866 Key Learnings The easier move is to let it go. David found a factual error in Ryan's new/my new book. David was supposed to read it and write a blurb on it - but went further and challenged a factual error. The kind move, what great leaders actually do, is being willing to point things out, even if it could cause a little friction. There is such a thing as too much autonomy. After Range became mega viral, David optimized for autonomy. He individualized his whole life. He no longer was writing about what others assigned him. A year later, he realized there is a thing as too much autonomy. He missed the structure of a work day, the deadlines, the annoyances of working with other people's schedules. This total freedom ended up feeling terrible. "The great thing about being committed by your own choice is that you can stop wondering how to live and start living." This quote by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi hit David when he was on a dating app for book topics, just swiping and swiping. That day he said, "I'm really interested in constraints. I need some myself. I'm writing a book proposal on this." Two weeks later he was 10 times more interested because he decided to dive into it. Cal Newport says "system shutting down" at the end of his workday. It seems silly, but when you have all that freedom, you need something to close the workday so you can recover and be ready for the next day. Your brain is made for preventing you from having to think whenever possible. Cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham says thinking is energetically costly. So when your calendar is too open, all you'll do is what's convenient. Your brain will be lazy. The path of least resistance. The mere urgency effect: when schedule and structure is too open, people do things that seem urgent even if they're unimportant. When you're too unstructured, you end up doing huge volumes of low value stuff just to have checked off doing something. What David's workday looks like now: Batching work: people at work check their email on average 77 times a day. The way people are usually doing that is they're toggling all the time between email and something else. When you do that, it lowers your productivity and massively increases your stress. David doesn't start his day with his inbox. He'll check it at the end of the workday because emails can take him away from the most important work at the beginning of the day. Stress + Rest = Growth. The workday ends when David's son gets home. When writing, you have to program in rest, just like you would if you were an athlete in training. Daniel Kahneman said writing "Thinking Fast and Slow" was the worst few years of his life. David had lunch with Kahneman and praised the book. Kahneman said, "Never again." He said it was so isolating. He was used to working with a partner or multiple partners and colleagues. He felt so isolated that he said he'd never write a book again, or if he did, he would write it with somebody else. And that's what he did. And David could empathize with that. David made a one-page architectural outline for how "Inside the Box" would look. If it's not on that page, it is not in the book. He wrote as small as possible to try to defeat his own system. The book's 20% shorter than his other two. He thinks it's much tighter writing. He was so much more efficient that he doesn't feel nearly as burned out. After a mega hit book, two things matter: (1) A lot is out of your control, and (2) Identify as a craftsman. David's colleague at Sports Illustrated told him, "If a book about genetics and vampires comes out the same day, you're screwed, and there's nothing you can do about it." He was right. But David very strongly identifies as a writer now, as a craftsman. He's taken fiction writing courses just to learn about craft. With Inside the Box, he did a structural experiment that he found so engaging because he was focused on the craft itself, not just the commercial outcome. "Docendo discimus" - by teaching, we learn. This is a quote from Seneca. If people think they're going to have to teach certain material, they organize it more coherently in their own mind. They start pulling out main ideas and attaching different ideas together. Teaching it is even better, but just making someone think they're going to have to teach it makes