The Nothing Behind Everything

This message is brought to you by AppleCard.

Did you know AppleCard is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions?

And because fees don't help you, AppleCard doesn't have any.

So if your credit card isn't AppleCard, maybe it should be.

Subject to credit approval, AppleCard issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch.

Variable APRs range from 18.24% to 28.49% based on creditworthiness.

Rates as of July 1st, 2025.

Terms and more at applecar.com.

At Sutter, Breakthrough Cancer Care Never Stops.

Our teams of doctors, surgeons, and nurses are dedicated to you from day one of your diagnosis.

Our 22 cancer centers deliver nationally recognized care every day and every step of your way.

And we're located right in your community, ready to fight by your side.

A whole team on your team, Sutter Health.

Learn more at sutterhealth.org cancer.

Save big during Labor Day at Lowe's.

Get up to 40% off.

Select major appliances.

Plus, buy more to get up to an additional 20% off.

Shop even more savings with three stay-green, one-cubic foot vegetable and flower garden soil bags for $10.

This Labor Day, take care of your home for less at Lowe's.

We help.

You save.

Valent through 9-3.

Soil Offer excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

Selection varies by location.

Select locations only.

While supplies last.

See Lowe's.com Lowe's.com for more details.

Wait, you're listening.

You are listening

to Radio Lab.

Radio Lab from Reinhard.

W-N-Y-C.

Re-wine.

Hey, this is Radio Lab.

I'm Leth App Nassiter.

And today I have got for you two Radio Lab segments that came out before I I ever worked here.

Both of them do a thing that I find myself craving more and more these days, which is they pop you out.

They pop you out of the news cycle.

They pop you out of whatever interpersonal drama you're stuck thinking about.

They pop you out of your own body.

These are pieces about dimensions and even universes that are imperceptible, verging on almost unthinkable.

I mean, I think I get it.

I think I understand.

Maybe I don't, but I still found it all really fun.

So I hope you enjoy this prescheduled break from your perceptual reality.

It begins with our emeritus host, Robert Krulwich, talking to our other emeritus host, Jad Abenrod, about a conversation he had with a legendary physicist.

Okay, so this is about what you do for a living.

You know that I have this neighbor and friend, Brian Greene.

Brian Green, professor of physics and mathematics, Columbia University.

Yes, I do know that.

And the thing about Brian is he is a theoretical physicist.

Now, theoretical physicists say that it's theoretically possible to know everything there is to know in the universe.

So one day they'll be able to explain not only how you could send a rocket to the moon, but the laws that govern space and energy and time and gravity, everything,

the whole universe, one day they think might be totally understandable using logic and mathematical equations.

Now, you can't take that too far.

None of us really imagined that if you ask the equations, what are we going to have for dinner tomorrow night, the equations will spit out fried tofu and spring rolls or something like that.

But at the level of the fundamental ingredients, the particles that make up the universe, their properties, the hope and the goal is that the theories that we work out will apply everywhere and tell us about everything.

You just said everything.

Yes.

As in everything.

Yes.

That's the big, big goal.

This is like playing poker.

You're helping me.

I don't know what you're going to do.

All right, we'll take it the next step.

Okay.

Wait, so what do you what are you up to here, Krolovich?

All right, so if you think that everybody well, you know, we argue, that's the fun thing we do, but

unlike him, my position has always been that it's going to be very hard to answer all the puzzles in the universe.

And frankly, it's not a bad thing if some mysteries remain mysterious.

That's my view.

But because Brian's so smart, when I tell him, how do you know this, whatever, he always wins the arguments.

But a few months ago, this is the thing that got this whole thing started, I was reading Harper's Magazine, and I found an article written by another physicist and a novelist, Alan Lightman.

And I thought, oh boy, this is going to drive Brian bats.

Because Alan says, there is a group of physicists, and Brian happens to be one of them, who've embraced a very exciting idea with an unfortunate effect.

If this idea turns out to be true, Alan writes, it will then be impossible for physicists to know everything, which I thought, ah, excellent.

What is the idea?

It has to do with more than one universe.

