What If The Nanomachines That Read/Write Your DNA Are Quantum Machines?

But our physics hasn't come to terms with life, living systems, and consciousness. And our modern medicine is practiced chiefly at the level of chemistry and molecular biology.

More than 20 years ago, I fell in love with these nano machines that read and write DNA. These nano motors are 99.99% efficient. Could this information processing that these nano machines are doing, could it be quantum mechanical?

Dr. Anita Goel, the CEO of Nanobiiosim, theorizes that the molecular machines that copy our DNA are like tiny quantum computers, and she has designed a biological double-slit experiment that could confirm her theory. So we modeled that this nano machine, when it's moving forward, it could be in a quantum superposition of these internal states.

One speculation is, does it use some sort of quantum search algorithm to quickly and efficiently find, in this sea of candidates, the right molecule? Could it be like a sensor that's picking up quantum sensing information about its environment?

If the most essential molecular machinery in our bodies indeed operates quantum mechanically, this could lead to a new physics that accounts for life and consciousness. The music that you as an organism make is an interplay of the information in your DNA base pair sequence, but also the information embedded in your environment.

What if consciousness is something fundamental to the fabric of reality? Matter, energy, space, and time come out of that. That new scientific framework would lead to new technologies. Technologies we haven't even thought of yet. You could call it consciousness. In religious traditions, we'll call it God, of course, versus the classical story that pure randomness led to sort of the origin of life. What are your thoughts there?

I think that a warm welcome at the Asencia Foundation's YouTube channel. We are here in Barcelona covering the science of consciousness conference. And at my table, I have a very special guest, Dr. Anita Goell. You are a physicist, physician, and nanotechnology scientist and an entrepreneur. And you work at the intersection of quantum physics, biomedicine, nanotechnology, and AI. A very warm welcome. It's such an honor to have you. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. You basically, um, propose a new physics, and I think that is very interesting from your background in nanotechnology, and so I'd love to dive into that. And in understanding your work, it's very important. And you started your presentation, which we will share bits and pieces of with our audience. You shared in your presentation the fact that physics has been studying closed systems, and living systems are open systems. They're not in equilibrium. For people to understand this fundamental difference, what are the differences between closed systems of physics being studied and the work you're doing as a physicist, but open systems would be very nice to understand.

Well, thank you very much. That's a very nice question. Um, our physics for the last, our our modern physics mostly developed in the context of the last century was developed primarily around inanimate matter, uh, closed systems that are at equilibrium or at near equilibrium, where the interaction with the environment is at best a little perturbation. If you look at living systems, they're fundamentally open systems. They're constantly exchanging matter, energy, and information with their environment. They're strongly coupled to their environment, and they're far from equilibrium. In fact, they're negentropic because of entropy, they will be disintegrated. But living systems have a way of decreasing their own entropy. So these are fascinating topics, and the physics that we developed in the last hundred years was primarily focused on those inanimate closed systems that were at or near equilibrium. And what in my journey studying physics and medicine and and going deep first at Stanford, Harvard, and MIT, and and now in my research institute and company, I realized that our physics hasn't come to terms with life, living systems, and consciousness, and our modern medicine is practiced chiefly at the level of chemistry and molecular biology. We haven't really integrated these two wonderful fields that have made tremendous advances in the last several years with each other. For example, how does physics play a role in physiological processes like things like mechanical forces, electromagnetic fields, quantum effects? How could they affect molecular and cellular level processes? We haven't delved into that. So going into physics and medicine, I felt like there's a whole new vista of opportunities when we bring this together. And it's not just what physics can do for biology in terms of new tools, new instruments, and new conceptual frameworks. It's also what the study of life and living systems and biology can do to expand the boundaries of our physics.

Now, if I go back to Einstein, you know, he said towards the end of his life, he actually agreed with me. He said, "By studying physics, we can understand. By studying living things, we can appreciate how primitive our physics still is." And as you know, Einstein was never happy that quantum mechanics was complete. He felt like something is missing, and Schrodinger felt the same way. And now, uh, Roger Penrose has been echoing and bringing back to life that feeling that something is missing in our physics, specifically quantum mechanics. And despite over a hundred years of effort, our quantum mechanics and general relativity still haven't been able to be reconciled, despite wonderful great efforts and string theory and loop quantum gravity. So there's a lot of effort that's very commendable, but we still haven't been able to reconcile that. And I would argue that there are some things missing in quantum mechanics and overall in physics, and one of those things are life, living systems, and consciousness. And we cannot pretend to have a theory of a unified theory of everything if we haven't come to terms with these phenomena. So any unified theory of physics must incorporate this as well. So the, the bar is high. We have to address the things that Einstein, Schrodinger, and Penrose are worried about, including the quantum measurement problem. But we also have to come to terms with life, living systems, and consciousness as part of understanding where physics has to go in the future. And, uh, so that's one thing.

Now, I felt that in order to map out this new physics or explore are there new physical principles when you start to look at life and living systems, one needs to expand our framework in modern physics. About a hundred years ago, Albert Einstein gave us a framework to see how matter and energy are interconnected. Popularly thought of as E equals mc². I came to the conclusion that in order for physics and our current frameworks to come to terms with life, living systems, and animate systems and so forth, we need to expand this framework instead of just matter and energy. It needs to be matter, energy, and information, and how they all interconnect with each other. Information has a physical, tangible reality to it. Just like matter and energy have an interrelationship, information, matter, and energy have interconnective relationships. And even this thing called consciousness, we have to address that head-on as a science problem, as a physics problem. Uh, I think it was Feynman who somebody said, you know, "Politician, politics is too important to leave to the politicians." So I would say consciousness is too important to leave to the philosophers and the other kinds of people. The physicists need to take this problem head-on.