them learn in a much more coherent way. Narrative values: the recurring themes that give coherence to a life. David went back and looked at his life and identified: curiosity, open-mindedness, diligence, and resilience. Now that he's started telling his story in that way, it shows up everywhere. But going forward, he also wanted some things in his story that he didn't have. So he identified forgiveness in particular because that has not been a strong suit for him. Ben Helfgott: the only living Olympian to have survived a concentration camp. Almost everybody in his family was killed in the Holocaust. He just preached forgiveness all the time. When David saw what Ben did, these petty grudges he's holding are nothing. You're just poisoning yourself when you hold these grudges. So David decided he wanted forgiveness to become one of his narrative values. Herbert Simon won the highest award in computer science, psychology, and the Nobel Prize in economics. His quote serves as the epigraph of the book: "It is a myth, widely believed but not less mythical for that, that people are most creative when they're most free." Simon coined the term "satisficing." It's a combination of satisfy and suffice. It means having good enough decision rules. He contrasted that with maximizing. From a mountain of psychological research, it is almost always bad to be a maximizer. Maximizers are less happy with their decisions, less happy with their lives, more prone to regret. There's not much evidence they actually make better decisions most of the time. Simon was a proactive satisficer. He said you need three sets of clothing: one on your back, one in the wash, and the next one ready to wear. He simplified all the decisions in his life so he could save cognitive bandwidth for the really important ones. He famously said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Choose when to choose. Choose when to save and when to use your cognitive bandwidth. Good enough doesn't mean you have low standards. It means you're saving your bandwidth for the most important things. "How you do anything is how you do everything" is completely wrong. This is one of David's least favorite quotes. It's wrong. Herbert Simon did the same mundane thing, the same breakfast every day, the same socks, so he could crush it in his work. He wasn't doing everything the way he was doing his work. The Fredkins Paradox: We spend the most energy on the least important decisions because we agonize when the options are really similar. General Magic: They invented the smartphone in 1990. The iPhone would not exist without them. They had infinite degrees of freedom. They could do anything. When the device came out, it didn't solve a clear customer problem. It had a 200-page manual. They sold 3,000 units in the first six months. Meanwhile, people inside General Magic who bit off much smaller chunks had success. One low-level engineer started Auction Web. His bosses said no, too small. He left and changed the name to eBay. Another created Graffiti. He said "I'm going to solve a clear customer problem. Busy professionals want contacts and calendars on the go." He did just a calendar, contacts, and a memo pad. That was the Palm Pilot. By doing way less. By doing something, not everything. Tony Fadell (the "podfather"): "If you don't have constraints, make up constraints." Bill Gurley said, "We have a saying in venture: more startups die of indigestion than starvation." When Tony co-founded Nest, he made his team work inside a literal box. He made them prototype the box before they had the product. If it didn't fit in that box, it was not a priority. Reflection Questions What area of your life has too much freedom right now? Where could you add a constraint (a deadline, a ritual, a boundary) that would actually make you more productive or creative? If you had to pick three narrative values that run through your life story, what would they be? Are they the ones you want, or do you need to add an aspirational value like David did with forgiveness? What's one decision you're maximizing (trying to find the perfect choice) when you should be satisficing (good enough and move on)? How much time and energy would you free up if you applied Herbert Simon's approach? More Learning #310 - David Epstein: Why Generalists Will Rule the World #582 - Cal Newport: Obsess