Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 120 | Jeremy England on Biology, Thermodynamics, and the Bible

Episode Date: October 26, 2020

Erwin Schrödinger's famous book What Is Life? highlighted the connections between physics, and thermodynamics in particular, and the nature of living beings. But the exact connections between living organisms and the flow of heat and entropy remains a topic of ongoing research. Jeremy England is a leader in this field, deriving connections between thermodynamic relations and the processes of life. He is also an ordained rabbi who finds resonances between modern science and passages in the Hebrew Bible. We talk about it all, from entropy fluctuation theorems to how scientists should approach religion. Support Mindscape on Patreon. Jeremy England received his Ph.D. in physics from Stanford University. He is currently Senior Director in the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning group at GlaxoSmithKline. He has been a Rhodes scholar, a Hertz fellow, and was named one of Forbes's "30 Under 30 Rising Stars of Science." His new book is Every Life is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things. Web site Google Scholar publications Talk on Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics and Life Amazon author page Wikipedia Twitter

Making sense of the longevity boom can take a lifetime. So let Kara Swisher do it for you. In the CNN original series, Kara Swisher wants to live forever. She breaks down AI health claims, flashy longevity tech, and big promises to reveal what actually works and what's just bunk. You can't out smart aging, or can you? Don't miss the new CNN original series Kara Swisher wants to live forever. Streaming April 12th with a CNN subscription.

Go to CNN.com slash subscribe. to get started. From the neon lights of the club to the harsh, buzzing lights of the office. Don't let the wear show on your face. Just swipe Mabeline instant eraser concealer to erase the night before, wherever that happens to be.

Instantly covered dark circles and under-eye bags for a brighter, more awake look. This do-it-all formula also contours, corrects, and highlights, all while staying lightweight, crease-resistant, and smooth. It may be the world's greatest eraser. Find your shade of instant eraser concealer.

at your local retailer. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, John Carroll. Long-time listeners will know that there are two things I'm really interested in. One is entropy. I mean, there's more than two things. I like to think. But anyway, two of them, entropy, the arrow of time, right?

How entropy increases over time in the language of statistical mechanics and why that draws a distinction between the past and the future. And then separately, but in a related sense, life, the idea of biological life the origin of life, the evolution of life. So it's very natural, and we've done it before, to bring these two things together because living systems are physical systems. They obey the laws of physics.

And so they're out of equilibrium systems. They're systems that are open and interact with their environment, and they take part in, they participate in the overall increase of entropy in the universe. So today's guest is one of the world's leaders in thinking about this intersection

of statistical mechanics and entropy with life, both its origin, and its evolution and its functioning on a day-to-day basis. Jeremy England is well known, especially to readers of Quanta magazine. Quanta, which is one of my favorite science magazines, has profiled Jeremy and talked about his work a lot. What he's doing is taking modern advances in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, that is to say, not just the simple fact that entropy increases,

but the ways in which it increases and the fluctuations around the overall tendency to increase and applies them to what life is, how it operates, how it originated. But there's a twist to this story. I mean, Jeremy would be a very obvious mindscape guest, but the twist is the following. Jeremy is also an ordained rabbi in the Orthodox Jewish tradition. And in his new book, called Every Life is on Fire, how thermodynamics explains the origins of living things,

Jeremy does not shy away from talking about the relationship in his mind between his Jewish faith and the words that he reads in the Hebrew Bible and his ideas about physics and biology. So I thought this would be a fun thing to talk about. Obviously, very different perspective than what I usually have. It's just a fun, weird conversation because when we're talking about physics and biology, we're very, very much on the same wavelength more than most physicists or biologists. But then he was really into reading the Hebrew Bible in a way that I'm really not into that. So it's a very nice way to learn from someone who is a very smart person thinking about things in a very different way.

So you may agree or disagree with any part of the podcast, but I hope that it gives you something to think about. That's why we're here. So let's go. Jeremy England, welcome to the Mindscape podcast. Thank you very much. So we share a weird kind of quasi notoriety. I was slightly perplexed and I guess tickled but also weirded out to see. the name of my book, The Big Picture, appear in Dan Brown's novel called Origin.

But then you did way better than I did because you're a character in that book. Indeed. Indeed, yes. That was a surprising moment for me. I guess it was three years ago and a few months that I found out it was happening. And then the book came out, I think, almost exactly three years ago. So that was a peculiar time, an unexpected one, certainly. You had no idea, right? I mean, he didn't talk to you and you were not even. Yeah, no, he asked me to have lunch with him a month before the book came out. And I didn't know why.

I speculated maybe he was starting to write a book and he was talking to scientists to try to get ideas. And he told me the book was about to come out. And I said, oh, that's interesting. So, yeah, that was one of the more surprising things that happened to me so far in my. scientific career. Well, look, in some sense, it's not surprising. I mean, you're thinking about ideas that bring in together notions from physics and biology and the origin and nature of life. Big picture kind of ideas. And it's kind of catnip for a novelist who wants to juice up their story with some profound consequences. But you weren't happy with how you were portrayed, as I recall. Yeah, well, I think that it's not an irrelevant subject for the discussion of my own book that we're having now because while on the one hand, obviously, the research that I was doing before ever having any involvement in fictional pieces written by Dan Brown was something I already was interested in and motivated to pursue and excited by. And while also thinking about broader questions about what other languages there are with which we can talk about the boundary between life and non-life and how the human experience as a whole is impacted by how we view life and think about what it is, while I was also already quite interested in that, I think I didn't really have the same kind of fire lit under me to try to combine both discussions in one book until, you know, Brown helped me to become so aware of how much potential for public reaction beyond the scope of the science there is when you start putting ideas like this out there. And I think especially being portrayed as someone who wasn't interested in the broader discussion really made me feel like, no, I really am interested in the broader discussion. So maybe I should just make sure to go on record at length to that effect. Yeah, it's actually a really good point. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but you're right because I know that, you know,

when I gave talks on cosmology, I learned this from Martin Rees, a world famous theoretical astrophysicist. He gave a popular level talk on cosmology, and in the middle of it, he started talking about life on other planets. And I'm sitting there in the audience as a cosmologist. I'm thinking, wait a minute, that's not cosmology. Why are you talking about that kind of stuff? But we forget that the people out there who are interested in these things don't draw these strict boundaries in the same way that we do. And it's actually useful to try to step outside and make these connections that we're not supposed to be making in our professional lives. Yeah.

And I think especially the question of how life might have come into being when talked about in the language of physics or looking at the universe in a forensic way and trying to cast a glance backward, Once you're engaging in that discussion, I think there's no question that there are people who line up along either side of what they view as a line of scrimmage between the natural sciences and biblical religion, and they're looking for a winner-take-all outcome. And so I didn't want to pretend to be naive and sort of say, oh, well, I'm just, you know, sharing some thoughts for people's delectation, because I think it's too clear that if you come out of, and say, okay, I think we understand something more about where life-like behavior comes from in physical terms. There are people who are going to, and really who already have, take that and say, this is the last stake in the heart of believing anything the Bible has to say. And, you know, at the end of the day, I'm coming from a personal place as well, I, in adulthood, after kind of growing up as a theoretical physicist, decided that being was a Jew important, sorry, I decided that being a Jew

was important enough to me to invest a lot more effort in studying the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible and my tradition. And I've been quite gratified at the intellectual depth that I find there in engagement with these questions. So I don't myself see the contradictions or the throw-down winter take-all kind of fight that I referred to there. I don't see it as being necessary, but I'm conscious of how readily that pops up. And I do think it's an important kind of additional discussion to attach to this just to kind of make sure I'm not putting stuff out there that will get essentially used to push in a direction that I myself am not particularly interested in pushing. Yeah, and I think it's a very important discussion to have. We'll definitely get there.

But even before getting there, there's a whole other line of scrimmage, which is between biology and physics, right? Even before you bring in the third corner of the hat. So why don't we start there to lay some groundwork? And on the podcast, we've talked about these things before. We've talked about the origin of life and things like that. But everyone has a slightly different take on this. Why don't you tell me what you have in mind when you talk about the origin, the nature, the process that we call life? Sure. So I think this is something I try to treat somewhat carefully in the book, I think that when starting this discussion, the most important first thing is to realize that you can be talking about the world as a scientist. And actually, there are different languages you could choose to use.

