So Chuck, I don't know if we answered all those profound questions but we certainly went there. We certainly did. What is life as we know it? Is that understood? And if it is or isn't, what is life as we don't know it? And as long as we're talking about life is AI life itself. Right. Yes. Right. But not because soon it will be asking for a race and all kinds of rights and all that's going to be a mess. Coming up, life in a nutshell and outside of a nutshell, on StarTalk. Welcome to StarTalk.
You're a place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now. This is StarTalk. Neil deGrasse Tyson, your personal astrophysicist, got with me, of course, Chuck Knight. Chuck Knight. Neil, what's happening? Lord Chuck Knight. Now, thank you, yes. All right. My co-host, professional comedian, stand-up comedian. Yes. And not always the same thing, a professional comedian and then stand-up comedian and actor. And actor. I've seen you in some TV commercial.
Acting like a comedian. You know what? Drop my sandwich when I saw that. There's, I'm actually going to do a sandwich commercial next. All right. No. Good. Good that you're out there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That'll keep you moving. And we can say we knew you when you're going to know me then too. So wonderful topic today. Oh my God. Love it. Yeah. Me this topic. It's a real story. Rich. So there's always been this concept of life as we know it. Right. And never caught on as an acronym, Locky.
Life as we know it. I wonder why. Such a malif Lewis. I could ever locky. Never caught on. Life as we know. It's like carbon-based. All the, all the usual things that you throw into the mix. And there's been some effort lately. Okay. The thing about life is we don't know it. Oh, now I like that is far more intriguing. And, and that seems to me opens up all manner of possibility. Absolutely. Outside of the box that we put ourselves in. Right. So we have a world's expert.
We have Sarah. We have three names, Sarah. As do I. Sarah and Mari Walker. That's me. And at which one do we go by? Sarah. Sarah. Okay. We'll do that. That's for making it simple. I tried. We appreciate that. I really tried. So Sarah, you're an astrobiologist and physicist, theoretical physicist. So you're coming to this life question, not from the normal trackings of a biologist. Because who else would you think to bring to the table when you're talking about life if not a biologist?
Absolutely. Now you're going to bring some physics into the equation and I live me some physics. Yeah, me too. The book stops at physics. Yeah. Okay. There's an old saying. There's no understanding of biology without chemistry. Right. And there's no understanding of chemistry without physics. There you go. Somehow your subject of expertise be lured over the large. I don't know how this happened. So what brought you to the question of life?
Yeah, I'm really interested in fundamental laws of nature and where we might find new ones. So I think this is the main motivator for me is to think about life being explained by some universal physics we don't know yet. Whoa. Okay. That's whoa. Damn. Sarah coming in. There's a way I know that. There is not. Wow. Don't even warm up to that one. That's telling you. So why don't you take a couple of warm up tosses. All right, we clocked out when I'm 97 miles an hour. That's fantastic.
So, so, so I don't, I can't think of a department, a traditional department in a university that would serve this cause. And now I learn your deputy director of the Beyond Center. Yes. That's audacious. Now you guys are the people that make the meat, right? Well, the Beyond Meat. Oh, no, that was a meat. Yeah, it's okay. No, we don't do anything like that. We're actually, it's like the full name of the center is the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts and Science.
So, we're actually an exploratory center based at Arizona State and we think about the front of university. Yep. Not just in the state of Arizona. No, not. Yeah, Arizona State. So, you're in the faculty there. That's right. Yeah. That's right. ASU. That's really good astrophoke there too. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I know ASU. All right. Yeah. And so, this Beyond Center, are you co-founder of that? No, the founder is Paul Davies, but I'm the deputy director. No Paul Davies, yeah. An astrophysicist.
Like from way back. Yeah. Yeah. I like hanging out with cosmologists. So, and Beyond Center is in the cosmology, it's in the cosmology wing and ASU and the campus. Okay. I was looking at that. Yeah. At least one of your research papers, you have collaborators, some of whom are based in the Santa Fe Institute, which is also one of these beyond. Yes. I mean, they specialize in, here's what everybody's thinking, but we're going to put a foot outside that circle. Yeah. And beyond.
Yeah. That's going beyond. Right. Right. So, you're teaming up with other beyond people. Yes. I like hanging out with people that think outside the box, or my favorite kind of people. In fact, the stomach stuff I've been working on is not just the box. This box is a three-dimensional object. Right. She's thinking beyond the Tesseract. Oh. Wow. Look at that. Now, I have pretty shapes in my head. I like this. Oh. So, so tell me.
I know there might have been adjustments over the decades, but today, what is the commonly held definition of life itself? The way that I consider it is that we actually don't need to define life. We need to figure out a theory that helps us derive the properties of life. So, we should be able to predict features of life anywhere it should occur on the universe. So that's been my approach.
It's very, you know, theoretical physicist need to build theories, need to explain regularities of the nature. Yeah. She's got theoretical physics, man. I love it. It's, yeah. It's, yeah. I mean, I've never come in out. Yeah. It's a little fever with you. You've never had a fever. I've never had a fever with a fever. Yeah. I mean, basically, you're like, let's not worry about identifying. Let's find out what creates the identification in the first place.
Yes. Wow. So, how do you go about doing that? So I started, you know, in a true theorist fashion, I had probably like seven or eight working definitions, but I was trying to find, you know, what's the commonality under them. But a lot of them were about something to do with information structuring matter. It was kind of the early way I was thinking about it. Wow. Okay. I got you because then that gets you all the way down to single cells because even they are carrying information.