Over Quality #660 - James Clear: The 4 Laws to Behavioral Change Podcast Chapters00:00 The Price of Becoming - Ryan's New Book 01:15 Meet David Epstein 02:39 The Fact Checker: What Great Leaders Do 04:27 Dedication Easter Eggs 05:50 The Problem With Too Much Autonomy 10:47 Why You Actually Need Constraints 12:29 Batching Work: The 77 Email Checks Problem 17:20 Lunch with Kahneman: Thinking Fast and Slow Was Miserable 22:18 What To Do After A Viral Book 27:07 Docendo Discimus: By Teaching, We Learn 29:13 Why Leaders Should Regularly Teach 31:09 Desirable Difficulties 31:56 Narrative Values: The Themes That Define Your Life 34:31 Adding Forgiveness As an Aspirational Value 36:13 Chips on Shoulders vs. Proving People Right 39:10 Herbert Simon: The Man Who Won Everything 40:20 Satisficing Over Maximizing 42:40 Choosing When To Choose 44:29 Good Enough Doesn't Mean Low Standards 46:13 Why "How You Do Anything" is Completely Wrong 47:25 General Magic: Do Something, Not Everything 52:49 One Year From Now: What Are You Celebrating? 54:54 EOPC
An astrophysicist says the universe doesn't pull things down — it accelerates upward toward them. And that's one of the tamer claims in this conversation. Dr. Hakeem Oluseyi joins Brian to dismantle assumptions most physicists won't touch in public. Dr. Hakeem Oluseyi is a NASA researcher, Nova host, and author of Why Do We Exist, a unified framework spanning quantum fields to cosmology — and making a case for why imagination may be the universe's endgame. We cover: -why falling is the wrong way to think about gravity -what Hakeem discovered about heat flow while washing dishes that took decades to confirm -why humans sit at the exact logarithmic center of the universe, the calculation that puts 100,000 multicellular-life candidates in the Milky Way -why we'll likely never find any of them, and the one thing most people confuse for knowledge that Hakeem says is the most dangerous deception in society today. The universe makes life inevitable. It does not make multicellular life inevitable. Key Takeaways: 0:00 The Question That Breaks Physics 1:30 Meet Dr. Hakeem Oluseyi 3:10 The Earth Isn't Pulling You Down 6:00 Heat That Flows the Wrong Way 9:05 Why Electrons Run the Universe 11:15 The Most Dangerous Deception 14:20 We're at the Center of Everything 20:05 100,000 Worlds — And We'll Never Reach Them 22:30 Nine Realms: A Map of All Reality 25:25 When Two Realms Grind Each Other Apart 28:50 The Line Between Speculation and Science 33:20 The Hubble Tension War 40:40 How Long Until the Universe Destroys All Matter 44:05 Victor Glover and Why Representation Matters 48:10 What Happens to a Species That Stops Imagining
Sabine Hossenfelder says quantum computers are only useful for breaking codes. She's wrong — and my undergraduates are building the proof. What's happening in my lab right now has nothing to do with cryptography, and everything to do with the future of AI. I'm a cosmologist at UC San Diego teaching undergraduates to build, program, and eventually launch quantum computers — possibly to the Moon via Artemis! We cover: why Sabine's code-breaking verdict misses the real story, how free tools like Quantum Rings are closing the education gap Sabine thinks is a hardware problem, why Q-Day just got moved up to 2029, what my students are actually doing with quantum computers in my lab, and why the next generation of quantum physicists won't need a billion-dollar facility to train. The bottleneck isn't the hardware. It's what we're teaching — and who we're teaching it to. Use my special link to get access to the course and apply for the summer 2026 internship: https://www.quantumrings.com/iti Watch Sabine's video https://youtu.be/qV7hQEtr3ic?si=EPcg5fAw_18QaKhM Timestamps: 00:00 Quantum Is More Than Codebreakingt 00:51 The Week Q-Day Jumped Years Aheadt 02:38 Why Quantum Felt Useless (Until Now)t 04:42 What Happens If Encryption Fails Quietlyt 05:33 The Tool That Changes Everythingt 07:37 From Beginner to Running Algorithmst 09:26 The Infrastructure Behind the Shiftt 10:58 The Real Bottleneck: Not Physicst 11:59 The Opportunity Everyone's Missingt ———