Dr. Well, to, sorry to interrupt you, but because there's so much in here we we want to cover and to know for our audience what this conversation I hope it to build up to is you talking to us about a potential double-slit experiment in living systems, which would be like a tremendous breakthrough if you manage to to experimentally do that. So that's what we will be building up to and to understand that. But I couldn't agree more that, um, consciousness has been left out of the picture for 100 years. The quantum fathers knew many of them. I mean, there just, um, so many quotes you can find of the quantum fathers saying we have to sort of, as physics has to has encountered basically, uh, consciousness. We cannot get around consciousness. I think that that was Max Planck saying it, and Schrodinger also had these quotes, and then it was left out of the picture in what we can sort of say was the "shut up and calculate" phase of physics, building bombs, computers, and it's now back. I think that's one of the great, uh, amongst many other things, wonderful things that Sir Roger Penrose has done for physics, say, "Hey, we need to look at consciousness." But then there's this criticism, of course, because we've visited Anton Zeilinger's lab in in Vienna, and just to see the amount of work to get a couple of qubits in a superposition, I saw like super heavy machines, and I was in a lab, I had to wear glasses, and that's like a couple of qubits just to study one isolated system. So the critique would be, this is all nice, this speculation on quantum and living systems, but we can never truly test it because how can you put that in isolation? How can we do that? So can you please help us out here, um, in in how to get there? How to sort of experimentally, yes, that's very important. I think it's nice to dream of bold ideas, but one has to be measured and very grounded in experimental reality and the data. And so, um, I was always thinking, you know, how can we bring physics and life, living systems under one unified framework? And I wanted some kind of experimental testbed that could give us the ability to poke and probe and learn from the actual nature, how the reality is, instead of just make up ideas in our mind. Yeah. Which, you know, humans can do, but tell stories. We need to be grounded in what is nature trying to tell us. And so more than 20 years ago, I fell in love with these nano machines that read and write DNA. I thought they were fascinating, and there were tools becoming available from quantum optics, and I was very blessed to have some wonderful mentors, including my undergraduate mentor who at Stanford, and, uh, and that kind of launched me in a journey that there's a tremendous amount of experimental tools that are becoming available to, for example, study DNA at the single molecule level and see how these nano machines read and write DNA. And I kind of wanted to understand how to approach this experimentally and through the tools of theoretical physics, because I wanted in a field where it's kind of the wild west, you need to have experimental tools that are very good and to get good data, but you also have to map out the theory with whatever frameworks are there. So, you have to kind of take a, a dual approach. M. You have to build your map, and you have to explore new land and keep updating your map. So you have to kind of go hand in hand. So I see it's like when they were exploring the the Wild West in the beginning, you know, they didn't have a map, and they didn't have the map is like your theory, and they had their tools, and they were digging. So you have to kind of do both. I like that sort of approach, both. You shouldn't get lost in a territory, but also not in your maps. What I think physicists have a tendency to do, you get lost in sort of the, but, um, well, there are mature fields where there maps have already been laid out and well-defined experiments already exist. So in the area of, so one of the areas, uh, I got inspired by at this next, so I, I love the system because I felt like a living system is a laboratory, especially if we can study it on small scales to study this exchange of matter, energy, and information in an open system, especially if we can tease out the effect of the environment, changing one knob on the system and start to understand how information might couple into something like, uh, an enzyme reading a DNA molecule. I'll give you an example that, you know, DNA is very interesting. It's, in my mind, it's kind of like a piano, and the music that you as an organism make is an interplay of the information in your DNA base pair sequence, but also the information embedded in your environment, and that's that environment is playing, it's the fingers playing the piano of your DNA piano, and the interplay makes the music. So, for example, two people can have the exact same DNA that causes a certain cancer. It's called an oncogene, a certain gene. One person may get cancer, the other may not. They have the same DNA. The difference is the environment. So something in the environment, there's some layer of information that is communicating to how this enzyme replicates or transcribes the information in the DNA that is getting affected. So that's, so I hypothesize that evolution, at least on the molecular level, could perhaps be more Lamarckian than it is purely Darwinian or purely random. And how is this information in the environment important? Nice. I think to unpack a bit Lamarckian, because people will know Darwin, not even, not all our audience will know Lamarckian forms of evolution. Could you briefly explain what, what that is? At least, uh, you know, everybody knows Darwin's theory of evolution, and so in the context of this, what you might think of is when a DNA polymerase is reading a DNA molecule, it's a little Xerox machine reading the DNA. It has a tendency to make a mistake once in a while. This mistake, this mutation that occurs, is it purely random, or does the environment somehow influence that in some way? Where does this come from? Where does this noise? The latter would be Lamarckian. Darwin would say it's purely random. Darwin, the traditional Darwin interpretation is purely random. Yeah. Because it, because it doesn't take into account that what you also called in your, in your presentation, the French word, right? The environment. Milieu. Yes. I love that word. I like that too. Um, actually, in French, it means it's sort of the underworld. Did you know that? It's they don't, but I mean, it is. I like that sort of that environmental approach. But nice to sort of contrast that to the story people normally understand when you just do sort of your high school, uh, biology, then you will be told a chemical story, it's all molecular interactions. That was what I also understood, even while making a documentary on bacteria, I was still on that molecular, molecular interaction. But that's not what you're talking about when we're talking about this, or at least. It's more, it's, it's just half the story. I mean, there are molecular interactions, but there are other kinds of signals, uh, and some of them are molecular. There are chemical concentrations of ATP or dNTPs, there's salt concentrations, there's temperature, there, you know, at some level, that's what it is. But then there's things like mechanical forces, electromagnetic fields, are there quantum effects? So one of the questions I ask is, so we have some papers we published on the how information in the environment can tune the DNA strings and affect, there's a, I can, there's in my presentation, there was a slide on that, tuning DNA strings, you can actually tune the speed at which it reads along the DNA, and at certain critical tensions, it stops and it can reverse direction and start unzipping the DNA, effectively doing error correction. And so it's like typing along, doing its xeroxing. It makes a mistake, and it, in the natural body, it stops and deletes, backspace, and then goes back again. And then us, by doing the tension, can slow it down, make it come to a screeching halt, and then pull harder, and then it goes into reverse gear and starts unzipping all the way. It's amazing because those visuals you showed that, um, first, just just out of curiosity, is not really relevant for a conversation, but still, how on earth do you do that? It's lasers that literally connect to the DNA string and start stretching. That is the, that's the traditional single molecule way of doing that. And there's a whole field that's developed around that now of single molecule manipulation of biomolecules and studying biology at the single molecule level. But the visualization you show us is not, I mean, that's a visualization, right? What, that's an animation of what our lab has been able to do with some DARPA and other projects that we've done. Uh, so yeah, you can show that, yeah, we'll show it. So my point is that there's a classical aspect to that that we describe in some papers, and then what I talked about is a