So if you get to the root of the information and what creates the information, then it may not even be a cell that you're working with. It could be something outside of that. Yeah. And the cells are good example because it's very complex and we don't think they can form outside of evolution. So the way that we talk about these ideas now, which is what I'm really excited about is this theory, assembly theory. I've been working on with my collaborator, Lee Kronin and... Assembly... Theory.
Assembly theory. It's a theory. As a theorist should do. Yeah. So assembly theory's key conjecture about the nature of life is life is the only physics that can generate complex objects. Interesting. Like a cell. Right. Or a microphone. Or a comedian. We're not that complex. We're the simplest of all life. Yeah. Wait, so you are declaring that rocks and crystals and things, it's not complex.
So therefore, while you could, in principle, create those out of your modeling or out of your theories, that's not your target of interest. So the nature of how we define complexity is it doesn't happen spontaneously. It requires evolution. So there are some kinds of rocks and minerals that do require, say, technology to precisely engineer defects in a crystal, like if you want a perfect diamond or something. Right, exactly.
Or so there would be rocks, maybe that passed the boundary of life, but they would be something life created or engineered. So I love this because you... You poured out the mold and you said, let me start from scratch. And if you start from scratch, you're not biased by any pre-existing construct for what is or could or should be. Right. Now, you can make almost anything that has complexity. Yes. And the space of complexities is then what you will study. Yes. And that space is huge.
So as an astronomical example, I like to use this molecule taxol as an example. It's molecular rates about 853. To taxol, what do we do with that? Taxol is an anti-cancer drug. It's just one molecule that's been created in a tree somewhere. It's a fat molecule, it's a big molecule. But if you wanted to... How many atoms are in that molecule? Approximately. I mean, hundreds or... I said no. I said no. I think it's like a couple hundred. Yeah, on that order. Yeah, or a hundred to two hundred.
But if you wanted to make one molecular structure of the same molecular formula, like every single three-dimensional confirmation, it would fill a volume of about one and a half universes, just one molecular formula, one molecule per centimeter cubed. This is how big chemical space is. The reason it's hard to make complex objects is there's so many of them. So evolution isn't necessary to select in that space. Aha. So we can't have a universe in a half full of just taxol. Be very boring. Right.
We live in a universe with lots of different complexol. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, let me repeat. What I think you said is that the complexity of what they're called in an... Taxol. Taxol. It's not a special molecule, either. Just picked one out of a hat. Yeah, okay. We all have these in our hat, don't we? Exactly. Yeah, I'm carrying them around the hat with lots of taxol, isn't it? So, what more like a ski mask?
If I think I understand you, the complexity of this molecule is such that if you explored all molecules that could be that complex, there's not enough room in the universe to hold it. That's right. So, that molecule's existence comes from some prior requirement for that configuration. For that configuration. For that configuration, right? Yes, that's exactly right. Okay. That's exactly right. So let me ask you this then, because now I'm a little...
You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but I'm the only non-scientist here. Thank God. So I can say stupidity. God had nothing to do with that. Okay, but boy. That's a very complex molecule. Okay. Okay. Okay, where exactly does spontaneity and selection cross and how do you identify which is which, which is... Oh, I love the question. Which is a progression and which is a cross. Yeah. So... The kind of very simple molecules that might happen on a planet, can happen spontaneously.
Or if you're thinking Lego or easier for people than chemistry, if you have a tray with a bunch of Lego in it and you shake it, you're going to get some Lego sticking together and making simple shapes. So those would be spontaneous objects. But you're not going to be able to shake it long enough to have Hogwarts castle, spontaneously emerge out of it. That would require a process of evolution and refinement building. And a wand. And a wand, yeah. No magic, though.
The universe doesn't have magic. Oh. At least not in the scenario. So... Covered it up. I know. She's like, you know what? She's going to be on to you. She's like, I am a theorist. No, she's going to be on to you. You got to leave her move. But let her go. Let her go. Let her go ahead. Well, I like magic for me is yet to be regularized in theoretical physics. So there's always has to be other things for us to do. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That's right.
Or the loss of physics. Good. Wow. Okay. So go ahead, back to you can't get to the place where you could shake it and then have Hogwarts. So... So if you do shake it and some stick together, those are like the amino acids. Yes. Okay. Yes. Because we did that with the Miller Eury experiment. That's right. Where he just throws some basic... Okay. Can you explain that please? Everybody knows the Miller... Clearly they don't. Okay. And by the way, of course I know.
I'm just talking about the people I don't go through. No, no. I mean, maybe someone... Please, regales. Please, tell us about your experiment. Yeah. So Stanley Miller was a PhD student. I think he published the paper in 1953. So it was a long time ago. But basically he put a bunch of molecules that might have been available on the early Earth in a flask and put some lightning in his flask and try to model... It's a source of energy.
Yes, it's a source of energy and he had a reducing environment and then he got a million. Reducing means you remove oxygen is to take it out. Yeah. And so he made amino acids and people were so shocked by this at the time. They thought little aliens were being caught crawling out of life forms would be crawling out of the test tube in a couple of weeks. But that's not what happened. Right. Unfortunately. The reducing environment is that we think the early Earth did not have a large of oxygen.