A neuroscientist built an AI that refuses to give answers — and it outperformed every model on the market, including the ones trained on billions of users' data. The implication: every AI that hands you the answer may be quietly making you less capable of thinking without it. Dr. Vivienne Ming is a neuroscientist, AI researcher, and author of Robot Proof, who has spent nearly 30 years building machine learning systems and studying what makes humans irreplaceable alongside them. We cover: -why the 5–10% of people who argue with AI outperform both elite human forecasters and top AI models -what GPS is already doing to your memory and why GPT may be next -the "Sexy Face" game that was secretly training a neural network to reunite orphan refugees -why the information explosion paradox means more free answers lead to less human exploration — even among scientists. Giving you the answer is almost the worst thing these machines can do. Key Takeaways 0:00 – The AI Trained to Never Answer You 0:49 – Why Most People Just Hand Problems to AI 2:18 – How the Cyborgs Beat Everyone 4:55 – What Happens When AI Only Asks Questions 6:10 – The Failure Resume: What It Actually Means 9:14 – What Amazon & Facebook's Data Revealed About Innovation 11:23 – Why Even Scientists Are Exploring Less 15:23 – The Hidden Parenting Book Inside This AI Book 16:14 – If Kids Were Bonds, What Would They Be Worth? 20:17 – The Skills That Predict Everything at Age 65 25:22 – The "Sexy Face" Game That Reunited Refugee Families 31:24 – What Diversity Actually Means on Breakthrough Teams 35:56 – What Einstein's Dad Would Have Gotten Wrong 37:40 – This Is Not the Industrial Revolution 41:17 – GPS Already Shrank Your Brain. GPT Is Next. 51:49 – Why the Book Cover Is Black and Yellow 56:55 – The Benchmark Nobody Is Building 59:46 – Can an AI Ever Have a Happiest Thought? ———
Emad Mostaque built Stable Diffusion. Now he says the most powerful AI models will never be released — and we have roughly 800 days before everything changes. What the trillion-dollar labs won't tell you about the models they're keeping locked away
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
It was after an email exchange with Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr Kati Kariko, that Dr Anushi Rajapaska had a lightning moment and decided to back her research innovation – founding Mellbourne-based startup Misti to develop a ‘smart inhaler' based on acoustofluidics. It's engineered to deliver a wide range of biomolecules—including mRNA, antibodies, small molecules, and antigens. It's a first-in-class solution for both chronic and infectious respiratory conditions using super-sonic sound waves to generate ultra-fine aerosol for lung delivery of respiratory medications. While smart circuitry enables breath-triggered dosing and seamless digital integration.Anushi joins the podcast to talk about her 15 year innovation journey from PhD findings to setting up a global team connected to San Diego with a Victorian manufacturing base, the benefits of taking part in the JP Morgan Healthcare Week in early 2026 with Global Victoria's delegation and the connections she has forged.We also find out about her recent trip to BIO China in Suzhou where she took part in a panel discussion alongside MTPConnect CEO Stuart Dignam about how biotech startups can navigate cross-border collaboration between China and Australia. View preview of the episode!
With NASA planning to send Artemis astronauts farther into space than ever, should they be worried about the deadly effects of the Van Allen belts? Here, I describe to James Altucher what the claims are and what the real concerns should be. My response to Moon landing denial claims by Kim Kardashian, Candace Owens, and Bart Sibrel I answer all the big questions: ⇨ Why did the flag move with no wind? ⇨ Is there really no gravity on the moon? ⇨ Why haven't we gone back? ⇨ How did the astronauts survive the Van Allen radiation belts? Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Nate is back up in the studio, chatting pukapuka with Rosetta and Milly for Loose Reads! Today, the trio have a kōrero about Nobel Prize Winner Jon Fosse, and his latest work Vaim. Whakarongo mai nei! Thanks to Timeout Bookstore!
Please join my mailing list here
If you enjoyed Orit Gat's essay on Tracey Emin's sort-of-retrospective at Tate Modern (which you can hear in the current edition of Culture File), here is some further conversation between Orit Gat and Luke Clancy, around Emin, Autofiction, Bad Museums, Rose Wiley and Nobel Prize Winners.