And I think we sometimes miss that because we think of science as this monolith. And we just sort of want to say, what does science say about this? But within science, just the difference between looking at the world as a physicist or looking at the world as a biologist, you have different categories and, different vocabularies and different criteria that you take for granted in how you make sense of the same phenomenon. So I could talk about the world as a physicist, and then if I'm going to do that, I'm going to start by trying to be very basic and say, let me say, what numbers can I get out of making certain basic measurements? I can measure distance. I can measure time. I can quantify an amount of substance, et cetera. And then you build up this whole framework for how do I predict these numbers from

those numbers, and it's an inherently quantitative enterprise. Biology, by contrast, I would argue, is not inherently quantitative in the same way. In present-day biology, there's a huge amount of quantification that goes on, and it's very useful for addressing certain kinds of questions. But if you go back to the beginning, the idea of what is alive is something taken for granted at the outset of biology. You say there's this group of things in the world that are alive, like clams and people and trees, et cetera. So now, let's try to make a science out of what keeps them alive or stops them from being alive. And that can be begun, at least, in qualitative terms.

You can find out that when you cut off a chicken's head, it always dies. And there's not really a numerical analysis that needs to be done there in order for that to become very good empirical science. And that's, I think, fundamentally different from physics. You can't get physics going without starting to talk about the world in terms of numbers that you make out of it. And by the way, in terms of numbers that a priori don't see the difference between life and non-life, you know, you look at a table or you look at a frog. And if you're being really fundamental in your physical description, you just say, well, in both cases, I have a bunch of molecules or I have a bunch of particles, atoms, I have a bunch of quantum fields.

However, you know, whatever frame you're putting on it, the difference between those two objects is, you know, a sort of a different initial condition or a different assembly state of similar materials. and it's not something where the physics draws a bright line for you in a qualitative sense. So just the fact that you come to the world and the same phenomenon in the world and say, okay, if I toss a cat off a tower, because physicists always like endangering cats in their thought experiments, if I toss a cat off a tower, I can ask, how fast is it moving when it hits the ground? And that's a physical question. Or I could ask whether it's alive afterwards, and that's a biological question. And even if there's some translation I can make between these two conceptual frames, it's never going to be the same thing to ask if something is alive as it is to ask how fast it's moving.

And we need to recognize our own role and engaging in that work of translation. Well, you're suggesting or you're sort of hinting at a whole bunch of discussions people have had about reductionism and emergence and things like that. Again, things that we've talked about before on the podcast. I mean, I always thought that the reductionism versus emergence debate to the extent that it was a debate was kind of boring in the sense that I'm an in-principle reductionist. Like if I knew the standard model particle physics and Einstein's general relativity, in principle, I could do everything. But obviously, in practice, I can't do those things. And it seems like there's a camp that says, yes, but in principle I could. And there's another camp that says, yes, but in practice, I can't.

And I'm not quite sure why they're just not agreeing with each other. Do you see any actual disagreement that we should care about here? Well, I think that, I mean, this is something I try to take up early on in the book. And I don't think that the point of emergence versus reductionism is irrelevant to the discussion of, let's say, the boundary between life and non-life when viewed in physical terms. But I wouldn't want to conflate it with the more kind of linguistic point about talking about things. in biological terms versus physical terms. Okay. I do think that when talking about what languages are,

there are just some advantages that one language has over talking about the same phenomenon as another. So while it might be feasible in principle to describe what is going on in a stock market using a molecular dynamics simulation of all the particles that all the people and the whole economy that's involved in everything are made of, it's an extremely unwieldy way of trying to describe that.

And you put before you a huge stumbling block in trying to make the translations that are necessary. Whereas in this other language that we have for talking about the world that economics is born out of, the vocabulary is naturally suited and even aimed at that discussion. And I think similarly that works with biology as well. So while on the one hand, sometimes translating gets you new insight because there was something about the relationship between things in the biological space of concepts that you couldn't really give a mechanistic explanation for without resorting to some kind of physical representation of each of those, it's nonetheless the case that you actually are interested in something called successful cell division or something called DNA damage repair or these things where high-level concepts in language are going to be expressed more effectively if we're not talking about particle one being at this position and particle two being in that position. So I don't think it's merely just an issue of the difference between reductionism and emergence. I think it's also about

kind of the appropriateness of different languages and that we're not going to be as successful in describing the world if we don't make languages that are appropriate to the task and recognize their limitations and their advantages. That being said, I also think, you know, we're talking about reductionism and emergence, that's clearly relevant to the discussion with biology viewed through the lens of physics because life is a portion of the world that you kind of want to draw a box around and say, can I explain what this thing is as a phenomenon in the same way that I can explain the transition from a liquid to a solid or the same way that I can explain the transition from a liquid to a solid or the same way

that I can explain some more exotic kind of behavior of a collective of particles that you see in, I don't know, fractional quantum hull effects or whatever. There are these things that physics has been very good at making sense of where they see emergent predictability and describability coming at a different scale than the microscopic description of the individual degrees of freedom out of which it seems like the phenomenon gets going. And clearly life has the potential to be addressed in that way, at least in principle. The thing that I would point to as a difference, though, is that life is a much more multifarious semantic bundle than the physical phenomena that we typically refer to when we talk about classic examples of emergence. So as an example, if I talk about the liquid vapor transition, right, this classic model of a higher level description of a many-body phenomenon where I have many particles and in some sense, I'm missing the forest for the trees, if I look at every position of every particle, because I realize there's some order parameter, some single number, or a few numbers that describe a lot of what's going on as I change the temperature.

And I have tremendous predictive power once I realize that hidden simplicity. I think one of the things that is in some sense a psychological, I don't want to say impediment, but at least kind of a that leads a little bit in a misleading direction. direction in the culture of condensed matter physics when trying to come to biology is that we often are looking for symmetry to take something that looks complicated and revealed to us. It's extremely simple. But living things are characteristically highly unsymmetrical and very messy and very hierarchical in the communication between different scales of length and energy and time.

And so you don't get to just write down a very simple, beautiful theory that realizes that only one link scale matter or only one energy scale matters or things where emergence in classic examples in condensed matter physics really succeeds. And the approach that I've tried to advocate for, which I think has been somewhat successful so far, we'll see, and at least, you know, I've found it illuminating, is to say, let's take that multifarious bundle of what life is and try to chop it apart into a set of distinctive life-like behaviors. So behaviors that we think of as being indicative of life likeness, even if they aren't unique to life.

The things I would put on that list are making copies of yourself, self-replication on the one hand, or harvesting energy from a difficult to access source in your environment, on the other hand, or acting in a way that embodies an accurate prediction of your future based on the statistics of your past. These are each things where you might imagine, something that's not alive, but which is quite successful at doing this activity and which

looks somewhat impressive. And if you bundle them all together, it starts to be like, oh, maybe we're talking about a living thing. If it's, you know, it copies itself. It predicts its future. It's harvest energy, you know, but at the end of the day, we're looking through the lens of physics. Life looks like a grab bag of these specialized behaviors from the perspective of physics. And it's okay just to say, let's treat them one by one and start asking, can I make a physical theory of what permits or forbids or causes the emergence of self-replicators? Can I make a physical theory of what permits or forbids or leads to the emergence of self-organized prediction of the environment? And I won't say in each case that I'm describing the boundary

between life and non-life, but I'm certainly going to make better sense of that in the language of physics by engaging in that work. One of the downsides of our modern interconnected age is a certain degradation of privacy. It's increasingly easy for bad actors out there in the world to snoop on what we're doing. If that's something you're concerned about, and it should be, incognito mode is not going to do it. What you need is a VPN, a virtual private network. Private Internet access is a really simple service that gives you a VPN. It hides your IP address from the rest of the world. So hackers, snoopers of any kind cannot listen to you. Your data is encrypted, so it's just for you. Private Internet access is very easy to use. It's available for all

platforms, including mobile platforms like iOS and Android, and one subscription will protect up to 10 devices at the same time. Now Minescape listeners get a special deal if you go to private internet access.com slash Minescape. There's a 30-day money-back guarantee, and by using that link, you get complete digital privacy for less than $3 a month with three extra months for free. So go to private internet access.com slash Minescape. Give yourself a little online piece of mind. Yeah, actually, it's interesting because I had Stuart Bartlett, who is an astrobiologist, habeogenesis researcher on the podcast, and he and Michael Wong have proposed a four-part definition of things that are involved with life.