No, I have a large of oxygen. Right. So he's trying to... If life's formed on Earth under these conditions... Well, you want to create a conditism under which... So what came... So out of the ooze, nothing crawled out. Nothing crawled out. If you run the experiment long enough, you basically get what we call a tar and pre-bite of chemistry, which is just an undifferentiated mess of a whole bunch of organic molecules that we can't identify. That's it. Prebiotic chemistry means what?
Pre-bite of chemistry means chemistry that could plausibly happen on the early Earth in the absence of light. Before you have light. Before you have light. So it's more organic chemistry. Yeah. I like the word organic chemistry better because prebiotic kind of makes it sound like it's pre-disposed to become biological, but there's no teleology that's not correct. It also makes it sound like something you take before a meal. Yeah. That's true. People do confuse it with probiotic all the time.
Exactly. Oh my gosh. All that probiotic chemistry. Yeah. I'm Olican Hemraj and I support Star Talk on Patreon. This is Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson. So I like the basic principles that are being invoked here. Very simple, basic principles. Okay. So now you have, you shake the Legos, some stick together. Now what?
Now selection needs to happen to get to something like Hogwarts, which means that some parts have to start being abundant in the environment and then reused to be filled further structure. And these become your units of your building units, your bricks, to build the edifice. Yes. And you could say selection because they are selected to succeed. Is that the idea? Yes. And also because selection is excluding that huge space of other possibilities. You have to have your laws to space.
You have to have your laws to space. That's right. I don't even want to know how many possible configurations there are of the Legos and the Lego Hogwarts set. It's like 2000 Lego. If you imagine all the things you could build out of that's crazy. That's really a person. Yeah. So now since you're looking for life outside of this, let's consider in the selection that life outside of what I'm saying outside of the life that we know. Oh, yeah. Right.
You're looking for life outside of the other planets. So let's go back to the primordial soup of another planet and we have the shaken Legos. Okay. But are there circumstances that may be led to selection for the development here that may be different there creating something different entirely? Could that possibly be the case? Yes. I think so. So I think assembly theory would predict yes. Because the possibility space of the chemistry is so large.
And what we've actually been able to do is to find a threshold that we expect life to emerge, which is what you described as the spontaneous to selection dynamics. And it actually has, you know, for the physics nerds out there, it has like properties of a phase transition, right? So you go from spontane, like random configurations of objects to selected ones that have this historical pathway. The phase transition is all the molecules are this way.
And then like a moment later, they're in a whole other way to figure it out. So, so we live this. Yeah. Okay. We, it's our fancy word for it. But when water becomes ice. That's a face. That's a face transit. Because water becomes steam. It's a face transit. There you go. And so we actually generalize that term even in the early universe. If the, if there's everything is this way and then something happens and then it's another way, we just call it a face transition. It's just through.
We geek out on that. Yeah. Yeah. We physicists love face transition. And he can happen through a trace transition. Right. Right. And like spooky things, fun things. Yes. Dangerous things. Yes. So I shake the legos. Some of them stick together. They're the Lego counterpart to amino acids. This was done in the Miller Uri experiment. It's amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein, the building blocks of life as we know it. Right. All right. On another planet, you shake it.
We're thinking it'll also make amino acids. So this becomes a unit of life. Let's call it that or your, your, what's it? AT what's the assembly theory? AT we call it. We talk about assembly indexes the number of steps to make an object. Okay. That's a step. Okay. If that's the same step everywhere. Yeah. Then that greatly limits what comes after because you're not starting, not everything is possible in that early first unit. Yeah. This is a great point.
The interesting thing there is how varied geochemistry is on different planets. And actually, even if you look at amino acids, there's hundreds of them that we've identified in meteorites. Right. And not all of them are in biology. Right. So if you find them in meteorites, it means they're out there. They're out there. They're being made. But they're not here. Even if they come here, we're not using them. Right. They don't serve a purpose here. Right, Jack. Okay. That's the point.
Yeah. So I don't think that we should have an expectation that all the steps on the pathway to something as complex as cell would be the same. Because maybe the first few are similar. But as you build up the complexity of the chemistry, there's so many paths you could take so many kinds of molecules that there should be a point where planets start to diverge in what kind of biochemistry evolves out of the geochemistry. So let's, okay. Aliens can be really weird.
That's what I was going to get to. It's like, it sounds to me like a virus could be an alien. Like highly effective, like lots of information carrying out, like, you know, purpose, procreating, you know, I mean, it would, if you could look for something like that, how do you even begin to narrow the search once you start looking out there? Yeah. So the great thing about assembly theories, we can actually measure how assembled a group of molecules is with quantitatively.
Quantitatively. Yeah. Quantitatively, we have predictions that we can make from the theory, but we can test them in the lab. And so we have a way of measuring the complexity of a molecule independent of knowledge of what the molecule is. And we can just do it with a mass spectrometer. Okay. See, this is some, this is wild. This is a bad, I love it. I love it. Coming in the doorway. Yeah. Alright. We like measurements. They ground us in reality.
Evolutionary steps, sometimes we think of them that way, is can involve added complexity. So why, what is, what are you doing that's different from that? So evolution, airy theory is we have it now works really well for biology on Earth, but it doesn't help us understand life on other planets or solve the original life because we don't know where life comes from to begin with. So we need, we have a sample of one. Yeah, we have a sample of one. Okay. It's a big problem.
We need a deeper explanation of evolution in order to explain how evolutionary systems that we recognize as biology emerge in the first place. Is there any chance that it could just be a mistake? You know, that might be true, but then it's not very interesting from the perspective of theoretical physics, because there's nothing to explain. Is that, oh good answer. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't stop the search though, but you're talking about it. It's not, it's not very interesting at that point.