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
Please join my mailing list here
WANTED: Developers and STEM experts! Get paid to create benchmarks and improve AI models. Sign up for Alignerr using our link: https://alignerr.com/?referral-source=briankeating One of the most powerful AI systems we've ever built is succeeding for reasons we still don't understand. And worse, they may succeed for reasons that might lock us into the wrong future for humanity. Today's guest is Anil Ananthaswamy, an award-winning science writer and one of the clearest thinkers on the mathematical foundations of machine learning. In this conversation, we're not just talking about new demos, incremental improvements, or updates on new models being released. We're asking even harder questions: Why does the mathematics of machine learning work at all? How do these models succeed when they suffer from problems like overparameterization and lack of training data? And are large language models revealing deep structure, or are they just producing very convincing illusions and causing us to face an increasingly AI-slop-driven future? KEY TAKEAWAYS 00:00 — Book explores why ML works through math 02:47 — Perceptron proof shows simple math guarantees learning 05:11 — Early AI failed due to single-layer limits 07:12 — Nonlinear limits caused the first AI winter 09:04 — Backpropagation revived neural networks 10:59 — GPUs + big data enabled deep learning 15:25 — AI success risks technological lock-in 17:30 — LLMs lack human-like learning and embodiment 22:57 — High-dimensional spaces power ML behavior 27:36 — Data saturation may slow future gains 31:11 — Continual learning is still missing in AI 33:46 — Neuromorphic chips promise energy efficiency 41:49 — Overparameterized models still generalize well 45:05 — SGD succeeds via randomness in complex landscapes 48:27 — Perceptrons remain the core of modern neural net - Additional resources: Anil's NEW Book "Why Machines Learn: The Elegant Math Behind Modern AI": https://www.amazon.com/Why-Machines-Learn-Elegant-Behind/dp/0593185749 Get My NEW Book: Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FN8DH6SX?ref_=pe_93986420_775043100 Please join my mailing list here
Get My NEW Book: Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FN8DH6SX Andrew Jaffe Book: The Random Universe: https://www.amazon.com/Random-Universe-Models-Probability-Cosmos/dp/0300250509 Is the universe intrinsically random? In this conversation, we dive deep into why the universe may be fundamentally, intrinsically random. Whether inflation on life support, the truth behind the Hubble tension, and whether cosmology is approaching the event horizon, limits beyond which humans can never know. Today we're joined by one of the architects of modern cosmological inference, Professor Andrew Jaffee, author of a new book called The Random Universe that argues that every observation in science is shaped by the models we bring to it, biases and all. KEY TAKEAWAYS 00:00–01:13 — Science and life rely on building models. 01:13–03:35 — Models of people and reality are often wrong and revised. 04:04–06:01 — Observation depends on prior theories. 06:01–07:32 — Models can't be escaped, only improved. 07:32–08:57 — No single scientific method exists. 08:57–11:25 — Science uses induction, not pure proof. 11:25–13:22 — Induction isn't certain, only probabilistic. 13:22–15:36 — Induction works because nature is regular. 17:44–19:08 — Big Bang emerges from well-tested models. 19:08–21:15 — Current cosmology is stressed, not broken. 29:19–30:36 — Probability gives meaning to models. 39:45–41:11 — Randomness often reflects limited knowledge. 43:46–45:00 — Quantum physics is fundamentally probabilistic. 49:09–50:04 — Inflation awaits decisive observational tests. - Additional resources: Get My NEW Book: Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FN8DH6SX?ref_=pe_93986420_775043100 Please join my mailing list here
Win a $100 Amazon Gift Card! Help me help you get great guests on the Into the Impossible podcast and spread the message throughout the universe. Fill out this listener survey: https://forms.gle/EUKzyE2ZqXDYJ2F47 Please join my mailing list here
Answer my survey to get a chance to win a $100 Amazon Gift Card!
Please join my mailing list here
Brian Keating sits down with Matt Gray for a wide-ranging, thoughtful, and entertaining conversation that explores the intersection of cosmology, philosophy, and mysticism. Together, they tackle some of the universe's biggest mysteries—from the origins of the cosmos and the mechanics of the Big Bang, to the challenges and philosophy behind scientific discovery. Timestamps: 00:00 "Science, Nobel Near-Miss, and Humor" 07:26 "Passion for Science and Sharing" 12:00 "Chasing a Nobel-Worthy Discovery" 20:42 Limits of Scientific Falsifiability 22:18 "Origins and Concepts of Cosmology" 32:28 "Galileo, Einstein, and Scientific Progress" 34:16 "Nobel Prizes and Collaboration Challenges" 38:58 "Galactic Dust and Panspermia" 48:15 Agnostic vs. Atheist Questioning 51:44 John Lennox: Faith, Science, and Scripture 58:35 Equations, God, and Belief Dynamics 01:03:12 Belief Nuances and Perspectives 01:06:07 Maxwell's Ether and Light Waves - Join this channel to get access to perks like monthly Office Hours: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join