And basically, you mentioned three, replication, energy harvesting, prediction, and they add to that some form of homeostasis. But otherwise, with small changes of vocabulary, it's a very similar thing. So is it a growing feeling in the field that rather than coming up with a once and for all definition of the word life, we can recognize that life has different aspects and study them individually and then hope to put them together? I suppose I shouldn't speak for others and speculate too much about how popular this frame yet is, but I certainly see the merit of it. And I expect that it's going to have increasing traction over time because it doesn't just kick the can down the road, but it even, I think, makes a principled argument against trying to define life at the outset before we can start making progress on the science. It's very hard, if you say the first step is, let's all agree on what's alive and what isn't, and then we'll try to make a theory of that. And if instead you're going to say, well, you agree with me that living things make copies of themselves, right?

Or you agree with me that living things to some degree behave in ways that embody predictions of their environment. And also, you know, you mentioned homeostasis. I'm not sure that word appears in the book, but there's a characteristic of life in physical terms that is definitely the focus of one of the later chapters that essentially captures that idea that it's about how as energy flows through this collection of matter, the energy is sort of. of powering self-repair and stability and maintenance as opposed to causing disruption and chaotic disorder. And that's not to be taken for granted because a lot of driven non-equilibrium dynamics that you could observe might look that way to you, either in reality or apparently, especially at the beginning of the flow of energy.

Well, yeah, that leads us directly into the next aspect that we want to bring in, which is the physics side of things, right? You're trying to work at the interface of biology and thermodynamics or non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, where if we know one thing, if people on the street are aware of one thing, is that entropy is increasing and disorder is taking over. So how do you fit that aspect in to what do you think about life? Yeah, so I love this discussion of the second law and increasing entropy because I think that the first step in getting into this discussion, is to try to argue for an equivalent way of talking that is kind of ready for a new century of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and focuses the language in the right way. So the ways that people have talked about entropy in the past, I think are very much born from the early history of Permanidynamics and what it was possible to work with experimentally and what it was possible to predict with that. And we have, you know, the second law of thermodynamics, the idea that entropy is always increasing, and so therefore there's always going to be increasing disorder.

It becomes a kind of this old chestnut where it goes out into popular understanding and becomes this kind of unrigorous idea, which on the one hand conforms to our intuition in a variety of cases, because we all know that rooms get messy unless you kind of invest effort in them somehow. And sandcastles fall down, et cetera. but at the same time, we're just confronted by a world where we constantly see examples of things where the internal entropy, meaning the amount of order within the system is decreasing. And so sometimes entropy locally increases, sometimes it increases. Sorry, sometimes it locally decreases. Sometimes it locally increases. So let's just step back.

And instead of talking about in those terms, let's say this. Whenever people talk about entropy, what they're really talking about is counting the number of ways something that can happen. And that is ultimately of interest to us as far as predicting the world because it has an impact on the likelihood of certain things happening. But it is not the only factor that determines likelihood in some kind of probabilistic model that we're going to make. So in the classic discussion of entropy that you're trying to introduce the idea to, I don't know, someone in a high school chemistry class, you'd say, well, suppose we can. count the number of ways of collecting all the air molecules in the corner of the room. And we also count the number of ways of spreading all the air molecules in the room over the whole room. Clearly, there are many more ways of spreading the air over the whole room.

And so it's much more likely that the air will spread out over the whole room, so you don't have to worry about a spontaneous vacuum just choking you. And that's very reassuring. And it seems like what we're saying is high entropy things are what's likely. But actually, that's a specialized scenario of a particular assumption that we're making. We're assuming the dynamics of the molecules in the room have been just getting to be sort of chaotic and explore the space of all possible combinations and arrangements for a long time on some measure of what long and short is in time. But of course you can take a pump and pump all the air into a much smaller space. If you do work on the system, you're allowed to make a vacuum. And so you're lowering the entropy of that air. And that's physically permissible as well. the dynamics of a system where pumping is going on, you're allowed to have a local decrease in entropy. So I think that I very much focused on talking about systems in this open system frame where you say,

I have my working material, and I both can think about possible random fluctuations coming from, you know, I'm at some temperature, I'm in a heat bath, there are lots of things at the molecular scale randomly banging into me. But I also have something else outside of me that's part of my environment that might be doing work on me of a more organized sort. It's imparting energy to the system that has some organization to it itself, like maybe a pump

or maybe an optical stimulus or something like that. And once I'm talking in those terms, the new way of talking about this, which I think allows us to dispense to a large degree with the discussion of entropy, at least at the outset, is to say, what's the probability of one outcome versus another outcome? That's how we should be talking about it, because then what we can notice is that, some outcomes will be likely because they're messy and there's more ways for them to happen. And that is the weight of entropy on the scale. But there are other outcomes that might be likely to happen even though they're low entropy.

But instead, it's because work or other energy exchange is really powering going to low entropy. So we see already examples of that in equilibrium statistical mechanics because I can have a low entropy outcome called crystallization happen if I just cool down a liquid. And I don't wonder how that works. It's just that the attractive forces between the molecules can overwhelm the pull, so to speak, of being at higher entropy. And in this non-equilibrium world, I don't just get to exploit attractive interactions. I also have the possible patterning influence of external forces that are changing over time and pushing on me and biasing my evolution through a space of possible configurations. Yeah, I think actually, I mean, that's a wonderful explanation, but it's probably, even worth elaborating on a little bit just because I think that a lot of people, one of the

things that it's hard for outsiders who are not professional scientists to get is sort of the lay of the land in terms of what ideas people think are interesting and talk about. I mean, the second law says that entropy increases in a closed system. And what you're pointing out, which is sort of obviously true, is that most systems are open, right? We interact with the rest of the world. And this whole idea that we should, we can't. can, should and can, think about laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics that apply to these open systems is kind of new. I mean, it's not, you know, it's something that people always knew, but the taking it seriously aspect with things like fluctuations theorem, the Yersinsky equality is a famous one. I mean, this is cutting edge stuff in non-equilibrium stat mech.

Yeah, and so I think since you referred to the Jersensky relation and there's a related result, from Gavin Crooks that I think gets explicit mention in the discussion in the book. These fluctuation theorems, what they really did to transform the way people think about non-equilibrium statistical mechanics is that I think the early history of non-equilibrium thinking coming from the early to mid-20th century was very much trying to take the macroscopic language of equilibrium thermodynamics that had succeeded in the 19th century, so brilliantly and try to find a non-equilibrium generalization of that. And people like Ansager and Prigigin were somewhat successful at talking about that

in the linear response regime where you're basically close to thermal equilibrium. But I think what was hard is that the real success in generalizing the ideas of statistical mechanics wasn't going to really catch fire until you could talk about the microscopics. And there was, I think, both not as much reason to talk about the microscopics when you couldn't do simulations and when you could measure much less. And also there was kind of a cultural holdover of wanting to talk in terms of macroscopic state variables because that was how equilibrium thermodynamics got going. But then what happened, I think partly or I think likely driven in part by the emergence of a literature of numerical simulation in the 90s was that you started to have practical questions you were asking. just about your simulations of stuff that was trying to show you the microscopic dynamics of particles, while they were at some temperature and had some rules of how they pushed on each other.

So you're simulating physics, and now you don't just want to know the likelihood of a state, like you're asking in equilibrium at some temperature, am I more likely to be at high energy or low energy? Instead, you're asking what's the likelihood of trajectories, of a whole movie of the system? And the real insight, I think, that changes how we can talk. talk about this, which has been driven by work by people like Gavin Crooks and Chris Rosensky and others, is to talk about the relative probabilities of trajectories, like the Crooks result is saying, if I see a movie of a driven system and the time reversed movie, the rewind

movie, how likely, relatively are these two different movies in the dynamics that I'm observing? And then there's a rigorous thermodynamic result about heat exchange with the surroundings that tells you basically that the one that's more likely is the movie that puts positive amounts of heat into the surroundings. And then the Zersinsky result is, in a sense, a special case of this crooks result, but one that really, at an earlier, several years earlier, just blew people's minds because of what it was connecting, where it saw that the statistics of all the different ways that you could measure work being done in a system over repeated experiments could actually connect you back to quantities that you'd be measuring without doing work on the system in a finite time, but instead just doing it really slowly in thermal equilibrium.