So let's, let's make sure we're on the same page here. When I think of a biologist would define life, which has been, there's been variations on that over the decades, but what comes to mind is it's something that has a metabolism, so it uses energy from its environment. It reproduces and it evolves, in a Darwinian way. You have things to add to that, subtract from that. Laura, can you juxtapose both? What do you, what do you call what he just said in from your where you are?
What is that and then where are you different? So, so one definition that people like to use, which encapsulates what you're saying as like fundamental pieces of it is life is a self-sustaining chemical system, capable of Darwinian evolution. It's quite a mouthful. That's what he just said though. Yeah, it is exactly. It's what it is. It's what it is. So, you know, there's a lot of problems actually from my perspective with that definition.
One of them is whether you regard life to be self-sustaining. So viruses are an example. People don't know whether to place them as life or not because they're not self-sustaining on their own. And in fact, when we're doing chemical evolution in the laboratory, like trying to study molecules, you know, we don't know how to call them alive because they're not self-sustaining because graduate students are pipetting, you know, like they require the graduate student.
So pipetting, that's a verb, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a little thing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, you got to move the molecules from one tube to the next to do artificial saliva. So, why do you say, I am crushing your head. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. So, there's many, or my favorite example is like, you know, a parasite that, you know, sits in the brain of an ant and, you know, pilots the ant. Right. Right? So, I talk about that example in my book actually. I love that parasite by the way. It's so crazy.
Yeah. So, is that a life form? Because it's actually, you know, it's a symbion, right? So, are actually a parasite. So, this idea of self-sustaining is kind of very problematic for a lot of reasons. I don't actually think life is defined by chemistry. So, this is again getting a deeper physical principles. Wow. So, I include technology. That's a good example. Yeah. Yeah. For shots fired. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, my definition, or well, my understanding of life, I don't have a definition.
The understanding of life is life is the things that can only be produced by evolution and selection and technology is also an example of that. And that's not chemical. And also, this idea of it being self-reproducing, I mean, there are plenty of humans that can't self-reproduce. Actually, no human can individually self-reproduce. Right. And try it. Yeah. But there's plenty of things. Have in trial. Yeah. But, but, but a mule, for example. Yeah, exactly. It's certainly alive. Exactly.
Very produced. Can't reproduce. Yeah. And we bred them, but even if you think of like a bee in a colony, right? Like most of the bees can't reproduce alone. Are they not alive? Right. Because they're part of a social network. So, yeah. So, the traditional definition of life have issues. Lots of issues. Every single word. Plus, there are stars that have metabolism, and they live out their lives and die. And then they explode and send their materials to other gas farms that make other stars.
Right. But they do reproduce. Right. And there's some heritability there because of the elements that get made in one star generation. Yeah. So, our star is alive, right? We can ask that question. Yes, we could. So, so, so ask any question. So, why even have a definition at all? So, I think definitions are useful for rustics in the absence of having a more fundamental understanding.
And so, one of my favorite sort of analogies that people might field make is like, how would you define water before you knew what atomic theory? You would describe it as like a clear liquid. It might, you know, be a liquid at room temperature, but you wouldn't really understand what water is until you understand what atoms are and how they combine to make H2O. And that's sort of where we are with definitions of life. We can kind of describe effectively its properties, but we don't have it.
Like a macroscopic. Yeah. Yeah. You know what you're looking at? You just don't know really what it is. Yeah, that's exactly right. Right. And I want to know really what it is. I want to know at the same level that we understand our other theories of physics, like gravity or quantum mechanics. You have disentangled the definition of life. Yeah. From people's biases. That's right. Like a chef. Yeah. I'm cooking the primordial soup. When they deconstruct the disc. When they deconstruct the disc.
Yeah. You see all the, you're like, what the hell is that? I know right. I had eggplant parmesan, eggplant here. The cheese over there. I did. One of my paintings, exactly. The pot is on, shows up on Tuesday. So let's get back to this. Any good theory? In fact, I'm a theory snob. Okay. I'm not a theory snob. I'm not a theory snob. No, no, no. You're definition of theory snob in the sense. I want to know what your definition of theory snob in the sense?
No, no. I'm sure that's a very little theory at all. That's not the kind of theory that we would lead into this club. Yeah. Yeah. Who sponsored you? Sorry. I'm sorry. No, I didn't. Okay. If you have an idea that you're still testing, then we should call it a hypothesis.
But once it's tested and verified and supported by multiple people and not just your lab in the Beyond Institute or beyond center, then it can elevate to the level of a theory, which gives us the thermodynamics, very quantum theory, relativity theory. But it's not Sarah's theory until it's multiply supported. Yes. I would call it Sarah's hypothesis and your colleagues, your hypothesis. Oh. Am I allowed? We grant me that. I'll grant you that.
I think there are clear reasons why we call it a theory. And for me, what theories are our explanatory paradigms, like their actual frameworks that have brought us to a better. You also also got to predict something that we have found. What have you predicted that we have found? We have predicted that there should be a threshold above which only molecules produced by life should reside. And we've tested that experimentally. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm going to stay.
I'm going to stay. But the universe can generate simple molecules. It can't generate complex molecules without evolution and selection. That suggests a boundary. Is it the omega experiment? Yes. A boundary that just random chemistry can explore, but it can't go beyond. Oh. And we've tested that with living and non-living samples. And even some that NASA sent, and this was done by Lee Kronin's lab, they sent him samples and they blinded them.