question, could this information processing that these nano machines are doing, could it be quantum mechanical? I just posed the question because traditional thinking is that biological systems are wet, warm, and swampy, and you will not maintain quantum coherence long enough for it to be relevant. However, Schrodinger was very passionate about this subject, and his book, "What is Life?" in 1944. He was deeply going into what is life, and as you know, he's one of the founders of quantum mechanics, and he really deeply felt that this thing that is unsatisfactory about quantum mechanics that he complained about with the Schrodinger's cat example was just, just to exaggerate how the quantum measurement problem is not resolved, to kind of echo Einstein, and then Roger Penrose has built on that. Um, he felt that maybe by studying living systems, we might understand some of that missing aspect of our quantum theory that would help complete quantum theory. Now, the founders of quantum mechanics were bold enough to think quantum mechanics could be incomplete, and we need to complete it. Then we went into a generation, uh, especially in America, where there was this like, "shut up and calculate." Don't ask these fundamental foundational questions of physics. Stay focused on your utilitarian problems, your applications. Anyway, we won't go down that rabbit hole. But the point is, now we're ask, we have new tools. We have new capabilities to study things on very tiny scales, especially living things, which are a beautiful laboratory to study some of these things. So I think this could be a potential laboratory to study these edge cases of quantum mechanics. It's open systems, and there are living systems. And so the question I pose is, could quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in these systems in this system? And specifically, uh, there's a few things that we know about these nano machines that read and write DNA that suggest that they could potentially be exploiting quantum effects in a non-trivial way to enhance their function and efficiency. And let me just lay out a few of those examples. Number one, these nano machines are little molecular motors that have a thermodynamic energy conversion efficiency that's more than 99.9%. Now, your car is probably 20 to 40% efficient in converting oil from the Middle East into mechanical work in terms of miles per gallon, right? But these nano motors, 99.99% efficient. That's a lot of thermodynamic efficiency. Now, the question is, what's the secret to their energy transduction that gives them such high conversion efficiency from one form of energy? Uh, they get their chemical energy, their fuel is coming from ATP, dNTPs, they're burning that to create mechanical work along the DNA railroad track. So where is that energy efficiency coming from? So that's one. The other thing is, I show some calculations on how these nano machines have tremendous information processing power. I show one calculation which I won't go into here, but it's in the presentation, that it's a heuristic calculation that this one nano motor makes an estimate about a hundred billion computational steps as it reads one base of DNA. That's a lot of computational power. And, and just, sorry to interrupt you, but in, in, in what time scale are we talking about? 10 milliseconds. In 10 milliseconds, it does, in 10 milliseconds, it reads one base, and one base reading is is equivalent to 100 billion billion internal steps, like it's thinking a hundred billion computational steps just to read one base of a long chain of DNA. So I asked the question, what is it thinking about? Like, it's got to be thinking, there's a lot of information processing going off. Obviously, all the information is not just in the DNA. It's processing all the environmental information, the milieu, to understand, do I go forward, backwards, do I sit here, what do I do? Anyway, so I'm getting sidetracked. So the point is that, um, so there's a few more experimental examples that I want to point out. So one is this nano motor is like a little Xerox machine. It sits on a template of DNA and it looks, and it's swimming. It's swimming in a bath of molecules and it finds the mating molecule. If it's an A, it finds a T. If it's a G, it finds a C in a sea of candidates. And this sitting right there, this little Xerox machine on the template DNA strand, and it's going and finding the mate and making the matches as it munches along the DNA track. So one speculation is, does it use some sort of quantum search algorithm to quickly and efficiently find, in this sea of candidates, the right molecule and keep munching it on, right? Because it has to do some kind of search algorithm. So that's one. Another one is, it is doing copying, and then it makes a mistake, and then it goes into error correction mode, and this switching from forward to reverse. Could there be some quantum aspect to this switching? The third is, um, the onset of mutations, the noise. Is this an intrinsic noise? Is it thermal noise? Is it quantum noise? Where is this mutation intrinsic error coming from? Is it purely random? Is there some quantum entanglement with the fluctuations in the environment that are somehow giving rise to these? These are some of the questions that have been posed. So, um, and then I asked another additional question on these, that this real-time fine structure dynamics. So the motor munching along the DNA, now that we have the tools to start to visualize it, could that give us a signature of the information in the environment that's talking to it? Because that, in it, so in that way, the motor is like a sensor. We know it could be a classical sensor. Could it be a quantum sensor? Because it, if it's truly quantum information processing, it could be like a sensor that's picking up quantum sensing information about its environment. Right? Then now you've turned it from a nano sensor to a quantum sensor. So that's, I'm just asking a question. So that's why it becomes really relevant to answer this question. Are these nano machines capable of quantum mechanical effects that are non-trivial? Now I've kind of given you the background. So the first thing is to find out, is this even plausible, or are we just barking up the wrong tree, because the traditional thinking is they're wet, warm, and swampy. There's not going to be any query. So then I show, and there's a paper on this, that actually I got inspired to do in my conversations with my friend Paul Davies, but it, um, talks about how in that, I estimate the decoherence times of this motor-DNA complex. Yeah. And, and show that there's some modes of, you know, relaxation. These polymers have these spectrum of relaxation times, but there's at least some time scales, some modes of relaxation where you can have decoherence times that are long compared to the time it takes for the motor to read a base of DNA. For people to understand, just very, just to pause, you keep your line of thought, please, but not everyone will understand decoherence. So that's the quantum state in its in its quantum state that it can stay in a quantum state right before it collapses into a definitive state, is that that's a way of saying it? I mean, I think how in your story, I just for people to understand what's important to understand that it can keep a quantum state for quite a long enough so it maintains its coherence in such a way that it hasn't equilibrated with, it hasn't decohered by interacting with its environment. So it's maintaining its, uh, its coherence over some time scale. Um, effectively, you might think about it as it's, it's maintaining its quantumness. Yeah. On that time scale. Yeah. So, um, to get into that a little deeper will take more time, but think of it for that way for the moment. And so that quantum, the critical time scale is the time scale in which that system can maintain that quantum coherence versus the time scale that you're processing, that you're trying to detect at. So you have to compare those two time scales to see if this effect can be relevant. So if the quantum time scale, the coherence is long enough compared to the time it takes to read one base of DNA, then that means it's maintaining its quantumness while it's reading that base. If the quantum time scale was like here, and the base reading time was here, that means yeah, it's quantum, but by the time it reads the whole base, it becomes a classical problem. Yeah. So this is a very critical criteria. It's one of the five. It's called the diverent, I can't pronounce it, V-E-N-I-O criteria for a quantum computer. It's in my talk. So I estimate heuristically that the decoherence time is long compared to the base reading time. Yeah. So by a few orders of magnitude. So that's enough for it to be plausible that it could be relevant. So that's the criteria number one. Are you even barking up the right tree? Yeah. So that was the first point. Then the second part was, well, how do we go about designing the equivalent of a double-slit experiment so