You know this, we've talked about it before, that there is a...

a vogue now for the idea that instead of one universe encompassing everything, there might be more than one.

Right, so there actually are a number of ways that physics comes upon this idea of other universes.

Maybe the most intuitive is to think about the Big Bang that sent space rushing outward, then matter could cool and yield to stars and galaxies, that wonderful picture that we've had with us since the 1920s.

We have in the interim decades come to the possibility that the Big Bang may not be a one-time event.

That is, there may have been many big bangs.

There may continue to be big bang-like events, each spawning its own universe.

If that were the case, then our universe would then be viewed as one of many in this grand collection emerging from all of these big bang-like events.

Now, in this view of things, there could be not just one universe or three or 19.

There could be 10,000, there could be a hundred, there could be trillions, there could be an infinite number.

And here's the crucial thing.

Each and every one of these universes can be different from its neighbor.

Vastly different.

That's right.

So when we study the equations for the production of these universes, we see in the mathematics that the other universes could have different features, different particle compositions, different masses of the particles, different forces.

Some of them might have atoms, some of them might not have atoms.

You could have universes with lots of stars, some with no stars, some could be made of Munster cheese.

I don't know.

The fundamental properties of each universe could be very different.

That's exactly right.

And that's the key to Alan Lightman's argument.

Well then, going back to the beginning of our conversation, if a physicist's job is to explore everything, that is the universe, now the universe has just been demoted to a sub-universe, then when you get your diploma from a great university, the president of the universe says, My friends, we are gathered here to meet the people who have earned the credentials to describe the sub-universe.

A little bit of what we could know.

It's like you've been demoted.

You thought that you were going to get to learn about everything, your words, and now it turns out that your everything is very

sub.

Oh, I wouldn't describe it like that at all, as you might imagine.

Rather than

view this as an incredible loss of understanding,

the right way of viewing it, I think, is to recognize that certain questions that we were asking when we thought there was just one universe were the wrong questions.

questions.

Meaning what?

Well, he says, here's the way to think about it.

This is how it always goes.

We've seen this before in the history of science.

Take Kepler.

Johannes Kepler was an astronomer and a kind of mapper of the solar system.

He was trying to figure out where the planets were and the nature of their orbits and stuff.

And Kepler spent a long time trying to find an explanation for why the Earth is 93 million miles away from the Sun.

93 million.

Kepler thought, that has to be a really important number, a key to a deeper mystery.

But we now know that he was barking up the wrong tree.

Why?

There isn't just one planet.

There are many planets.

In fact, many planets around many stars.

And the distances of those planets from their host star varies over a wide range of possibilities.

Mars, for example, is 141 million miles from the Sun.

Jupiter, 483 million.

And when you start comparing the different distances of planets from the Sun, you realize that the fact that the Earth is 93 million miles away, it doesn't seem like a deep law of the universe anymore.

It just feels kind of arbitrary.

And then that forces you to change the question.

Not why 93 million?

Now, why are all these different planets at different distances from the Sun and yet they all stick around the sun?

They're all trapped in the neighborhood.

That question puts you on the road to a deeper thought, the theory of gravity.

The point is, says Brian, if you're focused on one thing, you're going to think that one thing is the key to everything.

When you're one turns to many, then you think, ah, well, the one thing really wasn't so special.

But the way Brian sees it.

That is progress.

That is understanding.

And then it frees you up to ask other kinds of questions, such as, what's the law of gravity?

What is the equation that allows us to understand how the sun forms?

So those are real questions.

And when you can toss out the ones that are red herrings that you thought were deep, but they're actually just asking the wrong question, that frees you up to make progress.

And Brian says you can make the exact same kind of progress if you compare universes.

So instead of asking, why is our one universe the way it is?

Now you can ask, well, what do all of these universes, so different one from the other, still have in common?

That would be pretty heavy heavy and exciting.

To describe the underlying laws that govern all universes, regardless of their detailed features, and what it would be like in that universe, or that universe, or that universe, way over there.

But there are an infinite number of them.

So, if I told you that you could write anything down, and it might be a universe, black universes, white universes, green universes, soft universes, hard universes, muscular universes, teeny universes, huge universes, then the only one you know intimately is your own.