And they tried to conf- like, you know, blinded samples, one that you don't know the identity of the sample. And they tried to really trick them. They sent them merges in meteorite, which is one of the most complex, inorganic, non-biological samples in the source system. And it still classified the experimental approach still classified it correctly as non-living.
And what we saw was only the living samples had an assembly index value, this number of minimal steps above 15, which is not a magic number. It's just an experimentally confirmed to number. So you're suggesting that nowhere in the universe without some other driving, or system, would give you a complexity higher than this? No, 15, but that was for a specific set of chemical, like, kinds of bonds that can form. So we don't know 15's a universal number.
It might be different in a different planet with different geochemistry. But the threshold is there. Is the point. So that was the first prediction that we've made that we've tested. And also the other thing that we have that hasn't come out yet is actually constructing phylogenetic trees. Committee hasn't been published yet. Hasn't been published yet. Constructing phylogenetic trees with no genomic information, just molecular information. Taking that stuff down to molecules. Molecules.
Molecules contain their history. Wow. But I think your point is really important about a theory. And obviously, this theory is still under development. But I think theories have played a really important role in the history of physics in terms of trying to unify a broad set of phenomena that was what we're different. I was just initially, I was just calling hypothesis. Yeah, I think that would then later be elevated to theory once it has been verified.
Yeah, you should kind of drop it down the hypothesis because then when it's elevated, we can call it Sarah's theory. I don't want it to be called Sarah's theory. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And would you do it on purpose? Everyone wants to call to me like what is it? Better than working out of art and through your self proofs as a whole.
Cause my stories all over the video have become that way. Right? You discipline them, and in the process of painting evidence, I think it was, which is susceptible. Yeah. If a theory is something that's sort of in progress and we don't not really sure yet, and then it gets shown to be false, people will say, well, we're waiting for the day that relativity theory is shown to be false. That's not gonna happen. Yeah. So it's just, I know I understand that.
I think working from the scientist side of it, it's really interesting because I think also, I've noticed that, you know, distinguishing between a model and a theory is hard. That's another one. Yeah. So these are, on some level it's semantic, but it's semantic. It just, it makes my job easier if we get the semantic. Yeah, we want your job to be easy. Don't mess with my job, try and do it.
So again, you're telling me, left to its own devices, the universe can construct molecules of complexity level 15 in your units of complexity paradigm. Yes. Okay. After that, what does it require? It requires a system that has some constraints on what kind of molecules get produced. That favors one kind or another. Favours selection. Election. There's that word again. We're back to that. Okay. Gotcha. So we're gonna get, whereas getting to a complexity level of 15 does not require that.
That's right. And so a key component of passing that threshold is actually storing memory in the system because you have to remember the steps. So you can get to it every time, right? That's right. Otherwise, it's just randomly getting ready. That's right. Oh my gosh. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh yeah. You have to know what not to do in order to know what to do.
You're saying this meteorite, and this meteorite can both get to complexity level 15 because they both formed in the void of the early universe of the early solar system, but without a drivering. Yeah, without something to remember molecules that the meteorite has made in the past and then build further complexity on top of that. Can't do it. So now you need a system to store information. That's right. And DNA can do that. Yes. Favisely. Yes. Hmm. So is do, well, I guess there's no way to know.
I was going to say is DNA because like all of everything around us, you know, that's organic, we all share this, right? So is that optimized in any way for life? Do we look at that as a model? Well, I like that. I like that. Yeah. Because the Merchist and meteorite doesn't contain living molecules. That's right. Yeah. If you're going to get what anyone would call life, why doesn't it select the same path? Because this is a question that's come up on my colleagues in geology.
Hose the question and I didn't have a good answer. It was an intriguing question. They look at multiple planets and they're finding the same rock. This comes directly out of what you're saying. They find the same rocks, even though it's a completely different planet. Yeah. Same rocks, that is they understand the bio, the rock chemistry of what they've formed. The composition and the like. There's basalt there, there's basalt here. Okay, they came out of a volcano.
The volcanoes here, volcanoes there. Why can't life have the same consistency that geology does? It's because of the complexity. Well, see, that you haven't answered for that. Yeah. You come out of your assembly theory with an answer to that. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. I think it's like a symbol something like DNA that isn't DNA. There would be. Yes. That would. What? Watch out. Hello. Okay. I'll, sorry. You buried the lead. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Oh my god. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right.
So. That's amazing. What? Retail. Can store information for you and go beyond your 15 steps. Do you have this thing locked up? No. That's it. That's it. I have to say, I'm a serious non-experimental. I haven't built these things myself, but they're, I mean, even. But. Even in the space of just synthetic biology, people have alternatives to DNA and RNA, which are the usual. Let me just remind people synthetic biology is basically genetically modified organisms. Right. Right. That's what that is.
It's got this new branding, but it's, that's what it's like. We started out thinking about it as GMOs. Because nobody wants to take genetically modified. Even more. Yeah. So synthetic biology. Yeah. So there's all kinds of different, they're called XNAs. Like, you know, alternative nucleic acids, basically, that people have studied. So, so those are real molecules that people have validated in the lab and actually work in living cells.
