A woman survived without a stomach or small bowel after a catastrophic medical episode at her 18th birthday party, proving the human body is more adaptable than we thought. Philosophers and tech billionaires are convinced we're living in a computer simulation, though Canadian physicists disagree and insist our universe is real. And forensic scientists discovered that your DNA floats in the air wherever you breathe, meaning you're leaving genetic evidence in every room you enter - except mysteriously not in cars, which apparently offer some kind of DNA stealth mode.
Today, we're exploring a world where essential organs are optional, reality itself is questionable, and simply breathing in a room could implicate you in a crime. These stories prove that whether we're talking about medical survival, existential philosophy, or forensic science, nothing about human existence is straightforward.
Living Without a Stomach
Gabby Scanlan lost her stomach and small bowel after a single cocktail at her 18th birthday party triggered an explosive medical crisis. Doctors connected her esophagus directly to her small intestine, allowing her to maintain a semi-normal diet with supplements and continue living despite missing organs most people consider essential.
Her story highlights the terrifying adaptability of the human body and what modern medicine can accomplish when survival seems impossible. It's simultaneously inspiring and deeply unsettling; you can apparently lose major digestive organs and keep functioning, which raises uncomfortable questions about what else might be optional. At least she can still eat, even if her digestive system now resembles a medical experiment more than standard human anatomy.
Are We Living In The Matrix?
Philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed that advanced civilisations could create computer-generated worlds so convincing that inhabitants would never know they're simulated. Elon Musk is apparently convinced by this theory, though a team of Canadian physicists insists our universe is genuine and we're not just algorithms in a cosmic computer game.
The simulation hypothesis is either profound philosophy or the kind of thinking that happens when intellectuals have too much time on their hands. While it's intriguing to consider that reality might be programmed, it's also completely unfalsifiable. If we're in a simulation sophisticated enough to fool us, we'd never find evidence either way. It's the ultimate existential question that changes absolutely nothing about daily life, which makes it perfect fodder for late-night philosophical debates and tech billionaire podcasts.
DNA in the Air: You're Leaving Evidence Everywhere
Forensic scientists discovered that your DNA isn't confined to physical contact - it floats in the air wherever you breathe, meaning you're unknowingly leaving genetic evidence in every room you enter. Air sampling has opened a new frontier in forensic investigation, creating an unexpected dilemma for anyone trying to avoid leaving traces at crime scenes.
Mysteriously, vehicles seem immune to this phenomenon. Air samples from cars don't betray occupants the same way rooms do, offering some kind of inexplicable DNA stealth mode. It's a game-changing discovery that could redefine investigative practices and make crime shows obsolete, since apparently, you don't need to touch anything to leave evidence. Just breathing in the wrong place at the wrong time could implicate you in an investigation, which is either brilliant forensic science or a privacy nightmare depending on your perspective.
From surviving without stomachs to questioning whether reality exists and discovering that breathing leaves genetic evidence everywhere, we’ve been reminded that human existence is stranger and more fragile than we pretend.
At least if we're living in a simulation, the programmers gave us impressively resilient bodies and terrible privacy protections. And if you're planning a crime, do it in a car where your DNA mysteriously doesn't float around.
CHAPTERS:
00:00 Introduction
00:30 Can You Live Without a Stomach?
01:58 The Story of Gabby Scanlan
06:29 Living Without a Stomach: Modern Medicine
08:00 Are We Living in a Simulation?
14:22 Understanding Dog Emotions
16:12 Understanding Dog Behaviour
17:16 Dog Reactions to Positive and Negative Stimuli
18:33 Human Interpretation of Dog Emotions
22:54 Forensic Science and DNA Collection
28:42 Dinosaur Discovery and Misleading Headlines
31:55 Listener Engagement and Closing Remarks
-
[00:00:01] ROD: There are at least seven organs that
[00:00:03] most humans can definitely live without.