It seems to me that what do you know about those other universes other than that they might be very different?

We don't know very much observationally.

Sure, we can't see them.

We don't know very much experimentally.

So they're definitely on a very different footing from that perspective.

But Brian believes that one day we might be able to experimentally detect these other universes and somehow, you know, kind of pick up their distant vibrations, kind of like the way you'd hear your neighbor's music just emanating through the walls.

We might be able to listen in, he says, and take a couple of measurements.

Which would be quite wonderful.

And in that case, at least there's a chance that we get observational evidence of the existence of these other realms.

And at that point, I would begin to say, hmm, maybe there's something really to this.

So the physics you're doing says, I can't go there.

I can't observe it, at least for the moment.

All I have is my brain and my math.

And I say from my brain, I'm going to just assume certain things are always true.

There's always going to be gravity to say.

There's always going to be some particle or wave that creates matter.

There's always going to be,

I don't know what else.

Are there things that they're always going to be?

What are they?

That are always going to be.

The things that you were describing need not always be the case, yes.

What would be the case is that the fundamental governing equations, the mathematical laws, would be the underlying architecture that governs what happens in those places.

But environmental details can change things.

Gravity is a dramatic.

Environmental details?

Yes, well, that's actually something you know at some level right now, right?

On the moon, you could jump a lot higher than you can here.

So if you didn't.

But I do think that two bodies do attract each other.

That's right.

So there is a fundamental law of gravity that manifests itself in different ways based on the environment.

All right, so let me say that again.

Let Let me ask it again.

Are there fundamental laws that you think operate in all universes?

Yes, yes, absolutely.

And why do you think that?

That is the starting point.

When we come upon this possibility of other universes, It's not a crazy idea that we dream up late at night when there's nothing else to think about.

These are ideas that emerge from the fundamental equations that we use to describe the things that we do see in the world around us, and we follow the equations, and the equations suggest to us there might be these other universes.

So we have equations, we analyze them, and we interpret what they're telling us about reality.

But those are the very equations that come to this possibility of other universes, then those are the equations that govern those other universes.

The starting point is let's assume that these are the fundamentals.

It sounds an awful lot like, why is God three in one?

Or

why

was the world made in seven days?

Aren't we getting close to some sort of

you're believing in certain things to be always true the way religious people believe certain things are always true?

Not because you've seen it or it's just because you can't you have a faith in it.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

I thought not.

It has absolutely nothing to do with faith.

The reason why we trust the equations is because we've got centuries worth of observational and experimental evidence that the equations take us in the right direction.

Here.

Here.

And it's those very same equations that work here that we are following to their logical conclusion to see where the mathematics takes us.

Right?

So if you remember the train of reasoning here.

You may have just projected here into there.

That's faith talking, no?

You can't go there.

All you can do is say, well, what works, my deep understanding of here

has to be there.

I don't know why it has to be, but that's what you just said.

No, it's actually the reasoning goes a somewhat reverse order from that.

We build mathematical equations to describe here.

We then follow those equations and say, oh my goodness, those equations that we developed to describe here are telling us that there is something over there.

And then we're like, wow, the equations do a great job of describing things here.

And the equations have this feature that they tell us there's another place over there.

Maybe that's possible.

The key thing also is logic in your mind.

Oh, this is not

belief.

This is just logic.

Aren't you worried, though, that there's another Brian Green in universe number 3790,208,600,045 who is sitting there talking to another radio reporter in another university, and he's saying, well, we know all about the other universes because we're assuming that the math here is the same as the math there in that other place.

But as it turns out, their math and our math aren't the same, so that they will not,

you may just be wrong.

Oh, that's always the possibility.

In fact, that's likely the possibility.

In fact, 99.99%

of everything we do is wrong, not from the point of view we make a mistake, but

the wrongness is a deep wrongness that you somehow are somehow feeling that the math is a clue, that everything follows your math.

If at some point the maths collide and then the universes collide, then that would be very unsettling to both of you, I would assume.

In terms of whether the math is somehow contradictory,

your tools of learning are not working.