But what we're trying to get at, that's a bit deeper than that, with assembly theories, actually looking at the iteration of chemical space and trying to predict what molecules could be. And right now, where we're doing that most significantly is for drug design. That makes sense. Yeah. And predicting pharmaceutical drugs. Of course. And there are some approaches also if you're talking about validation of a theory.
There are some places where we've been able to predict molecules and actually synthesize them. And then- Knowing that they'd be stable. Yeah. So for example, one place is really interesting is looking at non-addictive opioids. Yeah. So if you want to make an opioid, you want to keep the opioid groups, like those parts of the molecule and then make it non-addictive, you actually have to look at molecules that are not addictive and then try to combine their features.
Or you get them together and then you figure out how you make the non-addictive molecule bind in such a way that you get the result of the opioid without- Yeah. And there are some other steps to making both kinds of molecules and then you can combine those steps to look at other kinds of molecules. It's a freaking crazy. Okay. So how- This is what Aile is solving alien life will give you. New drugs. Oh, we got to get to Emily's in a minute. What do we get in a new drug?
Let me tell you something. That's good. Make sure you leave with that when you're going for your grants. It is part of the strategy actually. Yeah. It's a good one. How the molecule behaves. So give an example of something that can encode store information that is not DNA. Well, you can store information in RNA and protein. Those are already in cells. But there's one I like is- and I actually don't know if people have stored information in it. It's called PNA. It's peptide nucleic acid.
I like that because it's kind of a cross between a protein and DNA. Right. All right. And so, so mostly places where people study these kind of alternative nucleic acids is just you know, in synthetic biology labs. But there's a whole host of them that you could use. Just the same way that you can store information in DNA, you could just write a sequence of bases in one of these kind of molecules. Minerals are more fun now trying to store information in minerals pretty crazy.
Whoa. So okay, that's pretty wild. Now, why would you be storing information in the mineral? Minerals are really important in the origin of life chemistry. And we think that they were actually the first templates for information to actually pattern chemistry in specific ways. And they retain, you know, they have an apiatic pattern to them, which means they can contain a lot of information. And they actually- Is it was perfectly periodic? Yep. Is hardly any information. That's right. Right.
Yeah, so this goes all the way back to- First of all, as hardly any information. Right. Because everything is regular. Right. So if it's varies, but then repeats, you can stick something in there, right? And repeat it. And remember it. Yes. Okay. Fascinating. Yeah. So minerals might have been the templates for the first genetic information. Gotcha. So now we want to look for aliens. How did what you do inform that?
So the current way that we're informing it, I think that's most significant, is this ability to look for complexity in the universe as a biosignature instead of looking for specific molecules that life on Earth generated? And we can do that with a mass spectrometer. So we can just fly to another body in our solar system and try to infer whether there's high assembly molecules there. Right. Whether or not it's crawling out of a beaker. Doesn't make a difference.
Or- Well, we haven't seen that yet. And we haven't seen little critters crawling around on, you know, in solidicist plumes or on Mars or anything. So I think we need better tools. In your universe of complexity, it is a measure of the complexity of information. And artificial intelligence is a level of complexity that's even beyond what we think of as biological.
How do you rate artificial intelligence as it's currently expressed in our world on your scale of- So I definitely think artificial intelligence is life, but I also, I know, shocking, but I also think your mind- Why was I programmed to feel pain? Did you feel pain from that? I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to induce pain. Often, you know, like, yeah, there's a lot of shock value to things I say. So I guess I induce pain. That's a very shocking statement. Why do you feel that way, though?
Well, so I think you want to make a distinction between what you might call life and what you might call a live. And this actually comes derived from the theory and the way I've been thinking about life for a long time. So the things I would qualify as life or anything that requires evolution and selection to produce them. And artificial intelligence do not exist on a planet unless there are billions of years of evolution to make intelligent beings like us that are capable of engineering them.
So in that sense, they are like- But you know, you're not creating AI, right? Exactly. There are no large language models on Mars unless we put them there. Right. So therefore, we are the remembered molecular complexity to create that. Yes. We're like the minerals imprinting on the genomic information of AI. That makes sense.
I've got to say, I didn't want to actually agree with this, but now I'm thinking of perhaps in a world maybe even our own where we're a couple hundred years in the future or we have somehow mucked things up to the point where we're not going to be here. So we then turn to artificial intelligence, imprint it with the ability to do everything that we do. It continues to evolve in our absence. And then somebody comes and finds us, but not this organic life.
It finds us in the form of what we left behind, which was artificial intelligence. Yeah, I know. I haven't heard of it. I haven't heard of it. You just created a whole story out of that. I did create a whole story out of that. And it wasn't very optimistic with that. Yeah, I think when people envision that future, they don't envision us still being here, but you know, like cells are inside our bodies and part of like the evolutionary structure we are. They've been here for billions of years.
I don't think artificial intelligence or technology is going to replace us. It's going to become part of a larger integrated system of technology and biology that's co-evolving on the planet. I agree with that as a beginning, but I think unfortunately our nature is our pensioned and proclivity for self-destruction, which will leave artificial intelligence behind. You're a glass is half empty. I'm a glass is half full kind of person. Let's take it to the next room. Travel. Okay. Go ahead.
Actually, I have the answer to the half empty half full. Excellent. Yeah. Drink it. What is the answer? That's a profound question. No, no, no, to me is no longer profound. No. Uh-huh, and you're adding liquid to it and it reaches the halfway point. It's half full. If you have a vessel, it depends on where you start. No, it depends. The rate of change or it's like in calculus, it'd be the first derivative of the volume of liquid that's in it. Is that positive or negative?