[00:00:05] Yamaha Hammond, no.
[00:00:08] The appendix,
[00:00:09] The spleen,
[00:00:11] reproductive bits, both boys and girls. You can lose your bean bag or your ovaries
[00:00:15] and still be fine. Gallbladder,
[00:00:17] WILL: you
[00:00:18] ROD: lose a lung, not two or a kidney,
[00:00:20] preferably not two, and even your colon.
[00:00:23] Which
[00:00:23] I did
[00:00:23] not know, but some people have also lived with just a small percentage of their brain.
[00:00:27] That's not common,
[00:00:29] but it's possible. However, the question is,
[00:00:31] what
[00:00:32] about your stomach? Can you live
[00:00:34] without your
[00:00:34] stomach?
[00:00:50] WILL: It is time
[00:00:52] for a little bit of science.
[00:00:54] I'm will grant
[00:00:55] an associate professor in science communication.
[00:00:57] At the Australian National
[00:00:59] University.
[00:00:59] ROD: [00:01:00] Yeah. I'm Rod Lamberty, 30 year psych veteran with the mind
[00:01:03] of a 15-year-old
[00:01:04] boy
[00:01:04] and
[00:01:05] WILL: And today as well as.
[00:01:06] can we live without our
[00:01:07] stomach? I've got a
[00:01:09] Well, that's nice
[00:01:11] to know.
[00:01:11] ROD: Ooh, I've got, um, some fun with animals.
[00:01:13] Maybe
[00:01:14] WILL: I've
[00:01:14] got another nice to know. But this one is in case you wanna
[00:01:17] commit
[00:01:17] some crimes.
[00:01:20] ROD: I've also got a Little bit of false
[00:01:21] advertising and
[00:01:22] WILL: and I got a life
[00:01:23] hack. Little life hack to you know,
[00:01:26] improve things.
[00:01:27] ROD: you know how
[00:01:27] you get mad about AI being, you know, actually sentient? It makes you angry going a rant. I get angry about when people talk about, I've got this hack, and I'm like, fuck you.
[00:01:35] Hacks make me
[00:01:36] WILL: I
[00:01:36] appreciate life hacks are stupid, but
[00:01:38] this one's just a, it's just a, little one for you. it's just a little
[00:01:40] ROD: I, I don't mind a life hack if it makes
[00:01:42] sense. I just don't like all the ones that are
[00:01:43] basically,
[00:01:44] WILL: In all honesty, this is
[00:01:45] not a life hack.
[00:01:46] ROD: good.
[00:01:46] Now I'm happy.
[00:01:48] So,
[00:01:48] 2012, the UK
[00:01:50] or Uck as no
[00:01:51] one calls it?
[00:01:52] WILL: no they do,
[00:01:53] they
[00:01:53] often do. Most people do.
[00:01:54] I've gotta get back to
[00:01:55] the
[00:01:55] Uck.
[00:01:55] ROD: Yes. I
[00:01:56] miss the Uck. I'm from the ark.
[00:01:57] WILL: Uck,
[00:01:58] ROD: Gabby Scanlan. We've all heard of [00:02:00] her. No, we haven't. She was celebrating her
[00:02:01] 18th birthday. She's hanging out with her
[00:02:02] friends
[00:02:03] in Lancaster at Oscar's wine
[00:02:05] bar and bistro.
[00:02:07] WILL: Oh, it's a good place for your
[00:02:07] 18th,
[00:02:08] ROD: isn't it?
[00:02:08] isn't it? They serve cocktails.
[00:02:10] WILL: I know, but I, I do think.
[00:02:12] bars and pubs
[00:02:13] should not advertise. This is a great place
[00:02:15] for your 18th because I feel
[00:02:16] ROD: Ooh.
[00:02:17] WILL: it
[00:02:18] ROD: sounds
[00:02:18] a bit sinister.
[00:02:20] WILL: It
[00:02:20] sounds very sinister.