Yes, that would suggest that we were both wrong and that there's a deeper overarching framework.

I mean,

I hate to use the word faith, but the one point where I'll give you faith is this.

I do have a deep faith that the universe is coherent.

And by universe, call it multiverse, whatever word you want to use, the whole thing.

I do believe that it's coherent.

Now, whether that means it follows mathematical laws, I don't know.

It could be the case that, you know,

when we talk to those aliens that we encounter one day and they say, okay, show us what you got, we bring out our equations and they kind of laugh at us and say, oh, you guys are still stuck on math.

You know, and they say, yeah, you know, a thousand, ten thousand years ago, we were doing math too, but here's the real way of describing it.

Now, what they'd be showing us with the real way of describing it, I have no idea.

I can't even imagine what it would be that would be non-mathematical.

So I do have a deep faith that it's coherent, and the only tool that I know how to encapsulate that coherence are mathematical equations.

So if Xantar Brian and Brian here come up with equations that collide with one another and don't work, to me it just means that both were wrong and there's some bigger overarching coherence that we've yet to find.

That's it.

I don't even I can't even begin to figure out if you, did you just win or did you lose?

I can't tell.

Wait, so this all came from Alan Lightman's article.

Right.

So.

Do you think he beat the objections in the article?

Did he beat the article?

Well, I thought it would be fair to ask the author of the article.

So I called Alan, who happened, as it turns out, to be in Nompenham, Cambodia.

I make all of my international calls on Skype.

And I sent him the interview with Brian.

He listened.

The thing that I listened to.

And I asked him, well, what do you think about Brian's argument?

Well, I don't think that he's wrong, but I think that the problem is philosophically more disturbing than what he is confessing.

He said, well, I think it's going to be much harder than Brian thinks to actually sense or encounter or measure these other universes, if they exist at all.

We don't even know whether the other universes exist in the same space and time that we do.

And there are other physicists who feel that these universes are,

even in principle, never, never observable by us, that we will never be able to have any physical evidence of their existence.

And that possibility is what I find disturbing.

It may be that this is the way nature is.

What does that mean?

Well, I mean, it may be that

we've done as much explaining as is possible.

And that we'll never, ever really understand

everything?

Yes.

In other words,

we may have pushed the human mind as far as it can possibly go.

Huge thanks to Brian Green, professor of physics and math at Columbia University, as well as Alan Lightman up at MIT, whose essay Robert read, The Accidental Universe.

It appears in a book of the same name.

When we come back, we have another story that will break your brain in a whole different way.

This time, it's not distant, unobservable universes, but maybe

every single thing around you right now.

Stick around.

Hi, this is Lulu, and this is an ad by BetterHelp.

It can feel like every day, there's a new claim about what will finally bring you mental wellness and harmony.

Cold plunges, yoga, gratitude journals, therapy, pets all sound great, but how do you actually know what works for you?

Using trusted resources is so important.

And you know what is the most trusted resource for your mental health?

Your own real living and breathing and thinking therapist.

Someone who can help you find your specific path forward.

I, for one, am a lover of cold plunges and a lover of therapy.

It has helped me countless times with setting better boundaries, becoming a better communicator.

Therapy is for anyone.

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise.

Talk it out with BetterHelp.

It's convenient too.

You can join a session with a therapist at the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life, and you can switch therapists at any time.

Radiolab listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash Radiolab.

That's better H-E-L-P.com slash Radiolab.

Radiolab is supported by Capital One.

Banking with Capital One helps you keep more money in your wallet with no fees or minimums on checking accounts and no overdraft fees.

Just ask the Capital One Bank guy.

It's pretty much all he talks about in a good way.

He'd also tell you that Radio Lab is his favorite podcast, too.

Aw, really?

Thanks, Capital One Bank Guy.

What's in your wallet?

Terms apply.

See capital slash bank, capital One NA, member FDIC.

Radio Lab is supported by hims and hers.

If you're someone who values choice in your money, your goals, and your future, then you know how frustrating traditional healthcare can be.

One size fits all treatments, preset dosages, zero flexibility.

It's like trying to budget with a fixed expense you didn't even choose.