And then it's half full or half empty. History matters. Yes, exactly. It's very assembly theoretic and very evolved. Wow. See, I just got a compliment. Did you do it? I had to compliment it. So let's take it up a notch. If we are all simulated by some annual juvenile basement, well, they just simulated you to think and say that. Sure. It would fill up very little. Or simulated in a surrounding where it would lead you to say that even you being sentient and people would make a difference.
That's right. That's right. That simulation would say something like that. Oh, it's exactly what you would say. That was very good. That was good. That was good. So a simulation is zeros and ones on a chip creating information that's stored in zeros and ones and manipulated and maneuvered. Is that alive? So simulation. Are you alive in a simulation? Oh, I don't think that we're living in a simulation.
The key evidence there is you just talked about the simulation having to run in a chip, which means it means a physical hardware. And there is always a physical substrate underlying any simulation as far as we understand. So there's always a physical reality at the bottom. Why isn't the simulation empowering you to discover molecules that impress your body? It does actually because you can have AI-driven exploration of chemical space, for example.
So that's a clear place where a simulation is driving. Exploration and making things physical that aren't physical in the absence of a simulation. Exactly because we joke about what we talk about. If this whole world is simulated, it would be really inefficient to simulate parts that no sentient being is absorbing at any given moment. So you'd only simulate where you need to simulate. What is necessary? What is necessary at the time that it's needed?
So if I want to dig to the center of the earth, I don't need to make it until I'm doing it. The simulation is creating the molecules that I'm measuring as having complexity. I think we see observational evidence of that and just with our technologies, and I think that's really important. I think there it's explanatory, but when you say the universe is a simulation, I don't think it gives you any additional explanatory power. I find it to be a useless hypothesis.
Well, I know what you're saying because then everything is resolved. Like I say, she just called me useless. No, no, I'm just kidding. What I say to that is it doesn't make a difference because at the end of the week I still OV's a 210 dots. So what difference does it make if the whole universe is a simulation? If at the end of the week I still OV's a two-dimensional. I don't think it's a different version. I'm still right down to it. Like laws of physics that describe your universe.
No, that's some sort of a different thing. It does make a difference. It's all the same. I understand it. You know, you're saying the distinction is not interesting if you can't make the distinction. That's right. So I think simulations being an emergent property that the universe creates, the one that happens through evolution is interesting and then asking about the physical nature of simulations and why life generates them. That's interesting.
Saying the universe is a simulation kicks the can way too far back for me to give any explanatory power to what we're talking about. So because you can't figure it out, it don't mean nothing. That's exactly right. Don't you know you're in a really theoretical physicist? That's exactly like that's my card. It will grant you your complexity in your assembly theory. Thank you. You've been an anatomist of you. Where are I now? We granted, start talking, grants you assembly theory.
It's all about bad for those outside. I love finding something here. It's not here. I love it. Or I'm like knighted. So in that, does it say anything about free will? We've had a few episodes on that subject with some leading thinkers in the area. Indeed. What can you say anything about it? Yeah, I have a lot to say on it, but I think the sort of most important thing is I think you can have free will and be consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them. And the reason for that.
You can have free will. You can. Because people are arguing that you couldn't. Yes. Because the laws of physics are commanding everything you say you can do. That's right. Yeah. And it is like, you know, the universe is totally random and then you have absolute freedom. Right. So it's not that you have total, you know, free will is a trade off between the sort of control and the freedom.
And I think what happens is when you have these evolved structures that are building complexity, they become really constrained by their history, but they still have some freedom in terms of the kind of complexity they can generate. And so, and this becomes sort of deeply intrinsic to what they are. So they are deterministic in some sense, but there's still some freedom for them to actually make action. Normally, when we think of free will, we think of I'm deciding. Right.
But really, if you come out from a molecular point of view, it's whatever the molecule is going to make. And it will work within the space of options that has available. Yeah. Free will is executed over time, right? So this is also the thing. It's not instantaneous. We don't have free will to be in Arizona right now. Right. But we could be there tomorrow. So I think this, you know, a key point that we're missing is it's not like you have instantaneous command over what?
That items in your bottom are doing, but you can make decisions over time. And even your decisions are determined by what came before. So they're executed over a period of time. Yes. Just the fact that, you know, well, I'm a comedian. Well, I didn't just wake up one day and go, I'm a comedian. You have to press some in your head. Yeah, press in it. Right. So I make sense. Yeah. Assembly theory makes some really radical conjectures about like the future being larger than the past.
There's also some freedom in terms of because of this idea of building complexity, the future is always more complex and larger in sort of the space. Because it because it's not here though. And it helps that we have an expanding universe. Yes, it does. Exactly. No, this is exactly right. The end is getting bigger. To accommodate exactly this. Cool. What does this say about entropy? So yeah, entropy requires. I want to hear it. Hold on. Hold on. Let me get my pocket on out.
After all that we've been through, we got to entropy now. I got to hit what your people want. Disorder as a direction in which systems move. That's right. All right. So, but the reason that that happened, like we described things that way is because of the way we label states. Like entropy depends on a couple key features. One is like you as an observer labeling the particular configurations.
And the other one being able to talk about an ensemble of systems that are identically prepared and there's some statistical trend. And what is happening in the biosphere is complexity is increasing. It's kind of like an entropic tendency, but it's actually over configurations like the commonatorial space. And so I don't really actually think the second law is telling us that things are. Second law of thermodynamics. Yes, second law of thermodynamics.