[00:02:22] ROD: One to turn
[00:02:23] WILL: Do your 18th with
[00:02:24] us.
[00:02:24] ROD: I, I heard you became
[00:02:26] an adult yesterday.
[00:02:27] WILL: yesterday,
[00:02:28] ROD: Horrifying.
[00:02:30] Horrifying. So
[00:02:32] they're 18. He, she and her friends mostly 18, I assume. All doing some fancy shots.
[00:02:38] No doubt.
[00:02:38] I mean, it's great as you would.
[00:02:40] Anyway, so they're doing fancy shots. Gabby and her friends at
[00:02:43] Oscar's Wine Bar and Bistro.
[00:02:45] WILL: not a sponsor,
[00:02:46] ROD: Not Apon. Well, not yet.
[00:02:48] No.
[00:02:48] Everyone's a
[00:02:49] sponsor that
[00:02:49] WILL: It would be a
[00:02:50] weird
[00:02:50] thing
[00:02:50] to sponsor, wouldn't
[00:02:51] ROD: it?
[00:02:51] Well, especially after this.
[00:02:54] WILL: So
[00:02:55] ROD: bar guy says, it's your Birthday birthday. girl gets a free shot. Oh Wow.
[00:02:59] WILL: [00:03:00] wow.
[00:03:00] ROD: Hands were a nitro
[00:03:01] jagermeister shot.
[00:03:02] WILL: Ah, that sounds
[00:03:03] light.
[00:03:04] ROD: It is light. It was kind of smoking or steaming dramatically.
[00:03:07] Very,
[00:03:07] you know, Halloween,
[00:03:08] like, you know, like yeah.
[00:03:10] WILL: Green stuff with
[00:03:10] steam.
[00:03:11] ROD: Exactly.
[00:03:12] Um,
[00:03:13] WILL: the, the kind of
[00:03:13] sophisticated
[00:03:14] drink.
[00:03:15] ROD: Exactly. It's, it's what all the adults do. You didn't know that. welcome
[00:03:19] behind
[00:03:20] the
[00:03:20] WILL: Well, Welcome
[00:03:20] to 18. You
[00:03:21] get to have the
[00:03:22] sophisticated drinks. This is adulthood.
[00:03:25] ROD: Um, so she goes, this is awesome.
[00:03:27] Takes the shot
[00:03:27] WILL: and
[00:03:28] ROD: describes
[00:03:29] feeling agonizing pain.
[00:03:30] she says,
[00:03:30] and this is from the subsequent court case. I turned to the man and asked if it was okay to drink, and he said yes. Smoke was
[00:03:36] coming from my nose and mouth
[00:03:37] straight away. I knew something was not right. My stomach
[00:03:41] expanded from what I read later.
[00:03:43] That was an understatement. Her stomach really went whoop, what she had not been told by the bomb and. Which may or may not have been significant. Maybe you've wait for it to
[00:03:50] die down. So let the substances back
[00:03:53] off.
[00:03:53] WILL: So, so this was smoking,
[00:03:55] it wasn't on fire?
[00:03:56] ROD: No,
[00:03:57] it wasn't on fire. It was like, you know, your
[00:03:58] dry ice
[00:03:59] kind [00:04:00] of
[00:04:00] WILL: okay.
[00:04:00] Oh, Halloween
[00:04:01] effect. Oh,
[00:04:02] okay.
[00:04:02] ROD: And the hint is
[00:04:03] in the
[00:04:03] Nitro
[00:04:04] yoga Master shot.
[00:04:05] WILL: Because
[00:04:05] ROD: was liquid '
[00:04:06] nitrogen.
[00:04:06] WILL: Okay. Ah,
[00:04:07] ROD: So it seems the bar had done, they'd sold a few of these
[00:04:10] like
[00:04:10] liquid nitrogen related things, but they hadn't done a proper, I love the quote, risk
[00:04:14] assessment.