And it was suddenly revealing to people that there was all of this information in the seemingly messy and unexplainable stochastic, random noisiness of the non-equilibrium setting where you're driving the system and it does something different every time. there was a connection back to the language of equilibrium thermodynamics. And so if you take those results and put them together, you can pretty easily rearrange them and get something that looks sort of like a Jarsinsky-like result that is really derived from the Crooks relation that generalizes the idea of what is the probability of a given outcome for your system, given that it starts in a certain place. And you no longer are just saying, oh, well, lower energy is more,

more likely because that's the just at thermal equilibrium result if you just have thermal fluctuations. Instead, you're starting to say there's this work history contribution. There's this question of how much work is done every time I go from some starting state to some ending state and all the different ways that could happen, how much energy gets dumped into the system by the pattern sources in the environment. And if I collect together the statistics of all those different ways of doing work, there's actually information hidden there for me about the likelihood of one outcome over another one. And now we're talking essentially about an evolutionary result where we can say,

I think this evolutionary result is more likely than that evolutionary result. Yeah, and this is a perfect sort of segue. So I think that you've done this before. Perhaps you've written a book about this because you clearly practiced this sort of dialogue. So the idea of the Crooks and Yarosensky results in non-linear stat mech is don't just say, here's the average or most likely thing, take seriously the idea there are fluctuations around this most likely thing. And clearly life and biology is plausibly in that regime. So how do you take this sort of evolutionary picture where you think about trajectories rather than just states

and apply it to life, which is evolutionary in a slightly different sense? Yeah. So one thing I think this is an opportunity for me to put out there is that it's helpful to start by asking ourselves, what is distinctive and different about life that we can't do in thermal equilibrium? So in thermal equilibrium, we're sitting at some temperature, we're getting randomly kicked by our environment, and we can basically do two things. We can concertedly roll downhill and energy, and that's happening because the forces on the system are pushing it that way. That's the definition of rolling downhill and energy. And then we can also get randomly kicked uphill by the bombardment of thermal fluctuations from our environment. And it's true.

as I mentioned before, that you can go to orderly states in that setting. You can form a crystal, for example, as long as the lowering of energy is decisive enough in overwhelming the tendency for the random kicks to sort of scramble the whole arrangement of all the building blocks in the system. However, if you do that and you do it in a way where all of these building blocks are kind of randomly diffusing around and finding each other and sticking together, and then once they find each other and they're very stable, what you've done is you've made something that's going to be extremely hard to rearrange once it is formed.

So you can make orderly structures, but they tend to be very inert by virtue of how orderly they are. That orderliness and inertness are, they're going hand in hand in thermal equilibrium. But when you look at living things, what's striking about them is not that they just seem specially ordered, like that they're in some exceptionally rare arrangement of their constituent parts, but also that they can rapidly rearrange into such special states, but then stay in them very stably for a long time until they sense something else, and then they can change rapidly again. So there's this combination of dynamism, on the one hand,

with stability when it's desired and order when it's needed. And you just can't buy that for love or money at thermal equilibrium. You need a system that has work being dumped into it all the time in order for that to be permitted by basic laws that we use to describe the physical dynamics that we observe in these kinds of systems. So all that being said, now you start to say, let me look at the characteristic lifelike behaviors, making copies of yourself. You know, that requires you to make a copy of yourself more rapidly than that copy falls apart. So there's a kind of arrow of timing there that you might be, you know, tickling your nose a little bit. And indeed, what that means is that that has to be powered by irreversible dissipation.

You have to absorb work from some source and then dissipated as heat in order to be able to do that. Similarly, with some kind of energy harvesting behavior in your system where I change the environment to have a particular pattern to it, and I rapidly rearrange things about my system to be better at absorbing energy from that pattern, for example. But then I stay in that state for a long time, and yet I could, again, dynamically rearrange if I change the pattern. That kind of dynamism is, again, hard to achieve if you're forming a crystal at equilibrium. And indeed, in an equilibrium setting, there's even no such thing as a relationship to a changeable pattern in the environment because the environment in an equilibrium system is static and is just kind of a constant forest pushing you a certain way. So all the things, when we go through these distinctive lifelike behaviors, what we find is we have to be talking about a non-equilibrium system.

and it's maybe going to be valuable to now have a general theoretical frame that says, how do I write down an equation that tells me about what factors affect the likelihood of outcomes in that setting? Small businesses that are interested in simplifying their operations to succeed in today's economy should absolutely look at ASLO banking. Instead of the days it takes to go to a traditional bank where you have to show up in person, with ASLO, you just go to AZLO.com and apply in mind. minutes. You get a free business checking account with invoicing, bill pay, no minimum balance requirements. And there's no waiting to use the account. With Aslo's free instant funding feature,

you can deposit up to $1,000 and access it instantly. Because you listen to this podcast, you can try Aslo Pro for free for 14 days at aslo.com slash Mindscape. The Pro bundle gives you tools like unlimited envelopes to organize your money, discounted instant transfers, and the ability to set up recurring invoices. Learn more with a free copy of Aslo's small business starter guide, or just go get started right now. Get an Aslo pro free 14-day trial at aslo.com slash mindscape. There's no minimum deposit required. You can get started for free right now. That's spelled a z-l-o.com slash mindscape. Yeah, and so I certainly buy, I mean, it's something I talked about before also, that there's these extremes of super duper order, super duper disorder,

which are both kind of boring, right? There's not a lot of interesting room for complexity happening there. And in between is where things can happen that are interesting and complex, including life. But that still doesn't quite address the question of the likelihood or inevitability of that happening. I mean, do you think we've learned anything about when these complex structures come to exist?

and does it actually say anything about the likelihood or inevitability of life arising under the right circumstances? Yeah, I do, although I think that I would break that question to two pieces, because there's the question of the likelihood of life arising. And I think whenever we say that, we immediately are thinking about this first moment where something we want to call life comes onto the scene. Yeah. And that question, as a forensic enterprise, working backward, is more complicated for a number of reasons. But I think if I can start, I can return to that subject, but if I can start by first saying, you know, let me talk about an individual life-like behavior. What do I mean by talking about the likely conditions for the emergence of a given life-like behavior?

There, I think it's easier to define the question in physical terms. And it's also possible in simulation and even in experiment to start to demonstrate, okay, how does this happen? How do I get predictive control over a process like this where I can see it happening, so to speak, on a tabletop? So the example that I'll talk about to start with, but I think it's not the most essential feature of life or not the only one, certainly, is self-organized energy harvesting. So we had a paper and physical review letters several years ago, which considered a model of a simple mechanical system where it was just a bunch of masses and springs that were sort of hooking and unhooking. to each other in a random thermal bath. And so the masses and springs are these kind of dumb inert particles that just have the ability to entangle and disentangle from each other.

And then they form this kind of mesh of resonator of different random connections between balls and springs. And then you can take a piece of that and start shaking it. And you can shake it at a particular frequency, for example. So if you didn't shake it, you would just get thermal equilibrium. you just get some random mess of balls hooking and unhooking from each other with springs that would be determined just by the energies of the states eventually if you reach thermal equilibrium. But once you start shaking part of the system and you choose, for example, a particular frequency,

now you have energy flowing in from the forcing that you're giving to the system. But the flow of that energy through the system is going to impact its evolution. It's going to impact the exploration of this high-diving, dimensional space of possible combinations of a bunch of simple building blocks. And with very simple rules for interaction among these different mechanical pieces, you can get a situation where you pick a frequency, you wiggle part of the system at that frequency, and then what you end up seeing before too long is a particular evolutionary outcome, not a single microscopic arrangement, but a family of possible outcomes that have a specialized

ability to absorb more energy from that particular frequency. And so in the same way that I might imagine if I need to be able as a living thing to fly, I'm going to probably have to have wings of some kind, but there are ways of doing it that a bird does it or there's a way of doing it that a fly does it and they're not the same. Similarly, there are aspects of this that have a kind of a flavor of physical adaptation because the individual structure I see at the end of this process will always be unique because the space of possible things to explore in combinations is so vast. that if I do the same experiment over again, I'll never get the same result.