we could actually, because, you know, this field of quantum biology is burgeoning right now. There's been some interesting evidence, uh, bird navigation, photosynthesis, where there seems to be some pretty interesting experimental evidence suggesting quant, non-trivial quantum effects in the context of living systems. So, but there's still a lot of naysayers out there. It's not fully accepted. It's kind of on the edge. Yeah. And it's exactly that word, suggesting, is very important. It's not, it's, it's not sort of experimentally verified that those effects take place. Well, there, there are people who feel both ways, and you know, it's on the, it's a field that's in development. It's a fledgling field. So I thought, and I was actually talking to some friends in DARPA, and I was thinking, okay, so how could one design the equivalent of a double-slit experiment? Because when you had the double-slit experiment, that was very clear, this is classical, this is quantum interference, and it was very clear, it's hard to deny. So we need something definitive that people can look at, okay, yeah, I I can't argue with this, right? So I was thinking like, how do we take our system and turn it into such a clean, well-defined, theoretically well-defined, and experimentally well-defined. See how you think affects the kind of theoretical questions you ask, and then the theoretical models you build, and the models you build help you make testable predictions. And then you use the experiment to then test or falsify or or refine your theories. So you have to kind of go hand in hand. And the model has to be grounded in the experimental reality. The experiment you do has to be very clean to tell you the theory. So they, you know, you, you can make theories up here, but if you're testing in a different domain, you're, they're not talking to each other. So I felt like they have to really, you know, be at one with each other. So, so that, so I, I present that in the talk. Let's not go into this here, but I basically explain, uh, a proposal for how we could take what we're doing, and I show some preliminary data that we've done, but we're not, we don't have the resolution yet to do what I'm proposing, uh, because that's a very hard experiment, but, uh, to go and try to do the equivalent of the double-slit experiment in the context of these nano machines that read and write DNA to help show is coherence maintained on a sufficiently long time scale that we can detect an interference pattern, or is it purely classical when we detect it? What I got from your talk is that, um, I mean, double-slit experiments can now, people can do it, you can do it at home, right? There are YouTube videos, that's amazing that we've arrived at it, you can establish sort of quantum nature of reality at home. This of course is way more complex, but what you're looking for are, uh, because in double-slit experiments, when we see interference patterns, we know a wave function had to be sort of that, that sort of points to the quantumness of the particle. Then let's not go into what the wave function is yet. I'd love, but okay, it points to the, and now you're saying, I, I have a setup, I know how to do it. It's complex, but, you know, theoretically how. Yeah, we have like a, a system where we've taken data, we show we, we've done it more up to the level of showing that we can visualize and measure those things, but one would need very high, like the whole new level of resolution upgrade of everything we're doing to get into that level of detection. So I have a roadmap, but we haven't done it yet. Okay. And, and, and does it require like truly new technologies to be developed first to do it, or are those technologies, some of those are already here, but, you know, it's, just to hear some cool names, artist, like what sort of technologies are we talking about that may well, I mean, I think it's a lot of detection technology. It's, it's optimizing signal to noise. So a lot of that, um, you know, there's the field, a lot of those kind of tools are there. Uh, it's in the DARPA words, it's still high risk, high reward to put all of that together and to go after the search of trying to measure the equivalent of a, you know, like like a double-slit that that quantum signature. So it's, it's a combination of having a very good experimental design, a very good theoretical model, and knowing exactly what you're trying to go look for, and then doing all the work to get the instrumentation ready and making sure you can get that. Now, you just mentioned that that roadmap is there. Uh, do you have an estimation on how many years it might take? Is this like a decades, decades, or if, let's say we go for it, it could be years. It's a, it's a function of resources and how much we invest time and resources in that. But, uh, maybe this video can help people watching. We have clarity on the intention and, and, and the picture of of what can be done, and I think we have a good confidence that we could do it. Uh, but, you know, it's, it's one of those areas that has a bit of high stakes. Yeah, it's a moonshot, of course, but I think it's amazing, and it would, because for over now, I think it's almost 30 years that Roger Penrose sort of made the sort of conjecture that that consciousness had to be sort of a. Now I'm, I'm branching to consciousness. We'll get there later. But I haven't said anything about. Yeah, we haven't yet mentioned consciousness. No, you're bringing that up. Yeah. Well, that of course you did that in your talk. Now we're making in this pres, in this interview. I haven't. No, we haven't spoken about the hard problem yet, right? So let's say, okay, let's, I said in the beginning that that is part of the inspiration of needing a new physics. That's interesting. So that has been leading up to wanting to do a double-slit in living systems because you're unsatisfied with the classical explanation of of consciousness. Well, no, I'm saying that, uh, going building upon what Einstein, Schrodinger, and Penrose have articulated, is quantum mechanics incomplete? Could there be new physical principles involved? I'm adding to the pile of complaints that our current physics does not come to terms with life, living systems, and consciousness. Yeah. With, I think Penrose has made something about consciousness in the same way. Uh, but I'm saying that we need experimentally testable, uh, we need testbeds. Yeah. To figure out what these new physical principles might be, if they are new physical principles. So I'm not making any claims without measuring it. I'm saying that there's a hypothesis that we need new physics, or as a claim, if you will, and we need experimental tools to go map that out. Yeah. And there are phenomena in living systems, whether they be self-organization or, uh, some of the behavior patterns that are far from equilibrium, that is not where our traditional physics sweet spot is. Yeah. So that's why I'm saying we either need to expand some of our vocabulary in physics, or there may be new physical principles, but we cannot ignore this. And now we have tools, we have experimental capabilities, and we have refined theoretical understanding to kind of go at this multidisciplinary problem in a very pointed way. Yeah. Clearly to attack some of those most fundamental questions. Yeah. And Einstein and Schrodinger didn't have the tools that we have today 100 years ago. They had other tools. So I think this is an interesting time. I also want to add that because of the rise of AI, uh, and the speculation that, you know, material things like a circuit board could become conscious if it's just complex enough, there is an a renewed interest in this word consciousness. And I think, uh, we have to, we have to tackle head-on the hard problem of consciousness. We can't sweep it under the rug. And so all these things in my mind are connected. The new physics is quantum mechanics incomplete, the quantum measurement problem. Do living systems, how do they exchange matter, energy, and information with their environment? Living systems by definition are conscious systems, and so how's that work? Yeah. Right. So how, and so they're a laboratory to study this thing called consciousness. Uh, yeah. So we would first need to sort of, maybe nice to go into the hard problem, but I'd like to hear your take on it. Right. So the, the, the Chalmers, the Dave Chalmers' um take on the hard problem is how do we get to the from the water of brain chemistry and just electrical signals, neurons firing, how do we get to that water to the wine of consciousness, which has a different quality to it? And he, he philosophically phrased it. Then Roger Penrose arrived at it, sort of more computationally, saying, hey, I'm seeing in certain modes of problem-solving something that seems to violate, I think that goes back to G-O-D-E-L, and I found it a beautiful argument in "The Emperor's New Mind," which led him to say, we need, it cannot be deterministically computable. Yeah. What's your idea on the hard part?