[00:04:14] Oh God,
[00:04:15] WILL: Oh my God,
[00:04:16] ROD: to make sure
[00:04:17] drinking the liquid nitrogen, which is Yes.
[00:04:19] The shit you used to freeze off
[00:04:20] watts, et cetera.
[00:04:21] They were warned before this event that by a senior health and safety officer, they visited the bar.
[00:04:25] This person said, look, I've got concerns about you.
[00:04:28] Putting liquid nitrogen
[00:04:29] in
[00:04:29] drinks.
[00:04:30] WILL: No doubt.
[00:04:31] ROD: Um, and here's some guidance on how that may or may
[00:04:34] not be possible, to which they received no response. So it was just like,
[00:04:37] maybe the people looked at went,
[00:04:39] ha ha,
[00:04:39] WILL: ha, we'll do all of
[00:04:40] this. Whatever implemented so much, you don't
[00:04:42] need to check.
[00:04:43] ROD: we will think about it. Very hard.
[00:04:45] WILL: Or
[00:04:45] not.
[00:04:46] Or
[00:04:47] ROD: Or
[00:04:47] not.
[00:04:47] Um, so there were some notes for bar
[00:04:49] staff on how to do this. There were,
[00:04:51] WILL: mm-hmm.
[00:04:52] ROD: But
[00:04:52] apparently they were
[00:04:52] not particularly detailed nor one
[00:04:55] one source described them as loose.
[00:04:58] Things like staff were told to wait [00:05:00] 10 seconds until a liquid
[00:05:01] nitrogen had boiled off
[00:05:03] before the person consumes it.
[00:05:04] WILL: what is
[00:05:05] the point of making it super cold
[00:05:06] and then wait a while till it's warmed up and all the
[00:05:09] liquid nitrogen has
[00:05:10] ROD: dunno how much they put in there. Like, it's obviously for the
[00:05:12] smoky effect. It's for the, it's for the mystical, yeah.
[00:05:15] WILL: Okay.
[00:05:15] ROD: Okay. Woo woo effect.
[00:05:17] But, um,
[00:05:18] I, don't
[00:05:19] think consuming liquid nitrogen was actually the purpose of
[00:05:22] any
[00:05:22] WILL: No, no. Okay. Alright. Okay.
[00:05:24] ROD: like, why, don't you drink this
[00:05:25] deeply frozen, insane stuff. It was more like,
[00:05:28] look, it's smokey. That'd be nine pounds
[00:05:30] as opposed to
[00:05:32] two.
[00:05:32] Yeah.
[00:05:34] Um, of course the
[00:05:34] ten second
[00:05:35] number.
[00:05:37] Completely arbitrary.
[00:05:38] WILL: Well, and also you're
[00:05:39] on your
[00:05:39] 18th, you know who's sitting there around waiting 10
[00:05:41] seconds for your
[00:05:42] ROD: Well, the
[00:05:42] barman is supposed to,
[00:05:43] in theory, say, by the way, 9, 8, 7 in
[00:05:48] theory.
[00:05:48] WILL: he just is horrible. I just
[00:05:49] don't like
[00:05:50] ROD: it's great. It's great. It's great.
[00:05:52] Um, also, one of her friends apparently said in the subsequent court case.
[00:05:55] the Barman had said to,
[00:05:56] WILL: Oscar's not a sponsor,
[00:05:59] [00:06:00] not
[00:06:00] ROD: episode,
[00:06:01] drink it
[00:06:02] while it's still smoking.
[00:06:03] Apparently the
[00:06:03] barman
[00:06:04] said like. Fuck. Yeah, this is gonna be awesome. So the court
[00:06:07] heard she was left close to death after experiencing an explosion in her stomach. Four seconds after the cocktail was poured for her and she scoffed it.
[00:06:16] WILL: Oh God.