But the commonality they have is that they all can absorb energy much better from the environment that they're in in a way that's finally matched to some characteristic of that environment, like a frequency that is being used to force the system. They can all absorb energy much better than a random arrangement of their constituent parts. And so I would point to that as a hallmark of something that looks like a form-function relationship. In biology, we take function for granted as it helps you to survive and reproduce. And in physics, we don't get function a priori because it's just stuff flying around and banging into each other. But what you at least can recognize in this kind of a system is exceptionality of the outcome in its physical relationship to its environment. There's a fine-tuned sense in which this is a highly non-random arrangement of many constituent parts that has an exceptional ability with regard to energy flow from the environment. Yeah, I mean, I guess there's a, I'm almost there with you. I mean, I think I'm totally there with you on the whole big picture, but there's a bit of intuition that I've struggled to develop and not quite succeeded here. When people say that in a closed system entropy increases and why, well, entropy corresponds to the number of ways you can arrange the system so that it looks the same. So there are more ways to be high entropy than to be low entropy. That makes sense to me. And now you're saying that certain arrangements of little subsystems have a better ability to, you know,

absorb energy. Other people have said, you know, certain complex catalyzed reactions will increase the entropy production rate faster. But I'm missing a bit of intuition as to why I should care about that. Like, what is the rule that says I should absorb energy as fast as possible? Well, in fact, and this is a very important point, there is no such rule because it is still a system-specific property in the sense that sometimes you can get feedback. that leads to what looks like an energy harvesting behavior that self-organizes. And it has to do with, so to speak, the particular chemical rules or physical rules for how the pieces of a system interact, like what kinds of springs are tangling with each other. And then you can also devise a system, which we've studied as well, and there's a more recent paper we have about this, where you get the opposite kind of immersion fine-tuning.

So you can also have self-organized, fine-tuned being bad at absorbing energy from a particular environment. And when we hear that at first, we don't think that we're talking about a living thing because we think, oh, living things need to eat and they're good at that. But I think that actual outcome is much more linked to the sort of homeostasis aspect of life. And I can unpack that a little bit further down the line. But just before diving into the details of that example, I think the other thing that I've still left missing in what I've described so far is I've been telling you about examples that are empirical. that we've studied in simulation where it does something. But the question is, what is the insight that allows you to say, I can predict generally in this class of systems which way things are going to go,

and I start to be able to know what to expect, and why does it happen this way? And I think that the way to understand it is this, that if I have a combination of a bunch of different building blocks, I can think of some combination of them as being like the location of a ball in a landscape, in a mountain range, where my height in that landscape is my energy. So it's very close to the real intuition that you'd have for an actual ball and an actual mountain range, except for the fact that you have many more dimensions than three.

You have lots of dimensions because you have lots of particles that you're assembling together. And so to summarize the location, to use the location of a ball to summarize the configuration of 10 to the 23rd particles or whatever, you need a very high dimensional landscape that they're exploring. So if I don't have an external environment that pushes on me with some pattern forcing, then all I can really do, as I said before, is roll downhill and get kicked randomly back uphill. And then after a time, I'll tend to go downhill and stay downhill unless there really are just many more ways of randomly staying uphill. So it's just a classic tradeoff between low energy and high entropy. But if I now start pushing on the system with an external source of work, the way I should think about how this game changes is now it's like I've put ski lifts or escalators in this landscape.

And there are particular configurations I can be in where the way the absorb energy from the environment is going to have an impact at how much they can get lifted up some mountainside and drop down the other. Why is that important? That's important because if you are lifted up a very tall mountain and then you fall down to the other side but there's no ski lift on the other side or there's no escalator on the other side, then you're stuck. You can't go back the way that you came. And the more that statistical irreversibility ends up being felt in the evolution of the system, the more it's the case that the most indelible marks, the most irreversible changes in how the system, you know, in a biased way, explores the space of possible shapes, accumulates. over time, those are going to be the result of having been in shapes that happened to be good at absorbing energy from the particular environment. So it's still going to break into cases whether that leads you to an outcome that ends up being exceptionally bad at absorbing energy or an outcome that leads to, you know, being exceptionally good at absorbing energy, because it has to do with the shape of the landscape and the pattern of forcing. So you can get into the details of how it breaks out into those cases.

But the unifying idea, which I've called dissipative adaptation and some things I've written about this, is that you think about the outcome structure, the outcome combination of building blocks in your system as being the result of a biased exploration of the space of possibilities where the history of moments in its past, when it absorbed energy from the environment in a way that involves some kind of matching between its structure and the pattern of the environment, that the accumulated effect of those moments ends up being a signature you see in the structure you end up getting knocked into by this whole process. So, you know, I guess zooming just back out to the point you were making about entropy, I think the key thing here is that being in a low entropy configuration, I could be in this kind of a scenario in a high energy and highly dynamic sub-portion. of this mountain range or this landscape, as long as the pattern of the way the system is being driven, just can't kick me out of this very strange kind of plateau or mesa or what have you in this landscape. You know, it previously would have been the case

that randomly kicks would eventually always knock me downhill if there was far enough to fall that I could really go to low energy. But what's so impressive to us in general with a lot of things, living things are doing, is that because there's a pattern input of some kind, they can be knocked uphill into these low entropy arrangements that are trapped in some high mountain pass that has a special shape that's matched to the way the system is being pushed on.

But it does sound like maybe I'm reading too much into this, that there's a slightly deflationary answer here to my original question in the sense that sometimes structures like this will form, sometimes they won't, and it might be hard or impossible to get a general principle that is applicable over all kinds of systems rather than looking at it at a more fine-grained level. Well, I think that what we need to think about is if you look at real life that we know and what makes it tick, part of what always is intimidating to theoretical physicists when trying to say, how am I going to explain how something like this comes into being is how messy it feels,

that there are many length scales, many time scales, many energy scales that are involved. And part of the reason that that's there is because that reflects this tremendous combinatorial diversity of the particular physical chemical interactions that are possible in the working material that we're working with. So I have in a living thing, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, phosphorus, you know, various other kinds of atoms in lower trace amounts, et cetera. and those have particular ways they can combine that are tremendously diverse, they are tremendously diverse in the kinds of properties they can have.

If I devise for you instead an experiment where I said, all you have is, I don't know, xenon, you know, just xenon. And you have to make everything that you're going to make out of combinations of xenon atoms. It might be really hard. It might be. It might so happen to be that at least on the time scale you're willing to wait or given the energy skills you're willing to make use. of that there aren't really a lot of ways of putting xenon atoms together that are going to be

qualitatively different in how they respond to inputs from the environment. So I will, you know, happily admit that an essential thing in understanding life likeness is that in order for it to be really striking, there needs to be novelty through combination coming from how building blocks can be put together in different ways so that they really are quite distinct in how they react to the same environment. And there are physical scenarios you can devise where maybe the effective chemical diversity or whatever you want to call it, the effective nobliness and distinctiveness of that whole energy landscape and all the different corners of it being different is just not different

enough. You don't have enough books out of that library to choose from that you're going to be impressed by what the non-equilibrium driving gets you at the end. And the last thing I'll say is that the other aspect of this is, you know, is that you're is that it may be that the way you're driving the system doesn't yet have enough of a distinctive pattern. Because if you're not driving the system with a pattern that has enough of a barcode to it,

that has enough of a particular structure to it, you may also be at a loss to recognize what it means to be finely tuned to that. So if the only thing I'm doing, for example, is heating one side of the system and cooling in the other side of a system, it is a non-equilibrium system. And I can get kind of cool-looking whirls that emerged in a fluid as a result of doing that.