So I'm going to answer this by first telling you a story. Okay. Love to hear it. So I did a, a for fun, I did a sabbatical, a mini sabbatical one summer in Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Institute, and, um, I was ostensibly there to study networks and networks and automata and theory, you know, complexity and those kind of things, but I had the privilege and honor of getting to have many lunchtime meetings with, uh, Murray Gell-Mann, you know, Nobel. Yes. And so he, though he was part of the institute and he had, kind of, I think it was one of the founders or something, so he was more relaxed, it wasn't in his, you know, earlier years, but he was more relaxed and he could think about the big questions. So I used to sit with him and ask these questions, and we used to have this amazing conversation, so which I cherish very much. So we would debate about this consciousness and some of these things. So I'm just going to summarize. So one day I said to, um, uh, "Do you agree with the following definition or description of consciousness? And would you, can we agree that that's the prevailing scientific paradigm today in modern physics?" And this is what I got him, this is what he agreed to when I said to him over that kind of lunch, fun conversation, is that consciousness emerges, is an epiphenomenon that emerges when matter attains a critical degree of complexity. Yeah. And I said it those words, and he said, "Yeah, I would agree with that. That makes sense." And he's, you know, he's one of the world experts on complexity theory and stuff. So like, "Okay." And then I said, "Okay, great. So we agree that that's kind of the prevailing understanding of consciousness today in modern physics." Yeah. And, you know, this is the same physics that really didn't deal with consciousness, but this is kind of weird because he was thinking as complex systems, he was starting to deal with it. So he was thinking of it as an emergent phenomenon that's coming out of matter when it attains a critical degree of complexity, which makes sense given that physics wasn't developed in the context of inanimate matter. So that's how it came to it in its logical progression. So then I said, "What if, what if this is a speculation? What if we could rewrite all the rules of physics to be compatible with all the experimental data we have and internally consistent with each other mathematically, with except it was based on a completely different paradigm, and that paradigm is that consciousness is something fundamental to the fabric of reality. Matter, energy, space, and time come out of that. And what if we could rewrite all the laws of physics to be compatible with that framework? And in one limit, it gives you the same physics you have today that still predicts things. The same way quantum mechanics in one limit reproduces Newtonian physics, or relativity in one limit is normal Galilean relativity or whatever. So what, what if we could do that? Would you, what would you think?" He said, "Yes, if you could do that, I'd agree." I said, "Great, let's go do it." So that inspired me. So that inspired my lifelong quest of trying to say, I said, "We have to do it." Yeah. Because, but it's a tall order, right? And you say that, let's, let's try and do that. Let's turn around that pyramid that says it was a big bang that led to physics, chemistry, biology, consciousness. Um, but we know the hard problem of consciousness. Um, if we would turn it around, we avoid, of course, that hard problem, but now we have a different problem, of course, because, well, I don't, I don't, in that paradigm, the problem of consciousness may not be hard anymore because you, everything, exactly. However, there's a lot of work to be done to do this right, because you, you want to build upon the beautiful physics that has happened in the last hundred years, and even beyond that. I mean, there's tremendous capabilities that have come out of that physics, the precision that, I mean, I am a devotee of physics, right? So I, I don't want to, I don't want to say we throw that out and start all fresh. I say we want to build upon that. So my approach is, this is great, let's build upon this. And one angle I see is with information. There's new advances in quantum information theory and other information, you know, Shannon's information theory. This is, and there's already hints that information is physical of John Wheeler and others, uh, and some string theorists to the holographic principles. So there's already a burgeoning interest in information as a thing. I'm just taking it forward and saying, well, in the context of these living systems, it's really a thing, and matter, energy, and information are at play, and how can we map that? How can we measure the signature of that information into these systems? And how can we update, I'll just use modern terminology, refresh our browser to understand how matter and information, energy and information are interconnected. Yeah. Super interesting, this, and, and I do feel that if we do this right, it will help to reconcile some of these long-standing problems in our physics of the last 100 years, including the quantum measurement problem, which I have a whole other passion and interest in, as well as even reconciling like general relativity and quantum mechanics, the framework, because as we start to solve this problem, we'll get new conceptual insights that will help us reconcile some of these challenges. That's just a feeling. Very interesting. Yeah, that's obvious. And before going into how this could solve, for instance, a measurement problem, which is of course a profound topic, um, I'm not saying this experiment solves the new physics, the new kind of framework. Exactly. I'm putting, I'm putting a high bar for it. I'm saying, in order for this new physics or whatever it is to happen, it not only has to help us understand life, living systems, and consciousness in a unified framework, but it also, I'm making it tougher for it to survive. It has to help reconcile the quantum measurement problem and the general relativity-quantum mechanics problems. Yeah. In order for us to accept this new physics. Yeah. Super. So, I'm like my own sketch. And you're mentioning that you only, I want to share another, I just want to say, I'll be very passionate like a kid about like, let's go do this, but then I'll be my own skeptic and say, this is the high bar. Yeah, you can do this, but we have to make this happen. Yeah. But that's the mindset, right? Uh, it makes me, it makes me think of, um, Yeah, I loved you mentioning John Wheeler. I love John Wheeler's work. Don't understand a lot of it. I actually had the pleasure of meeting John Wheeler. Seriously? Yeah. On his 90th birthday, they had a, uh, one of the conferences celebrating in honor of him in Princeton at the Institute for Advanced Study, and they had invited two young physicists at the time, they had some paper competition or something about what's your future vision for the future of physics, and I had written something, so they had selected me, and they had selected one string theorist, and I was just, I think finishing my PhD in physics at Harvard at the time, so I got invited to go stand in front of the pantheon of physics of the Institute for Advanced Study, which I was in awe because of Einstein and all the great souls who had walked to the that earth, and they were all there, and John Wheeler was in the audience, and here I am presenting these ideas that are coming, and, uh, and the other person was talking on string theory, and I wasn't sure how they were going to take what I was saying because I was like, nobody was talking about this kind of stuff. And John Wheeler came up to me and he said, "You know, I really loved what you had to say, and I believe this would be the next frontier of physics." And I was talking about, you know, matter, energy, information, and he liked that because he talked about it for a bit. So, you know, yeah, yeah, it wasn't completely unheard of, but I was, you know, that was just kind of my first feedback, uh, chance to hear from. That's such an honor. But I had not met him before. I had to present this paper in front of all these people, presenting in front of John Wheeler, and then here there was Freeman Dyson, Ed Witten, I don't know who was in the audience, I remember, but it was what I would call the pantheon of physics. And I didn't even have, this was like not even what my PhD, this was like a side topic, uh, that I was curious about. So I presented that without knowing what I'm, what's, what, what their reaction would be. Usually, you know, those were already ideas that you're now forwarding. These were already ideas about this new physics that's needed. Well, it was said in slightly different way, but it was getting into this idea of information, uh, and how living systems are open systems, and we need to, it was similar. I must say that what I, what, sort of I find difficult, I'm fascinated by by Wheeler. It's not that I understand him fully. I think he did a wonderful job by coming up with the U, you know, his famous picture of the big bang and the observer showing their mysterious connection, and indeed, as we say, it lets you sort of play around with the idea, which, what do I want to take as primary? Is it that big bang? I could just as much say in that picture, you know, it's the observer, and he, he knew it's connected, but of course, then the question is, if you want to sort of connect it to where do they connect? Because it's, it's, it's fluid. Where, where do you put the cut? And that's of course a problem in quantum mechanics, where's the object-subject divide? And the theory itself cannot give that to us. So you're sort of, that's the deep mystery. But I'm curious how you think physics has has developed since Wheeler, because he was on to this, and I don't remember, you know, must might know better if he talked a lot about consciousness, but he was sort of like, well, he talked about a information-theoretic understanding of the universe, a participatory universe, um, and "It from Bit" is like his famous book. So the idea that things at their fundamental nature are information. We know that because that's matter and energy, right? In his. No, I think he was saying information is at the foundation. Yeah. But that, to me, has always remained abstract. So that would be the matter coming from the bit, which is the information, the bit? And I've always been puzzled.