[00:06:17] So
[00:06:18] ROD: tissue was killed and the lining of her stomach was perforated.
[00:06:22] so she went straight hospital.
[00:06:23] WILL: This seems to be a nice to know
[00:06:24] episode. I think it's all
[00:06:26] nice to know. nice
[00:06:26] to
[00:06:27] know.
[00:06:28] ROD: thinking. So she's straight to hospital and she had surgery to remove her stomach and her small bowel.
[00:06:35] WILL: To
[00:06:35] ROD: sure she lives
[00:06:36] WILL: Mm.
[00:06:37] ROD: years later, she's still in
[00:06:38] pain, but she's definitely alive without a stomach. Yeah. and without a small
[00:06:41] bowel. So what this shows is you don't need a stomach
[00:06:44] to
[00:06:44] live.
[00:06:45] WILL: This is with
[00:06:46] modern
[00:06:46] technology. So I, I,
[00:06:48] ROD: not like in yester
[00:06:49] WILL: gallbladders and
[00:06:50] wisdom
[00:06:50] teeth, you, know,
[00:06:51] you, you don't need them
[00:06:52] at all. Yeah. Whereas you might
[00:06:54] need, the thing that a stomach
[00:06:55] does
[00:06:57] ROD: well,
[00:06:57] this is what they
[00:06:57] do.
[00:06:57] They, they basically remove
[00:06:58] the stomach and all. the bits,
[00:06:59] [00:07:00] and they attach the esophagus directly to the
[00:07:01] small
[00:07:02] intestines.
[00:07:02] WILL: Oh, really? Yeah. Oh, I thought she'd have like a little machine
[00:07:05] she carries around
[00:07:06] ROD: like a little
[00:07:06] stomach.
[00:07:07] WILL: Yeah, like
[00:07:07] a thing, like a, like she's got a a special
[00:07:10] handbag.
[00:07:11] ROD: Oh yeah. What
[00:07:11] does it do?
[00:07:12] Digest, that's,
[00:07:13] WILL: that's,
[00:07:13] meto.
[00:07:14] Like
[00:07:14] ROD: I, I chew it, I spit it, in the bag, then
[00:07:16] I drink it
[00:07:16] again.
[00:07:17] WILL: So, esophagus
[00:07:18] straight to like, there's
[00:07:18] ROD: straight to small intestine. apparently.
[00:07:20] WILL: Does she get
[00:07:21] enough
[00:07:21] nutrients?
[00:07:22] ROD: They say
[00:07:22] you do. I mean, you need to,
[00:07:24] apparently you can have a semi-normal diet, but there's a lot of vitamins, supplements and stuff.
[00:07:28] But apparently you
[00:07:28] can live without one.
[00:07:30] WILL: Wow. So
[00:07:31] ROD: I say
[00:07:32] this is awesome news. and also surgeons.
[00:07:36] keep pulling out shit, let's see how much we can live without.
[00:07:39] WILL: What
[00:07:39] can we go back, to? Strip it back
[00:07:41] ROD: I've lost the gallbladder, I've kept the appendix. I mean, on both, both lungs
[00:07:44] and, you know, both kidneys. Let's, let's see what we can do.
[00:07:46] I mean,
[00:07:46] I've
[00:07:47] WILL: haircuts, so,
[00:07:48] ROD: and you're still alive. Exactly. Luckily you have vitamins and supplements
[00:07:52] to survive,
[00:07:53] WILL: so there
[00:07:53] ROD: go. You don't need
[00:07:54] your stomach.
[00:07:55] WILL: Oh, well that's the that's very
[00:07:56] nice. Well, I've got another
[00:07:59] nice to [00:08:00] know for you. in 2003, uh, the philosopher Nick
[00:08:03] Bostrom,
[00:08:04] uh, proposed an argument, um, about where we live.
[00:08:08] Mm-hmm. he wasn't saying, I live in Canberra, Oxford, or Uck, or Europe or the world,
[00:08:13] or Canberra.