But how many numbers did I need to use to describe that non-equilibrium driving such that I now could say, oh, look at the state the system's in. It's extremely finely tuned to my choice of how I'm driving the system in a way where random rearrangements of all of these molecules in the fluid would look dramatically ill-suited to doing whatever it is that this particular set of convection cells is doing. I actually haven't studied the Rayleigh Bernard system that I'm referring to very much, and so I don't want to rule out the possibility that some kind of fine-tuning can be recognized there, but I do think it's a choice about not only the potential for novel combinations in the working material,

but also the complexity of the statistics of the external environment that would allow us to say, wow, this is really well adapted because the higher dimensional, the complexity is of that environment, the more we'll be able to recognize an exceptional relationship. Does this kind of reasoning have implications for things like the anthropic principle, for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature? Where do you come down on thinking that if the constants in the standard model have been very different, life would be impossible? So I usually try not to rush to make declarations like that

because I do think sometimes through kinds of physical emergence that we're aware of, you can sometimes get things at higher scales that don't seem built into the simple interaction. So, for example, I could have a fluid that is just made of one kind of particle. And if I just look at the behavior that fluid in a very kind of naive equilibrium stat-mex sort of way, it kind of looks like there's only one energy scale for how the particles interact. And I can't really like make a hand that grabs onto something because whatever it grabs onto it will just fuse with. And so you can't build interesting things out of one energy scale. But then, of course, if it becomes a fluid that's in the turbulent regime and I have all this hierarchy of scales of energy cascades between different scales, it starts to be that if I look at emergent levels of organization in the fluid, perhaps I shouldn't rule out the possibility that something can be happening there, that it's as though I got a new chemistry at a higher scale as an emergent property of something that had very unappealing chemical simplification.

simplicity at some shorter scale. So as a physicist, I want to be very naive and cautious, both about that and also about what it means to consider the stochastic process of choosing physical constants because you need a model of how universes are made in order for that to make sense. And that's certainly not something I should claim to be expert in, and also something I think has a fundamental philosophical challenge kind of hiding in the background. But, you know, that being said, I do think I could imagine the situation where at least if we're talking more practically and we're saying we're going to fly around and look at planets and try to see which ones we should be expecting to find life in, well, well, it may be true that you don't necessarily need exactly what we have here to make, you know, something like what we are impressed by in life. it might also be that if we found a planet that was

monoatomic in its composition and just made a xenon or something that I'd say let's look somewhere else first if we have to choose because that sounds to me like the diverse space possible combinations could just be more limiting. I think I'm going to get angry comments on YouTube from people from the xenon planet here that we're disrespecting them. But I didn't want to not skip over something you mentioned and maybe didn't quite complete.

this idea of not just life coming into existence, but it's maintenance, it's metabolism, homeostasis. There are lessons there. I want to make sure that you had a chance to say what you wanted to say. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So we talked a little bit about an example of a system that has a self-organized ability to absorb more energy from an environmental pattern.

And I think that we always are looking for that in life because all examples of life we know are self-replicators and self-replicators do need to eat. And so getting better at getting access to food is always one of the things, for Darwinian reasons, that we expect to see that in living things that we know. But there's another thing living things do, which I would argue is an equally impressive, fine-tuned, self-organized life-like behavior. Rather, excuse me, I should say, it is an equally impressive life-like behavior

whose self-organization is worth studying. And that's how you get something that you might want to call self-repair or homeostasis that has also a highly adapted relationship to a given environment. So what do I mean by that? Well, think about a living thing in the following way. It's true that in order to live, I need energy input, right? I need to eat. But it's not true that I'm equally eager to gain access for that purpose to all sources of energy, right?

I can't just say instead of a sandwich today, I'm going to get a, an equivalent dose in jewels of gamma radiation or TNT or whatever, that doesn't work because actually most arbitrarily chosen ways of putting energy into a system are going to be like a bull in a china shop. Energy is just motion or the potential for motion if you're talking in Newtonian terms. And that's really the relevant intuition for this discussion. If I dump energy into a system and just give it to parts of the system in no particular way, I'm going to be activating a bunch of different random rearrangements in different parts.

And in a living thing, we call that damage. So that's why swallowing a stick of dynamite or getting ghost with radiation or whatever is generally thought of as being not conducive to health. Because living things are in a very small corner of their possible configuration space, right? They're highly non-random, especially exceptional combinations of their constituent parts. And if you start doing the more random exploration of the space of possibilities there, you're going to stop being a frog or you're going to stop being a person and start being a pile of carbon nitrogen and oxygen, et cetera, with no particular provenance. So you don't want to do that. And now when you look at the living thing, what's remarkable from that perspective is there is a way of delivering energy into the system that doesn't have this effect by and large, right? that as energy flows through, it isn't a bull in a China shop, that if I get it from the right

kind of source, a source with the right pattern, which in the case of people, is energy in the form of chemical bonds of certain kinds in the food that we eat. In the case of plants, it's a spectrum of photons of certain colors. Then you're okay, and you can take that and use it to spin all the water wheels and suddenly the energy flow is conducive to health and you're using it to fix yourself and maintain yourself in this specially chosen high mountain pass in the landscape of possibilities where if you didn't have this energy source constantly kicking you uphill in the right direction, you'd fall down and die. You'd roll down towards thermal equilibrium and eventually fall to pieces enough that you wouldn't be alive anymore. So if we're talking about things in those terms,

now we have a very good mechanistic understanding of how you can self-organize that kind of relationship to a patterned environment. If you have a collection of particles that are in some landscapes of possibilities with different energies, and there's this disorder of interactions between them that gives a kind of effective chemical diversity to how these different pieces combine, and you start, for example, beaming a stimulus of a certain frequency into the system. So that's like light of a certain color or a song of a certain pitch. And then you watch how the system jumps around while it's exploring its base of possibilities. What you see, and this is in a paper that we've just resubmitted, but it's already on the archive. The lead author is Dr. Riddash Kedia.

And also another paper on the archive by a graduate student at MIT, New and Jacob Gold, where we were looking in different kinds of systems like this. if you have a patterned input such as a particular frequency, and you take a disordered set of interacting pieces that have lots of different possible ways of liking to move with the environment, depending on what corner of their configuration space they're currently stuck in, then in the short term, you absorb a lot of energy, the system jumps around, it rearranges, it changes its shape, and in the longer term, it learns how to absorb less energy from that environment,

And it fine-tunes away from high energy absorption. It finds a state, which is still an excited state that's at higher energy than what you get at the equilibrium temperature that you're subjecting the system to. It's still an excited state, but it's a state that somehow, in the way that its motions are being excited by the energy flow, just stays in this low-dimensional, correlated object that's coordinating the motion of all these different particles together, such that they stay matched. to the particular pattern of the source. And then if you change the pattern of that forcing, you could change the frequency, you could change things about the directions of which parts of the system are getting poked and pushed in different ways.

Then you see, again, this transient rearrangement and things get scrambled. So it's like you've switched from plants that live off of x-rays to plants that live off of gamma rays or what have you. And now suddenly everything gets blown to smithereens, and you rearrange, you find a new quiescent state, And now again, you're in this excited state that looks like it's using the energy that it's absorbing to maintain itself in a matched way to the pattern of that particular source. Love bread, bake goods and pasta, but not the way they make you feel?

What if I told you there are macro-friendly options that don't taste like sawdust and sadness? Satisfying sandwiches, fully loaded bagels, noodles noodles that can stand up to your favorite chunky sauces, all delicious. Craveworthy and smart, each serving of hero bread has up to 19 grams of protein and 32 grams of fiber. and just 0 to 5 grams net carbs and 0 grims sugar. Hero bread bakes with heart-healthy olive oil and delivers the soft, fluffy, flavorful experience you love. Breakfast burritos, smear-loaded bagels, real mac and cheese. Hero bread bakes, loaves, bagels, and tortillas that don't taste or feel like cardboard.

Noodles that don't fall apart in hearty sauces. Plus, limited edition small batch bakes like the 2 grams net carb hero croissant or 1 gram net carb hero cheddar biscuit. Handmade in a Sonoma-based French bakery. Shop now on hero.com. Use code iHeart for 10% off. That's hero.co. Per serving, not a low-calorie foods and products contain allulose.

See nutrition info on hero.com for sodium and sugar content. When people turn to telehealth or weight loss, they're looking for real support. That's why more people are choosing orderly meds.com. Orderly meds connects you with real doctors and access to proven GLP1 medications like semaglutide and terseptitide. No guessing, just a more supportive experience, and all ship directly to your door in discreet packaging. Do your research.

Ask questions. Then visit orderlymeds.com slash podcast for an exclusive offer. That's orderly meds.com slash podcast. Individual results may vary now. Medical advice, eligibility required, C-Sight for details. A lot of people, a lot of scientists, when they see the kinds of things you're talking about, right, where you can dig into something as manifestly inscrutable and ineffable as the meaning of life, the meaning of the word life, not why we're here.