What we're talking about when we say information? Because I'm like, one question is, in information to who? That's that, to me, sort of just being not a physicist, think information needs sort of an observer. Can information have its own static status philosophically? Can it just be information? I'm like, puzzled. Um, what are we talking about? I mean, what helps?

So, let, let's uh, come back to physics, one point that we kind of touched on. Um, the quantum measurement problem. Yeah. So, I'm not going to tell you my whole theory about that yet. I'm just going to summarize where the field, as I understand it, is at. Okay. So, von Neumann and Eugene Wigner, in the early days of quantum mechanics, looked at this problem of the collapse of the wave function. And this is one of the things Einstein was unhappy about, right? And Schrödinger was unhappy. That's why he tried to show how ludicrous it is by calling it the Schrödinger's cat. How could it be a superposition of dead and alive at the same time? Blah, blah, blah. So, um, Eugene Wigner and von Neumann had this idea that this thing called consciousness collapses the wave function, and they advanced that theory. Then Hugh Everett had another concept called the many-worlds interpretation. And Roger Penrose has advanced a different theory, which is a gravity-induced collapse of the wave function. So, I don't agree with any of those 100%. Yeah, I have my own version of that, but I won't get into that today until I've made a paper on that.

But, uh, what I would say is that our current quantum mechanics theory is a lower resolution theory. It's predicting not the behavior of a single particle. It's predicting the behavior of a probability. Yeah. So, it's, it's actually not describing a single particle because we're describing an ensemble. So, it's, there's an artifact because your wave function is only a probability description at best. It's not going to give you, uh, so it's not telling you the trajectory of one molecule, like, you know, how we do the single molecule experiments. It's not giving you that level of resolution in the theory. That's why I think the theory is incomplete. Check that. That that's indeed that we know these single particles going through the slits, the word at random. And we say the theory, so that interference pattern is not one particle, that's many particles, and over time, building a pattern. And that's also why we can sort of put that wave function, that pattern, interference pattern, that's it, solves for, is solving for that ensemble behavior of many particles. Yeah, the, the rule of large numbers, which also helps us to put aside the philosophical problems. As a physicist, you, I don't need to worry, great philosophy, we, because you know, you never have single, it's, it's always. And then the theory is predictable, you can start building cool technology. And Einstein didn't, that's so cool. I think about those physicists. There, no, no, no. Let's, no, I don't buy it. That that single particle is is behaving indeterministically. What the, what's happening here? Right? That was Einstein's EPR paper, which led Bell to come up with these Bell inequality tests. But what we now know, but please fill me in here if I'm saying something incorrect, fact that hidden, the, the search for sort of physical, a physical influence that can account for the behavior of those single particles is sort of out the, out the door, right? We know now that sort of there cannot be, cannot be what is called hidden local variables, right? In these Bell inequality tests, that's, that's what I get in the foundation of physics that many people, that feels out the door. So it's not physical. That's a deeper question. I don't want to, okay, answer that in a superficial way.