[00:08:14] If you're in this podcast or
[00:08:15] wherever you are.
[00:08:15] listener. Wherever you are. No. He was proposing that potentially
[00:08:19] we could all
[00:08:20] Be inside the matrix.
[00:08:22] ROD: actually, actually, we could choose to,
[00:08:23] or we are.
[00:08:24] WILL: No, we are, we are Well, he said
[00:08:25] he said we could be in a
[00:08:27] simulation. So his, his argument was that, um, if there are, uh,
[00:08:33] civilizations, you know, hypothetical civilizations or actual civilizations that become.
[00:08:39] Capable of making a sort of conscious civilization, they make a computer
[00:08:44] world.
[00:08:44] ROD: right.
[00:08:45] WILL: Yeah. They get so good, they get so powerful.
[00:08:47] They can make it
[00:08:47] ROD: who can create
[00:08:48] matrices. Yeah.
[00:08:49] WILL: They,
[00:08:49] They, they, they, get so powerful, so advanced that they can make super computers that have inside them people living inside a simulation.
[00:08:57] ROD: Right.
[00:08:57] WILL: thing
[00:08:58] is,
[00:08:58] yeah, they can make [00:09:00] heaps of them.
[00:09:01] those
[00:09:02] simulations could make simulations. oh. So the argument and people buy into
[00:09:06] this, Elon Musk is a believer in this, that there
[00:09:09] ROD: no, you don't need to
[00:09:09] tell me anymore
[00:09:10] Then I'm in,
[00:09:11] WILL: there's three possibilities here.
[00:09:12] Yeah. Either these
[00:09:14] simulations aren't possible at all.
[00:09:15] 'cause you know, technological limits. Yeah. Or.
[00:09:18] The advanced civilizations choose not to make them 'cause they're benign or something, or there are so many of these simulations
[00:09:26] that realistically on random chance
[00:09:28] we have to be living,
[00:09:28] ROD: more likely to be in one than not,
[00:09:29] WILL: more likely to be
[00:09:30] in one
[00:09:30] We are more likely to be in a simulation
[00:09:31] than not.
[00:09:31] Elon Musk was convinced by that argument. He's like, oh, well
[00:09:34] ROD: uh, yes. We're
[00:09:35] WILL: not in
[00:09:36] base
[00:09:36] reality. We are in a simulation.
[00:09:37] ROD: because
[00:09:39] WILL: because just just by chance, just because like if, if you had said, you know, of the 10 billion possible universes,
[00:09:45] one
[00:09:46] is base reality and the rest
[00:09:47] are simulations.
[00:09:48] ROD: so in base reality there's some version of us that exists
[00:09:51] in meat form. Mm-hmm.
[00:09:53] WILL: in
[00:09:53] ROD: In theory,
[00:09:54] WILL: no,
[00:09:54] no, no, Base reality says
[00:09:56] there's, there's your super advanced alien, [00:10:00] whatevers, and they've got computers. And inside those computers is
[00:10:02] Simulation one. Simulation two. And even inside simulation one is simulation 1.1.
[00:10:07] One point.
[00:10:07] You
[00:10:07] ROD: so
[00:10:08] we could be
[00:10:09] WILL: we could be, we could be,
[00:10:09] in simulation 974
[00:10:11] ROD: point, but we as individuals could be
[00:10:13] like algorithms
[00:10:14] not.
[00:10:15] WILL: So, so we are all algorithms. so we are all we're
[00:10:18] all inside a
[00:10:18] computer simulation.
[00:10:19] ROD: I gotta say, you my
[00:10:20] friend, are a spectacularly
[00:10:22] complicated algorithm. I'm
[00:10:23] very impressed.
[00:10:24] WILL: don't feel
[00:10:24] that complicated.
[00:10:25] Uh,
[00:10:25] ROD: Uh, but
[00:10:27] okay.