But they'll say that, oh, look, we're on the road to do. just explaining all of this stuff on purely naturalistic, purely physicalistic terms. You've already alluded to the fact that a lot of people will do that and that you do not want to do that. You want to swim against the tide a little bit here. I will confess, I think that most of my listeners already know that I totally do that. I wrote a whole book, the big picture, on how naturalism is good enough for explaining the world as far as we can tell, even though there's a lot it hasn't done yet. You want to put in an alternative perspective. So I don't want to put any words in your mouth, because I know this is an easy thing to get wrong, to caricature, and the straw man.

So tell us, in your own words, how you think about this relationship between religious ideas and scientific ones. Sure. So, I guess, one way of putting it is to say, when I decided to write this book, I had an awareness that this part of the discussion was always a potential way things were. could roll once you put a bunch of ideas out there. And so I didn't want to seem naive about that. And I didn't want to start just only focusing on the scientific discussion without, in a

sense, weighing in and saying, and here's the wrapping and the broader context in which I want to put that. And I think because of that, I thought, okay, well, so I have a personal direction I'm coming from. I, in adulthood, after growing up as a physicist, started studying the Torah. a lot and being very interested in being a Jew and actually ultimately studied to become an Orthodox rabbi. And I am interested in that perspective on the world and the human condition.

And it informs a lot of how I think about what I'm doing and why. And so that is my way of being comfortable, engaging in philosophical discussion. And so I thought, okay, so I'll go and look in the sources that I am committed to finding authority in and studying the world through that lens. and I'll see what I see. And I think what ended up coming out in the form that the book took was that, on the one hand, I was kind of delighted and, I guess, somewhat surprised to find part of the Hebrew Bible that really seemed very interested specifically in contemplating the boundary between life and

non-life in material terms. And not doing that, obviously, in the language of modern physics, but doing it more in the language of the everyday experience of how people, how human beings experience the material world as a bunch of different natural phenomena, things like water coursing through sediment and producing branch structures or the formation of still flakes,

or the way in which we can ourselves appreciate without being scientists, so to speak, that our bodies are made of stuff, that once it breaks off of us, starts to seem sort of more like inanimate, inert, dead matter like the dust under our feet. And when a human being confronts that, there is the question of, all right, what kind of contemplation does that dispose us to? And I think one thing that I try to read at the end of the book is one kind of comment about how this makes us feel as experiencers of the human condition.

But I think if someone even's not interested in that aspect of it, and they're not necessarily coming to the book with any interest per se in what the Bible has to say about anything, I think what I also turned out to me to be exciting and ultimately I felt valuable pedagogically is that because the Hebrew Bible addresses itself to the unfiltered experience of the individual human being, not through microscopes, not through telescopes, but in this very kind of tangible everyday sense, what does the world seem to be like from the perspective of a person, that its contemplation of this topic ends up being expressed in terms of things that are very tangible and relatable.

And as a result, you have these kind of conceptual talismans where you say, right, how am I going to explain what a non-equilibrium system exploring a space of possible combinations with an external drive is like someone in terms that feel very broadly accessible to everyday human experience? Well, for example, when Moses is given a sign by God of taking the water of the Nile River and pouring it on the dry ground and it becomes blood, that sounds like a parlor trick to a certain kind of ear. But if you take it more seriously as knowing about what the world is and say, what kind of point could be hiding there if we assume in a sense that the text knows how the world works and is not dumber than me about that, but maybe smarter than me. then what you start to realize is this is a very compact metaphorical discussion of what it is for a non-equilibrium system to explore a space of possible combinations, because dust of the earth is the essence of particulate matter that can be stuck together in different ways.

And even dust mixed with water gives you different kinds of mud with different qualitative properties just depending on the kind of dust and the ratio of dust to water, et cetera. So you have all these ideas of qualitative emergence and novelty through combination. And it's also specifically river water that the text is talking about and not just water. And river water is water that flows. And it's water that carries energy as well as mass flow. And as a result, we even see in the world complex emergence like branch structures. You know, if you watch water roll through sediment, you can see the emergence of complex branching that reminds one of veins and a leaf or in even, you know, your own body.

and it's not exactly the same process, but it's evocative of much of the same physics that we end up wanting to talk about, which is how energy flow can cause particular specialized tapes to emerge in space of combinations that are being explored by a bunch of different particles that can clump together in different ways. So I think ultimately what I hope I've achieved in the book

is if someone comes to it only being interested in learning about the physics, I actually hope that the use of the frame of biblical narrative that the chapters are sort of wrapped in magnifies their understanding of the physics by giving them tangible equivalence in the everyday world that they can latch on to. And at the same time, also, I think some people are given to contemplation of the human condition in ways that certainly extend beyond the purview of science. And if they're interested in that discussion, then there's a... a treatment of that subject coming from my own perspective. And certainly it's going to express the particular ways that I prefer to grapple with these kinds of questions. But hopefully it's interesting nonetheless. Yeah, I mean, even in my super atheist book, The Big Picture,

I've tried to make the point that, look, it would be crazy to think that there was nothing of value to be found in religious scriptures or traditions for thousands of years. the most careful thinking about the human condition was done in the context of those traditions. But it's a little bit different to talk about scientific questions versus sort of finding purpose and meaning of life questions. Just to be super clear to the audience, would you want to say that the Hebrew Bible literally anticipated ideas that we're now thinking of or can be used to illuminate them by thinking about them in more metaphorical ways? Well, I think that I would want to be careful about talking about anticipation in describing what that could mean because I don't want to advocate for relating to the text of the Hebrew Bible as saying, well, because this is revelation from the hand of the world's creator, it actually secretly and esoterically is a science textbook if we just decode it in the right way. I think that there's a long discussion about why that's not going to be a successful enterprise as a kind of methodology for reading the text. And there's, I think, religious arguments against relating to the text that way, at least from the perspective that I'm coming from. But that being said, I think that this topic has a particular kind of accessibility in that regard.

Because there are some things where, you know, if we're going to talk about how, the wave particle duality discovered in quantum theory is going to impact our understanding of how it is that certain optical properties of certain materials we see in everyday experience are actually brought about. You're more working in a regime where talking about anticipation, I don't know, I'm not really digging in that place, because I'm not even sure what in everyday experience allows us to talk about, I don't know, that the Lyman spectrum of the hydrogen atom or something like that. But I think what's different here, in comparison to a lot of other things that you can study carefully in physics, you know, gravitational waves with LIGO or whatever,

is that we're talking about something that there is a lot of empirical knowledge of that is quite qualitative. So while it's true that we don't, by being material being, living in a material world, we don't learn statistical mechanics by default, you know, quite the contrary. At the same time, we do know a lot about what it's like to be alive, and we have a lot of qualitative experience of many of the material processes that are relevant to non-equilibrium dynamics that helps us to understand what I think is important to the physics of life likeness. So, you know, by way of contrast, in order to see quantum effects,

genuinely quantum effects, you usually need a particularly specialized apparatus that allows you to get to some low temperature or allows you to deal with single electrons being spat out of an oven or single photons that are coming through some source or coming out of some source. but if you're talking about genuinely far from thermal equilibrium instances of self-organization that recapitulate some aspect of life likeness, that isn't so hard to come by as you're out for a walk, so to speak. You know, you could trip over while out for a walk, a hillside where a flood that was caused by rainfall led to some kind of alluvial branching of sediment that was being deposited on, you know, I've seen this in like a parking lot or something. something once. And that does provoke you to contemplation, and it does, it's not irrelevant to the actual physics that you should be bringing to bear when trying to think about what's going on in life, even once we get fancier with how we describe the physics at a molecular level. So, since we're working very much in the classical regime where the intuitions of watching a ball-bearing

fall through honey are not irrelevant to talking about what it's like for a protein to change shape in a viscous fluid like water at low Reynolds number, you know, these things have conceptual relationship to each other. So all that being said, I think what that means is that even if we're just talking about things that the human experience can know by intuition from contemplating the question of what it is for life to be built out of materials, which is something that we can see by sort of looking at how lifeless a fingernail is once it falls off of the body, we get the opportunity, perhaps, in the wisdom of humankind to, you know,

develop understanding of what some of these relationships might correspond to in, you know, out in the world that we observe. And you don't only see this in the Hebrew Bible. You see it in other ancient traditions as well. And also, I think the fundamental question of a, adjudicating anticipation versus, you know, appeal to intuition of the interpreter is really a very hard thing to define precisely because when we're interpreting text, we always bring what we know about the world into that interpretation. And it can be hard to really control what comes out of the interpretation and define what we injected and what we discovered. I mean, maybe you can elaborate on one of the points you just made.