What I would say for now is that, um, I would agree with Einstein, Schrödinger, and Penrose that quantum mechanics is incomplete. Yeah. And my version of it is that the Schrödinger wave function is describing the ensemble behavior, not a single particle behavior. Since I think a lot about single molecules, you want mathematical equations that describe the trajectory of a single. So you're looking for that. Yes. And that none of that entire theory is describing an ensemble. It's the equivalent. Dr. Are go, but are you buying that? That are you looking? Do you think there, uh, how do I put this question? Something is in, you're asking me, you're asking me how do we get to that version of the single molecule version of the Schrödinger equation from the ensemble? That's what you're trying to ask me, right? Yeah. But I'm also trying to ask you, what could be behind it? Because it seems that the, the consensus seems that that nature is fundamentally indeterministic. It's probabilistic. So we say at that level, it is like pure randomness, quantum random nature of reality. And only at higher resolutions do we get sort of our classical world. And because, so I would, I would say that look, at the level of where human reasoning has taken us to up till today's point, there is this low-resolution theory that predicts the behavior of an ensemble. And there are experiments that seem to agree with that low-resolution theory, period. Now, if we want to build beyond that, we need experiments that get interesting data beyond that. And we need theories that go beyond the low resolution. So we need like a high-resolution camera to get the high-res pixels. And then we need the theory to go with that data. So think of it in this analogy that these living systems, in my view, were a test bit to get new kinds of data to understand some perhaps new phenomena at the edge of traditional quantum mechanics because those were closed, mostly closed systems in equilibrium. These are open systems. They're living systems. They're, um, perhaps far from equilibrium. And there's a phenomena there. There may be some interesting things we might be able to measure. And I talk a little bit about that in the talk. And and when we, and then separately, I think in parallel, we have to go back to these foundational questions of physics, and especially quantum mechanics, and readdress them with fresh eyes. And so I kind of take a joint theory experimental approach. But I try to keep grounding myself with, hey, how do we detect it? Yeah. As well as, you know, I then become my own skeptic. I think, okay, we need this, but then I think, okay, well, if we get this, it has to satisfy all these criteria. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And again, so it's a tough existence. Yeah. Oh man. It's a tough journey, right? You. It's like an artist. You, you think, and then you scratch it and throw it because you want it to find the right thing. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's, it's a beautiful quest because if, if, um, Yeah. Thinking a bit deeper, we've touched upon information and like to bring in something just to reflect with you on, um, the founder of our foundation, Fred Matzer, he talks about informed, that which brings form, brings things in form. Thinking about information being more fundamental than we now think. And if it can act quantumly in living systems, it would be that which brings, brings the form, brings the patterns, right? Would that be a way that, that's a beautiful kind of thought. So I've always felt, now this is just feeling, right, as a human, that there's an underlying symmetry structure, information in the universe, in nature. And we see those patterns manifest in different ways. And, you know, and there's different patterns like in music, there's, there's certain structures, and you, you hear certain harmonics, and you feel good. You hear others, and you don't feel so good. So, you know, we're tuned to certain harmonics. So, our systems might be tuned to certain patterns and symmetries and information things. There's like a, I love mathematics, and so mathematics kind of reflects some underlying, you know, symmetries and and structure of information. Yeah. And so I do feel, now I'm not putting my scientist on, I'm putting my just plain human hat on, that there could be information that is there in the environment that is talking to these systems. And I think it would be a bit of a holy grail to be able to measure some signature of this information in a very high-resolution experiment where we can start to see how that information is talking to it. And and that's what I mean by like, it could be like a quantum sensor. You turn it on its head. It's picking up that information. You, I'm not just talking about the classical information. I'm talking about, can it pick up and process quantum? Are there local, are there non-local effects in the environment? How, how does that work? Are there, is there some kind of entanglement, uh, going on between, you know, these states and information in their environment? So these are all questions. And the question is, you know, can we start to experimentally address them with these kinds of tools? And so I think I'm, I would say that I think, uh, it's an exciting time for science and physics where these fields are coming together. And we have tools to go about trying to address it. And we're building the, I'm passionate, you know, to, uh, be working kind of at that nexus. And I have this kind of quest and this belief that there has to be something missing in physics and quantum mechanics. And could this be a way for us to build that new physics? And, um, as a sort of final, to wrap sort of this more philosophical bit of our conversation, um, if it's piano being played, it of course invokes with people also what I, what I just said, bring into form, that there seems to be some form of driving intelligence behind it. You could call it consciousness. You could, one in religious traditions will call it God. Of course, that's all giving it a label. Um, versus the classical story that pure randomness led to sort of the origin of life. Um, what are your thoughts there?

I think that, uh, in the last 500 years, most of our modern science, and in fact, most of Western civilization has been very influenced by Descartes, right? Uh, and it gave rise to a very reductionistic approach. Uh, you break a system up into its parts and study the parts and try to get a picture of the whole. And many of our fields of discipline evolved in reductionistic silos. And I think, you know, and that we had a very good age of materialism. And to its credit, it yielded tremendous advances in science, technology, industrialization. We went through one, two, three, four industrial revolutions, uh, in these last 500 years. So it has a tremendous impact on the human race. I would say that this fourth industrial revolution that we've seen with AI and digitization is a carrying of this materialistic paradigm to its natural logical conclusion, where you have now a very dystopian vision of reality, where you would have in the future these AI robots running the world, and humans sitting wondering what they're supposed to do because they don't have a job anymore. And, and what's their purpose on Earth? Because there's no, it's such a utilitarian focused, um, narrative that a human's only purpose is its utility. And if the AI or the robot can do your job better than you, then what's your purpose? Why are you taking up resources on this earth? Right? Our earth has finite resources. It can't support 8 billion people. That's the narrative that naturally concludes from that worldview. If we were to do what I discussed with Miguel Man, and able to rewrite the laws of physics, and had a worldview where we thought of consciousness as something fundamental in the fabric of the universe, and matter, energy, and spacetime came out of that. And if we thought that humans and human conscious and experience was a part of that whole, it would create a worldview where people would be more aware of how interconnected they are with each other and the rest of the earth and the ecosystem. If anything, they'd want to take better care of their earth because their self would be interconnected with the earth. Uh, so it just leads to higher awareness, better ethics, better, higher consciousness in our science, technology, business, um, you know, can we build businesses that do good for the planet and still build wealth? And, uh, even in geopolitics, you know, can these nations and cultures live in harmony with each other on one planet instead of killing each other in the name of religion? Yeah. So that understanding that would come from this kind of, uh, paradigm shift. Because if it's matter-based, it's just the halves and have-nots fighting for a finite amount of resources that are all matter-based. If it's a consciousness-based paradigm, and you see there are civilizations on this planet today, they're indigenous cultures. There's those who were apparently here thousands of years ago, walk this planet, who have literature that still survives that talk about a more, well, what's the purpose of life? What's the meaning of life? You know, that's these spiritual traditions. A lot of the Eastern philosophical traditions have this built in. And they have this concept that, you know, the purpose of life is self-realization or self-actualization, understanding your full potential, potential, and meditation, and being at one with nature, and connecting to that. So those, that understanding would have a tremendous impact on our society. I feel this would be the fifth industrial revolution. It would be consciousness-based. It would be something like, it would be a new science, similar to what I proposed to Mar. Uh, it would be multi-disciplinary and more holistic, trying to put all the pieces together. But that new scientific framework would lead to new technologies, technologies we haven't even thought of yet, or maybe some of us have. But the point is, there were new kinds of capabilities that because we weren't even thinking information and consciousness are a thing. I mean, one simple example is in healthcare. There might be a lot more ways to heal people from disease and extend the human lifespan to create longevity than just a handful of tools that we have now in modern medicine. And they could be a part of future healthcare. And many other kinds of industries would be revolutionized by this kind of thinking. So technological revolution, industrial revolution, new industries popping up, but also a new consciousness in those industries. It's not just the technology we create. It's the consciousness with which we deploy that technology that determines does it have a good impact or a bad impact on the planet. So this higher consciousness paradigm would make people be more aware of the impact of what they're doing. It's not just about making money but maybe hurting the planet. You can do both at the same time. You can build wealth for yourself and your family and for the planet and do good for the planet and your fellow citizens, right? They don't have to be fighting. They can be in harmony. And likewise, harmony between the nations and the cultures and the civilizations on this planet. You know, they could live in a higher state. And also, you know, things like space travel and all these new kind of futuristic things. They would be, we would be able to focus the human race. I would say we would unleash a new golden age in America and the rest of the world for, yeah, innovation and prosperity and, and self-actualization at the individual level and for the collective human race or human species.