But now there's another way with him's and hers.

Hims and hers is reimagining healthcare with you in mind.

They offer access to personalized care for weight loss, hair loss, sexual health, and mental health because your goals, your biology, and your lifestyle are anything but average.

There are no membership fees, no surprise fees, just transparent pricing and real care that you can access from anywhere.

Feel like your best self with quality, convenient care through HIMS and HERS.

Search a free online visit today at hims.com slash radiolab.

That's h-ims.com hims.com/slash radiolab to find your personalized treatment options.

Not available everywhere.

Prescription products require provider consultation.

See website for full details, important safety information, and restrictions.

Planet Money helps you understand the economy.

We find the people at the center of the story.

Garbage in New York.

That was like a controlled substance.

We show you how money influences everything.

Tell me what you like by telling me how you spend your money.

And we dig dig until we get answers.

I had a bad feeling you're going to bring that up.

Planet Money finds out.

All you have to do is listen.

The Planet Money podcast from NPR.

Latif Radio Lab, we are back.

Today's episode is about the nothing behind everything, and I'll pass it back over to our American hosts, Jad and Robert.

Let's just start it out.

I'm Jad Ibumrod.

I'm Robert Krillwich.

This is Radio Lab.

The podcast.

We're going to continue the conversation we were just having, been having all week about,

well, perfection, you know, like striving for things which seem perfect versus living in the real world.

And

recently...

I got into a bit of a kerfuffle with a guy who yearns like you do for an idea.

His name is Jim Holt.

Okay.

And he wrote this really good book called Why Does the World Exist?

And just to get us started, in that book, he quotes a poem.

Yeah.

Remember the line?

Yeah, kick at the rock, Sam Johnson, break your bones, but cloudy, cloudy is the stuff of stones.

Cloudy, cloudy is the stuff of stones.

Meaning what?

It's something, well,

Samuel Johnson, who lived in the 18th century,

was a contemporary of Bishop Barclay, and Bishop Barclay was an idealist.

He believed that the world was essentially pure appearance.

It was like a thought, not like a solid reality.

It was a thought in the mind of God.

Like the rock really had no substance.

And Samuel Johnson, when he heard this, he thought it was ridiculous and he went and kicked a stone and said, I refute Barclay thus.

Anyway, that's the story.

Wait, one guy thought it was a thought.

The other guy thought the rock was a.

What are they arguing about exactly?

Well, they're arguing about reality.

Just what is this world?

What is its essential

nature?

When you hold a rock in your hand, what's it made of?

What's it made of?

Yeah.

Minerals?

No.

Is that the market?

What I'm really asking is, what is the most essential nature of the rock?

So if you look deep, deep, deep down into the rock, do you find something concrete?

Do you find a little bit of thing?

Yeah.

Or do you find something more ethereal?

Something you can't touch, something you can't pin down, something like, oh, a thought.

This is Jim's notion.

And this sounds like a it sounds like I've been eating lotus leaves.

I mean, it's a pipe dream, but this is what science has increasingly led us to.

That rocks are thoughts?

Well, to follow Jim's logic, he goes all the way back to the Greeks, to the first real attempt to get to what's really at the bottom of a rock.

You know, even in ancient times, the atomists, Democritus and Leucippus, thought that if you keep cutting up the stuff of reality that we see around us, tables and chairs and rocks and so forth, eventually you cut them up into such itty-bitty pieces that you can't cut any further.

And then you've got atoms.

So there you've clearly got a fundamental stuff, the atoms.

That sounds very pleasing.

But even going back to Newton, there were reasons to suspect that there was something a little funny about reality.

It wasn't quite as substantial as we believed.

Now, Newton, of course, came up with a theory of gravity.

And the theory of gravity says if you've got the sun and a planet, the sun exerts a gravitational force on the planet.

And Newton's contemporaries wanted to know, well, how does it do that?

What is the mechanism by which gravity is mediated?

How does the sun, as it were, reach out to the earth and force it to move around this orbit?

So if I were an atomist, if I were looking for stuff, then I'd need some kind of thing that carried gravity.

Yeah, yeah.