I mean, there are plenty of people who will be listening to this, and some will be sympathetic to the general idea, but they won't be in a Jewish tradition. They'll be in something else. Do you think there's something special about the Hebrew Bible, or do you think there's sort of a methodology whereby, by looking at ancient texts of wisdom, we can illuminate ways that we're thinking about the modern scientific age? The way that I would put it is certainly the reason that I'm working from that text is because I have commitments to that text's perspective on the world that make it the one where I feel kind of obligated to work from if I'm trying to engage with some of the kinds of questions that go beyond the scope of the narrow scientific description. And so I didn't sort of start with a list of different religious traditions and say which one is going to be best for expanding non-equilibrium physics. I'm very happy to admit I bring my personal commitments and motivations into that aspect of the discussion. And I also don't want to argue that I know for certain that if we're going to kind of lop off just a piece of a given ancient tradition and say, what might it be contemplating that is somewhat universal to the human experience,

that there might be a lot of overlap or parallelism that we could establish. And you can do this in all sorts of ways, not only in ways that pertain to physics. So I wouldn't discourage anyone from looking somewhere else and seeing what they find there if that's what's interesting to them. But it was kind of an enterprise of interpretation that this is what I had the kind of knowledge and skill for. and so it's where I was looking.

And I guess I ultimately think also there may be something that is particularly interesting about the tradition of the Hebrew Bible in regard to this because of its vehement monotheism, at least in the sense that the desire to explain different aspects of the world as the result of different interacting personalities in more polytheistic descriptions probably makes it less likely that you end up thinking of the world as a whole fabric that has kind of a set of rules

that one person decided through which you can start to understand it because it may be more likely to represent the world as kind of a quixotic combination of different, inscrutable personalities in that case. But, you know, I think that certainly widens the field beyond what I feel competent to comment on. Yeah, I mean, do you think this is going beyond a little bit while we're talking about here, but do you think that there are just sort of principled philosophical reasons to think that a purely scientific naturalist description of the world fall short in terms of a complete explanation? I mean, do you think that people who are scientifically, naturalistically inclined are cheating by not offering answers to questions like maybe why there is a universe at all or something like that? Or is that not the kind of road to go down?

So, you know, in one sense, this is a question that I'd love to write a whole other book about at some point. And I think it's very interesting and a lengthy discussion. And so I don't want to claim to be able to do justice to it here. And, you know, I do think it should be said that one respect in which I was trying to, in a sense, avoid that discussion in this particular book was that I, on the one hand, do want to show people by example that I can be a person who addresses both the biblical text. and the physical science without compromising an intellectual honesty or without compromising on, you know, how methodologically it is coherent to approach either enterprise, and I don't see a conflict between them. So I try, by example, to demonstrate, here's the way you can talk about both of these things at the same time and not see them at loggerheads. And maybe that should be

a starting point for a discussion about whether there really is such a fundamental line of scrimmage here or immisability here. But I don't, for the most part, in the book, take up the subject itself of, you know, religion and science and whether there is, whether there should be a sort of winner-take-all conflict between these two views of the world. And so it's a discussion I'm very interested in, but it's not the subject of the book because I wanted the book to mainly be about

explaining the physics and also just kind of, example, putting it in a wrapping that shows you can have a broader context for this understanding that situates you respectfully within the tradition that I'm coming from. But all that being said, I do think that with regard more specifically to the question that you're asking, there are a few things that I could just say to hint at where I would take this whole discussion if I were trying to start another book. One of them is that I think there are different things that we can try to say about the world that are arguably true or where, you know, they can be taken to be true as a compact among people who are going to work towards some ideal

of truth with the shared method. And I think science is one such compact, but it's not the only one. And when viewed in those terms, it gets back to what we were talking about as biology and physics being different languages. I also think that in some sense, the whole enterprise of the natural sciences is kind of like a black and white camera that you could use if you want to photograph a rainbow, right? That you're going to get a representation of the system, and it will in some sense, in the forms of representation it's capable of, it will be accurate. But the question is whether you take it to be totalizing and complete or whether you admit that it's methodology and its assumptions kind of automatically focus it or limited in what it seeks to capture and what it

deliberately ignores. So the thing that I'd point to in the science is that the methodology of science strains towards the ideal of objectivity. So if I discover something, it's not a scientific discovery really until I can describe it to other scientists and convince them of the coherence of my argument and my interpretation of data and that they can do the same experiments and get the same results. And so it's a social community that builds itself around the idea that we strain towards what can be made objective.

And that's very powerful. And it captures a lot about what's true about the world. But I'm not willing immediately to dive headlong into the kind of additional axiomatic claim that there is no such thing as truth that is not a. objective or at least that can be eventually rendered objective. And in some sense, I do think a lot of times people can be very educated as scientists without having been asked to engage deeply with that issue and ask themselves what happens when you start really rolling it all back and questioning which assumptions you're making to get

to go about how you define what you mean to have come convincingly to a, a convincing proposition. So that's one thing. I'll let you respond, but I could ramble on at length. No, actually, I think you've done too good a job at bringing us to a perfect ending point because, I mean, I think it brings us full circle into this idea that one of the things that scientists, at least some science, not all scientists, we all know scientists who we'd rather have to stay in their laboratories. But as a field, it does seem to me to be important that we engage. with these broader questions, whatever our specific answers might be. The idea that we'll have different answers, different ways of approaching connecting scientific knowledge of the world

to the broader human questions, but acknowledging that the questions exist and might have a relationship between each other is the first step. Yeah. No, I think I would agree with that, and I think that's the jumping off point for the right discussion. And if I'm trying to kind of say something additional about this wearing my hat as a physicist a bit, more. I think the other thing that we have to just admit is that there's a lot that goes into physical models that are very powerful and effective, where we're nonetheless making assumptions that are useful but not necessarily justified other than for their simplicity or their beauty or that they get us as far as we wanted in terms of predicting what we wanted. For example,

the assumption we make when dealing with a heat bath that the spectrum of noise that you get from the heat bath has a certain simple form. You can relate this to the idea of, all right, I'm looking at the air in the room that I'm in right now, and I'm not worried about whether it's going to all collect in one corner. And that's because I, hiding in the background, have this naive assumption that the initial condition wasn't specially chosen. But of course, you could specially choose the initial condition

of a bunch of molecules of fluid so that they're about to collect in the corner in about 10 minutes. And that would actually be an extremely acceptable. initial condition that by many measures that we could generate would look random for a long time. And so, you know, machine learning is an interesting thing to bring in here, you know, because it's all about finding kind of hidden on randomness and high dimensional data. But I think something we have to admit to ourselves is that there's a bias at the outset in the kind of theories we construct, where we found them on notions of simple and biased randomness because that does well enough for us in predicting the experiments that we do. But we haven't really proven that's the order of the

universe. We've just found it's a useful enough assumption for doing certain things. Yeah, I mean, it's a great, you put a lot of big ideas here on the table, and you're certainly convincing, convince me that there's room for a lot of tremendous discoveries in the years to come. So, Jeremy England, thanks so much for being on the Mindscape podcast. Thanks a lot, John. I really enjoyed it. Deadlines move. Plans change. And sometimes, opportunities pop up out of nowhere. When you need branded gear fast,

Four Imprint is ready to deliver. Four Imprint offers hundreds of promotional products in their 24-hour category, everything from custom apparel, bags and drinkwear to writing tools, trade show staples, and high-tech gear. At Four Imprint, it's not just about speed. It's about doing it right. Your logo is printed with precision. Your order is packed with care, and it all ships out fast.

And with their 360-degree guarantee, you can be confident it'll show up right on time, just the way you planned it. That's the certainty of 4-imprint. So if you're prepping for a last-minute event or jumping on a big opportunity, you don't have to settle or scramble. With 4-imprint, you get fast, reliable service, and peace of mind built right in. Check out their full 24-hour selection at 4imprint.com.