Wonderful vision. I thank you. I think it's a wonderful vision. And we talked about it yesterday in prep preparation of this conversation. Um, to relate it, what you just said, your vision for that fifth revolution. What I love is that it includes all science we have now. It's not that you say, by, by, by putting consciousness back at the center, that you have to let go of any of that because that's the maps we've built of reality, and they're great. But I think the problem with with our current worldview is that we're so lost in those maps, right? I mean, the, the fact that we started thinking that our mapping of the brain, if we copy that sort of like in neural networks will lead to consciousness, sort of that, that's still a map, right? And and it's not even, I mean, you're working on high-resolution maps that show us how incredibly more complex it is than the maps of current AI systems. And getting back to that territory, which is the unmeasurable in my opinion, which which we cannot always measure. But it's so true. It's, it's like truly feeling connected with each other, feeling connected with nature. It's not we're not feeling. And sometimes it can even make me emotional when I, when I think about nature, how we treat nature by putting our maps between ourselves and and nature, by measuring the world and only thinking that that is real and not connecting and feeling the harm we're doing to the planet and to each other. So that, that is sort of my thoughts on the how, how that worldview of materialism is sort of contributing to, um, I would say, to that point, um, there are, you know, there's an increasing interest in meditation, yoga, spending time in nature, experiencing these other dimensions of reality. And there is a hunger and search I see amongst the current generations. Uh, absolutely for meaning and purpose in life. And so I think this artificial divorce that was created between science and spirituality maybe 500 years ago, maybe it's time to bring it to an end and let the entirety of the human experience on this planet come into its full, full-fledged vigor. And, and the other thing I would say is that for the future of the human race, having just very good science and technology and materialistic understanding and advances, and being mentally depressed and having all kinds of psychological and emotional problems is not healthy. And having a lot of spiritual principles and meditating all day and, you know, being able to achieve higher states of consciousness through meditation, but then not being able to take care of basic material necessities may not seem right either. So the future of the human race needs to take the best of all of these capabilities. Yeah. And imagine humans who can have the best self-actualization experience on the planet, have a sense of meaning and purpose, as well as do the best they can with the tools and technologies in the outer world and the inner world. There needs to be some balance of these two. And I also don't believe, you know, you hear people, some people will come to one extreme and throw out consciousness and all these things. Other people will come to the other extreme and want to throw out science and all the benefits that has happened. I think these are both radical positions. I think the, the reasonable position is we should take the best that all of human experience has to offer to make the best we can of ourselves and our and our generation and our planet, and maybe many planets, who knows. And just one final closing question, uh, Dr. Well, people watching, we live in a day and age that now, quite some people believe, um, that, uh, AGI is not far away. Me, myself included. But who, some of those who also believe that those machines will be conscious, and then there will be no difference anymore between us and machines, which will lead to problems we've discussed earlier. You, as, uh, an engineer in nanotech, in AI also, and now working on an experiment which can help us understand sort of at this nano machine level, our own complexity. If you have to compare that to our most advanced AI systems, including the the near future of quantum AI, what is the difference between who we truly are and the machines we are engineering with?

I think those are great questions. And I think the true answer, I would say, is that we should study consciousness in living systems to inspire to get the most out of AI technology, whether it's AI classically or AI, quantum AI. We only stand to gain by studying consciousness from a hardcore physics perspective in living systems. So that's another motivation for my work, which I just showed you. Because if we can understand the phenomena of consciousness in a living system, which is all around us, there's so much living matter on this planet. If we can understand how the design principles of that, A, it might help us design better AI and quantum AI to get more and more levels of complex capabilities. But B, it may help us understand this whole problem better, uh, of, you know, and what is the difference, and is there a boundary, and are we able to make AI systems conscious, or quantum AI systems conscious? Well, I think we need to first, I mean, I, I'm arguing that we cannot ignore this problem of consciousness from a hardcore physics perspective. We have to take all the tools of neuroscience, traditional physics, quantum mechanics, we have to take a multi-approach and just take it head-on because it's right in front of us. And if I say to you, like, I don't know if you know the, the Douglas Rushkoff, he's this tech thinker I very much like, who said at a certain moment, okay, I'm biased. I'm on team human here. Yeah. If I say to you, I, I want to be on team human. You are working on the, the nano machines that, to what order of degree, how many there are, I don't know in my brain. If you compare them, their computation power, are we still, how strong is team human? Yeah. I mean, I think one nano machine is just, you know, there are trillions of those inside of you. So you're the sum total of all of that. So you're much more than one nano machine. I know. So one nano machine has 10 to the whatever, 11th computational steps per one step. You're a sum total of many, many more orders of magnitude than that. So that's, you're still the winner. That's just a fun argument to close it. Thank you so much for this wonderful conversation. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you so much for watching this video. We will put all links to videos and scientific work which we referenced to in this conversation below in the description. And if you have any questions to me and Dr. Goell, please leave them with us so we can follow up on that. Thank you so much for watching.