There's necessarily telling us that things are trending toward disorder. I think there's a deeper law underlying that that can also account for the structure of what we see in life. But of course there's still entropy on the terms. Physics would say we're getting, it's only for closed systems that you evolve towards higher. But of course the universe might be an open system. No, no, but I'm saying that Earth is clearly not a closed system. That's right. Sunlight coming in. That's right.
So we've credited that infusion of energy as a pump for the development of complexity. Yes. That wouldn't otherwise be there. Right. Like if there were no sun, none of this would be here.
But one of the things that's been really hard from the perspective of theoretical physics as it's written now, not like what new laws might be present in biology to explain, is that it looks like what life is doing is changing the nature of the underlying state space as we talk about it in physics as it's going along. So it's hard to define something like entropy when you can't count the same things at every instance in time.
So you want a second and a half law of thermodynamics that applies to the observed universe. The second law of thermodynamics is an approximate law. I think we all know this is statistical statement. I would like an exact law. Wow. You are very demanding. I thought I'd tell you. I'm not messing around. Theoretical physicists don't mess around. Wow. Wow. Okay. Screw you, Newton. It's all his fault. And you put all of this in a book. Yeah, man. Oh my gosh. Life as no one knows it except for you.
I still don't know it either. I'm still one of the no ones. I love it. I love it. Life as no one including the author, but it's the whole foundations of that thinking. Yes. And I'm glad it doesn't just live in this conversation. Yeah. Because it lives in the pages of this book. So this came out just recently. That's right. Just summer 2024. Mm-hm. Well good for you. Yeah. Congratulations. Congratulations. You're first book. It is my first book. Excellent. Wonderful. Excellent.
And at the rate you're going, more books. You can move. We won't just now. You can't? No, sorry. Look forward to what becomes of this branch of thinking. I'm hoping we will do an experiment where an alien crawls out of it. I'm going to say I'm not with you. Just going to go on the record and say no. No, the alien crawling out. Nothing crawling out of the crowd. Not anything. But the understanding that would come without a reason. That's a great, that's a great, that's a pure scientist.
But we'll learn. Exactly. You know, right. I think it's his famous quote from Kurt Vonnegut who says, the last word ever spoken by any human is between two scientists and one says the other. Let's try the experiment the other way. Yeah. That's the one. That's it. That makes perfect sense. They're all excited about it. It's the last word spoken. Yeah. It's going to be you. I'm a theorist. I'm not doing it. I'm not sure. All right. The same. That's the last one. That's the last one.
That's the last one. You know how to do the last experiment. All right. Well, this has been a delight. Thank you for sharing your expertise and your wisdom and your knowledge coming from beyond. Hmm. Literally. Beyond me. I saw what you did there. Yeah. Yeah. That was cool. Yeah. Very good. And you got to keep us surprised. Yeah. A new development. Fascinating frontier. I got to give it to you. As they set up experiments to look for life because we just had funky spoon.
Dr. Thuggrave David Brintz. I love David. He's great. Yeah. They have a Grintz' mullings just a few days ago. Oh, really? And so he's guiding NASA's search for a lot of. Yes. And if you have something to tell him you should you better tell him, yeah, yeah I could tell him. But actually what I'm trying to do now is prepare data because what you're talking about, artificial intelligence people are also trying to use it for life detection and we don't have good data to train models on. Right.
Right. Yeah. It's not like a large language model for aliens. have one. Right, right, right. Awesome. All right. That's a lot of fun. Thanks. Let me see if I can put some cosmic perspective on this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Always throughout time, throughout the history of civilization. Somebody had to think out of the box. Somebody does it first. And they always look a little weird to everybody else. They look a little strange. And most people
who do that are just wrong. Let's be honest about this. There's a trash bin of people who stepped out of the box, thinking they had new insights into the nature of reality and they did not. So how do you find the ones that work, that move where we all are and how we think? It needs to be subject to experiment and observation. It can't just live in your head
and make sense to you and no one else. So for me, watching these new steps to think about life, to bring a little bit of dose of physics, theoretical physics into the equation. To me is an important first step. And I look forward to where this will take us. Just short of the alien crawling out of the box. Don't stop short of the possibility that the alien
can help save us from ourselves. That is a cosmic perspective. There's been another episode of Star Talk, taking you to places that we hadn't been the day before. Sarah, do I thank you guys. Thanks for coming to my office here at the Hayden Planetarium. It was really fun. In New York City, the American Museum of Natural History, all the way up from Arizona. Yes. So, tell folks at ASU, I said hi. I will. We love them all
down there in the heat. Do you know, Tempe, Arizona is one quarter of a mile from the surface of the sun? Did you? That's funny. That's an old joke. It hit 120 degrees this past summer, right? Yeah. That's typical. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. All right. Sometimes we can't even fly planes. It's so hot. Oh, because the not enough air density coming through the thing. That's right. Wow. There's some good physics for you. Yeah. Yeah. It's not just the temperatures,
the density, right? Yeah. Well, you need a warm or runway or something. Yeah. Yeah. We got to call it quits there. Chuck, always good to have you. I always a pleasure. And again, thank you so much. My congratulations and good luck on life as no one knows it. Not even the author. That's what makes this especially interesting. Hopefully someone will know it one day. One day. One day. All right. Star Talk here. typing up.