[00:10:28] WILL: but I've got some good
[00:10:29] news. I've got some good
[00:10:30] news. a team of physicists, mathematical
[00:10:33] physicists, you know,
[00:10:34] those kinds of theoretical, theoretical At the Canadian
[00:10:37] Quantum Research
[00:10:38] Center,
[00:10:38] ROD: love that center
[00:10:39] WILL: says yeah, nah, yeah, nah, not possible.
[00:10:42] ROD: mean?
[00:10:43] Yeah,
[00:10:44] WILL: we've done the math.
[00:10:45] We're in base reality.
[00:10:46] When you don't worry about it,
[00:10:48] ROD: you're actually made of meat,
[00:10:49] WILL: Their abstract ends on the line here. , This
[00:10:51] framework also implies the universe cannot be a simulation. So I'll give you the, takeaway message. Okay. But I'm, I thought as, a veteran 30 year, , science [00:11:00] communicator, you could help me
[00:11:00] interpret this, abstract
[00:11:02] that I'm gonna read it's got some complicated
[00:11:04] bits in it. Okay. So do I
[00:11:04] ROD: Okay.
[00:11:04] WILL: General Relativity
[00:11:06] treats space time as dynamical. Okay,
[00:11:08] ROD: Okay, Einstein,
[00:11:09] carry on
[00:11:09] WILL: and
[00:11:09] Exhibits, its breakdown
[00:11:10] at Singularities Black
[00:11:13] Holes.
[00:11:13] ROD: Stephen Hawking
[00:11:14] WILL: Black. Yeah, There you go. Nice.
[00:11:15] , This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated within space time.
[00:11:21] Instead, it must explain the very emergence of space time from deeper quantum
[00:11:26] degrees of freedom, thereby resolving
[00:11:28] singularities
[00:11:29] ROD: Peter F. Hamilton
[00:11:30] novel.
[00:11:30] Nice,
[00:11:31] WILL: Nice,
[00:11:32] nice.
[00:11:32] Quantum gravity
[00:11:34] is therefore envisaged as an axiomatic structure and algorithmic calculations acting on
[00:11:38] these axioms are expected to generate
[00:11:40] space time.
[00:11:41] ROD: Oh, I can
[00:11:42] translate
[00:11:42] WILL: that,
[00:11:43] but here's the good bit. Here's the
[00:11:44] good bit. Yeah. Because this is what I always look for
[00:11:46] Yeah. However,
[00:11:47] Girdles Incompleteness, theorems
[00:11:49] Girdle. Girdle. Yeah. Sorry,
[00:11:50] my,
[00:11:51] my, my, my
[00:11:52] ROD: Jesus. You're
[00:11:52] German is shy
[00:11:53] WILL: Sorry. I heard
[00:11:54] girdle
[00:11:55] ROD: shy house. German
[00:11:56] WILL: tasky indefinability theorem
[00:11:58] Indefinability [00:12:00] theorem. Yeah. And kitten's information. Theoretic incompleteness.
[00:12:03] three versions of incompleteness, indefinability, and incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic program.
[00:12:11] Yeah.
[00:12:12] Basically they're saying you, you couldn't
[00:12:14] compute it. No computer could do it. It would be impossible
[00:12:16] because of all of the things that
[00:12:18] you can't know. There's
[00:12:19] ROD: too much stuff, therefore, you can't
[00:12:20] make the
[00:12:21] WILL: think so. I
[00:12:23] think so, I think so, et cetera, et
[00:12:25] cetera. Together, these
[00:12:27] together in
[00:12:28] that's
[00:12:28] ROD: the best abstract
[00:12:29] WILL: together, these results
[00:12:30] imply that a wholly algorithmic theory of everything is
[00:12:33] impossible.