But the problem is it looks like there's nothing between the Earth and the Sun except a void.

All that Newton had to fill that void was a mathematical equation that told him how the sun and the earth interact.

And the thing is, it worked.

You could plug in the numbers and you could know how one was influencing the other.

But Newton had no idea at all why the equation worked.

He couldn't point to any like a little particle thing like a graviton and say, there's your reason.

It almost seemed like gravity was created from the equation itself.

And this disturbed a lot of people.

Because at that time, everybody thought that nature has to be made out of hard, durable stuff.

You know, gears, sprockets, pushing and pulling.

That's the essence of reality.

And then in the 20th century, of course, it got much, much worse.

You know, the atom, which was thought to be very, very tiny, and you couldn't cut it any further, it was the limit to this, you know, splitting process.

And as we know all too well from the 20th century, you can split an atom.

Yeah, and it has pretty interesting consequences.

But we also discovered the atom is almost entirely empty space.

If you took a baseball and put it in the middle of Madison Square Garden, that would be like the nucleus.

And

the first level of electrons are as far away as the exterior of the garden.

So you can think of this baseball, this nucleus, as a tiny dot all alone.

So it's basically, the atom is a big empty space.

Well, it doesn't feel that way.

Like, watch this.

I'm going to do this.

Yeah.

If my hands are all atoms, and as you say, atoms are mostly empty space, then why don't my hands just go right to each other like two clouds?

But you'll notice.

Yeah, yeah.

Why don't I fall through the floor here?

Because the floor is mostly empty space and I'm mostly empty space.

That too, if you look at it on the micro level, this apparent solidity is the product of a purely mathematical relation.

Well, that can't.

Isn't it more like my electrons don't like similar electrons, so the electrons on my hands just hate the electrons on the other hand?

No.

It basically comes down to a pair of mathematical relations, the Pauli exclusion principle and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

I mean, all of this gets very abstract.

I understand it perfectly, of course, but I don't want to bore you with the details of his argument.

You have no idea what he's saying, do you?

Well, I'll say this: according to Jim, it's not that the electrons in my left hand are repelling the electrons in my right hand, it has to do with a law of nature that says two particles, identical particles, cannot be in the same place at the same time.

So, when you hear that sound, you can hear it as the sound of a law saying, no, no, not allowed, not in nature.

Exactly.

And here's a

slightly different way of putting that.

But wait, isn't this law that we are announcing, isn't this a law about

particles?

Like we're talking about atoms and electrons.

Those are things.

So we're still talking about things.

Well,

if you study quantum field theory, which is what all physics graduate students begin with in graduate school, you discover that even particles are unreal.

They're just temporary properties of what are called fields, and fields are just distributions of mathematical quantities through space-time.

It's all, they're not, they don't seem to be grounded in anything.

According to Jim, a field is kind of like a stream of numbers.

Pure information.

Numbers that tell you where a particle, like an electron, might be.

So maybe the electron's over here.

Oh, no, no, maybe it's over there, or maybe it's with this group, or maybe it's with that group.

The problem is you can't ever see the thing itself.

You can only see the effect it has on other things.

So you can't observe it.

And if something is, in principle, unobservable, you may as well say it doesn't exist.

Wait a second.

No, no, no.

What?

I mean, I'm on his side, but you could say that it's just not observable down there at the microscale.

Up here, it's pretty observable.

I mean, this table exists, this mixer, I mean, something is happening to give the world substance.

Well, according to Jim, what we think happens, and this admittedly is a gross oversimplification, but in these fields, you're going to get these little fluctuations, these little events,

sudden hiccups of energy, little bursts, and that's where stuffiness flickers into existence.

But it's a very flickering existence.

Stuff isn't permanent.

So what is a rock?

I mean, a rock looks like a good, solid, persisting object, but it's really our perception of it is energy transitions, changes in the distribution of energy from one state to another.

When that happens, the energy is irradiated.

It goes through my retina, it goes through my pupil rather, and strikes my retina, and I perceive the rock.

I don't know if Jim would call a rock, like Bishop Barclay did, a thought in the mind of God, but he might say that deep down, what a rock is, is an expression of rules or math.