Please join my mailing list here
WANTED: Developers and STEM experts! Get paid to create benchmarks and improve AI models. Sign up for Alignerr using our link: https://alignerr.com/?referral-source=briankeating Today's guest Bret Weinstein takes us on a fascinating journey to discover the next evolution of mankind. KEY TAKEAWAYS 00:00 "Universal Principles of Evolution" 08:14 "Soma, Germline, and Senescence" 12:34 "Life Cycle Adaptation Patterns" 17:46 "Hybrid Creatures, Not Resurrections" 24:01 "Biology, Ancestry, and Modern Pathology" 27:14 "Precautionary Principle and Hidden Risks" 33:51 "Antifragility: Growth Through Challenges" 41:02 Evolutionary Patterns in Nocturnal Vision 48:16 Culture: A Tool for DNA Goals 54:02 "Overhyped Fears of LLM AI" 55:55 Overhyping LLMs: Evolution Prevails 01:05:13 "Sober Realism About AI" 01:09:04 "Passion for Science, Not Professorship" 01:16:59 "Developing Independence and Skepticism" 01:18:42 "AI: A Modern Cassandra Warning" 01:26:30 "Rethinking Priorities: Solar Storms" 01:33:05 "Prioritizing Hazards Intelligently" 01:35:00 "Reprogramming Life's Blueprints" - Additional resources: Dark Horse Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@DarkHorsePod/videos Peterson Academy Lecture Series: https://petersonacademy.com/?utm_source=Keating Get My NEW Book: Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FN8DH6SX?ref_=pe_93986420_775043100 Please join my mailing list here
Episode Description:James sits down with astrophysicist Brian Keating for a candid, useful tour through three hot zones: how to think about AI (and where it actually helps), what's broken in higher ed and admissions right now, and why outsourcing your mood to politics is a losing strategy. You'll hear first-hand stories (from UC San Diego classrooms to New York City politics), specific ways James and Brian really use AI daily, and a simple framework for protecting your attention and happiness—even when everything feels polarized.What You'll Learn:A practical AI workflow you can copy today (research prompts, personal “style” bots, and where LLMs fail at original insight). A filter for political noise that keeps 99% of your happiness anchored in health, family, friends, and work you control. What the UCSD admissions/placement findings really mean for preparation and standards (and why “remedial” can mask deeper gaps).A simple admissions/common-sense principle: standards matter; “portfolio” evaluation shouldn't ignore basic skills. How to use AI without losing your own voice—James' test for “write it in my style” and why generic outputs still fall short. Timestamped Chapters:[02:00] Loft event stories, comedy beats, and setting the tone for a heavy topic. [05:00] NYC politics, leadership, and the “why would they vote for him?” question. [07:32] Slogans vs. reality: chants, charters, and what words actually imply. [09:30] Economics that sound nice vs. incentives that ruin cities. [12:00] “Don't outsource your happiness to politicians.” A sanity reset. [20:48] Inside UCSD's placement data: how did calculus passers miss first-grade algebra? [30:02] Standards, SATs, and what “remedial” hides (plus grade inflation). [77:49] How James and Brian actually use AI; “mad-bot disease” and why voice still matters.Additional ResourcesBrian Keating's "Monday M.A.G.I.C." NewsletterBrian Keating — personal websiteLosing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor by Brian KeatingInto the Impossible: Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner by Brian KeatingInto the Impossible Volume 2: Focus Like a Nobel Prize WinnerUniversity of California, San Diego — Brian Keating faculty pageTopics & Documents MentionedUC San Diego Admissions/Placement Working Group report (PDF). UCSD SenateCoverage of UCSD preparedness findingsHamas charters (1988; 2017 update) & “Intifada” contextMatt Wolfe — AI tutorials (site & YouTube)Book.sv - AI book recommendations based on books you've read.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Around 25 years ago, Ardem Patapoutian set out to investigate the fundamental biology behind our sense of touch. Through a long process of gene elimination, he identified a class of sensors in the cell membrane that turn physical pressure into an electrical signal. He changed the game in the field of sensation and perception, and in 2021 shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work. He joins Host Flora Lichtman to talk about his research, the odd jobs he worked along the way, and how he found a sense of belonging in science.Guest: Dr. Ardem Patapoutian is a professor and the Presidential Endowed Chair in Neurobiology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