It's just here, like a shadow of an idea.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I've heard one physicist say that the cosmos is ultimately a concept.

Are you increasingly convinced that the reason you can clap, the reason you don't fall through the floor, the reason that gravity works, is all because of certain ideas that govern?

Ideas rule the world.

Yeah, yeah.

Maybe, you know, 100 years from now, when string theory is finally worked out, we might have a very different conception of it.

But what it looks is that it's going to be mathematics and structure all the way down.

You're okay with this.

Well, I'm a sort of mathematical romantic.

I love the idea that the essence of reality is not stuff.

You know, stuff is kind of ugly.

I mean, you want to get rid of stuff.

There's too much stuff in your apartment.

It's flutter.

It's gross, viscous.

You don't stir.

You can't do it if I don't have stuff.

Well, you know, this is a temperamental difference between us.

I like the idea that reality consists,

it's a flux of pure information with no further substance.

I don't know why this makes you so happy.

I mean, here, I...

I would love, if I'm clapping or if I'm hitting someone in the face, I would love to think the billiard ball of me is hitting the billiard ball of them, and that explains what's going on.

Now, you've often...

We're living in almost in a spiritual realm.

You want to live in

this gross material realm where there's a lot of stuff.

And it turns out we're in.

It's in the spiritual realm, it's literally empty.

It's just so intuitively wrong.

But if you go back to the old 19th century view that we're made up of these little hard particle atoms that are all bumping around, is it any more plausible that you and I are just a bunch of dumb, hard particles in a certain configuration?

And if that's true,

how are certain configurations of these particles tantamount to the horrible feeling of pain?

You could say pain, oh, that's just a lot of elementary particles in a certain configuration.

But we all know that explanation isn't enough.

So when you look down to the bottom of everything, whether it's a mathematical object or whether it's little billiard balls knocking around,

it's still

miraculous and

improbable that it should produce subjective experience, that it should produce pleasure and pain.

And that mystery, how you go from the most basic things, or actually the most basic nothings, to everything we see around us.

I find that to be

exhilarating to worry about the metaphysics of physics and the nature of reality, even though it doesn't lead you to any sort of comfortable intellectual closure.

It makes for it's a good way of idling away an otherwise boring afternoon, as we've just proved.

It also explains why when I head-butted him with my very strong forehead, he seemed to think of it as a fascinating thought.

Special thanks to Jim Holt, who actually we're both too shy to ever headbutt each other and too weak ever to try it.

But anyway, he has a wonderful, the book is called Why Does the World Exist?

An Existential Detective Story.

Okay, well, I guess that's it for this podcast.

I'm Jad Abum Rod.

I'm Robert Kolwich.

Thanks for listening and existing.

temporarily.

Hi, I'm Amy Beth and I'm from Longmont, Colorado and here are the staff credits.

Radiolab was created by Jad Abumrod and is edited by Soren Wheeler.

Lulu Miller and Latif Nasser are our co-hosts.

Dylan Keefe is our director of Sound Design.

Our staff includes Simon Adler, Jeremy Bloom, Becca Bressler, W.

Harry Fortuna, David Gable, Rebecca Lack, Maria Paz Gutierrez, Sindhu Nyannansambandan, Matt Kielte, Annie McEwen, Alex Neeson, Sarah Cari, Sarah Sandbach, Anissa Vita, Arianne Wack, Pat Walters, Molly Webster, and Jessica Young with help from Rebecca Ran.

Our fact checkers are Diane Kelly, Emily Krieger, Anna Pujol-Mazzini, and Natalie Middleton.

Leadership support for Radiolab Science Programming is provided by the Simons Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation.

Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P.

Sloan Foundation.

I'm Ira Flato, host of Science Friday.

For over 30 years, our team has been reporting high-quality news about science, technology, and medicine.

News you won't get anywhere else.

And now that political news is 24-7, our audience is turning to us to know about the really important stuff in their lives.

Cancer, climate change, genetic engineering, childhood diseases.

Our sponsors know the value of science and health news.

For more sponsorship information, visit sponsorship.org.