[00:12:34] Certain facets. So you can't, compute it, you can't. It's
[00:12:37] ROD: much to compute. You can't compute, and there's too many unknowns. It's
[00:12:39] WILL: be like, It's
[00:12:40] gotta
[00:12:40] be base reality. Like You can't compute. a whole
[00:12:42] theory of everything.
[00:12:43] ROD: Is that what the people
[00:12:44] who created our reality want
[00:12:45] us to think though?
[00:12:46] WILL: oh,
[00:12:46] well, maybe Is
[00:12:47] that they're that good?
[00:12:48] I don't,
[00:12:48] know. They didn't ask. Certain facets of reality will remain
[00:12:52] computationally, undecidable, and can
[00:12:54] be accessed only through non
[00:12:56] algorithmic understanding by
[00:12:57] ROD: I always must contend the [00:13:00] idea
[00:13:00] that this will remain impossible because humans are very good at claiming things will be always impossible. And then like, oh, actually nerves can
[00:13:07] grow back. No. oh, actually,
[00:13:09] dogs can
[00:13:09] WILL: No. But like,
[00:13:10] oh,
[00:13:10] Mr. Heisenberg says, you know, these two things, you know, you can't, and that's one of those
[00:13:14] other
[00:13:14] ROD: Star Trek fixed it
[00:13:15] with the Heisenberg compensator,
[00:13:17] WILL: Trek is not um, not uh, base, not base
[00:13:20] reality.
[00:13:20] ROD: do you know
[00:13:21] WILL: it's not base
[00:13:22] ROD: Maybe it is. Maybe it's a show that they put into this reality to
[00:13:24] talk to us about
[00:13:24] base reality. Whoa.
[00:13:25] WILL: How good would that
[00:13:26] be though? you?
[00:13:27] put you you put, you put your own reality into
[00:13:30] someone's simulation, wouldn't you?
[00:13:32] ROD: you?
[00:13:32] WILL: We formalized this by constructing a Meta. theory of everything.
[00:13:36] I'm just
[00:13:36] like, go physicist.
[00:13:38] Yeah. Uh, grounded in non algorithmic understanding, showing how it can account for undecidable phenomena, and demonstrating that the breakdown of computational descriptions of nature does not entail a breakdown of science because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic.
[00:13:52] This
[00:13:52] framework also implies the universe cannot be a
[00:13:55] simulation, so I don't understand
[00:13:57] all of that.
[00:13:57] ROD: Or, or,
[00:13:58] WILL: I mean, I I, reckon I got, I,
[00:13:59] [00:14:00] I'm, I'm probably at
[00:14:00] 99.8%, obviously.
[00:14:02] Um,
[00:14:03] but, but it's that last point. 2%.
[00:14:04] That's
[00:14:04] tricky, but I'll, I'll work on
[00:14:06] it. But, but I took their last line and I said, there you go. We're not in a simulation.
[00:14:10] I love it.
[00:14:11] ROD: That's, that's after all that.
[00:14:12] What's your takeaway? Well, we're, we're not,
[00:14:15] what a relief.
[00:14:17] WILL: So there you go. Some good news for everyone out there who doesn't
[00:14:20] wanna live in a
[00:14:20] simulation.
[00:14:21]
[00:14:22] ROD: So we often talk about fun with animals, but what's not always clear
[00:14:26] WILL: is
[00:14:27] ROD: are you sure animals are having fun? How do you
[00:14:29] WILL: know? Mm.
[00:14:29] ROD: Hmm. So for example,
[00:14:32] dogs.
[00:14:32] I'm a dog owner, so are you? Yes. And I absolutely 100% know for sure whether my dogs feel good, bad, whatever. You
[00:14:38] know, what makes 'em happy, what
[00:14:39] makes them sad?
[00:14:40] Yeah, totally.
[00:14:41] For sure.
[00:14:41] WILL: A
[00:14:41] hundred percent.
[00:14:42] ROD: A
[00:14:42] hundred percent. A hundred percent.
[00:14:43] So Arizona State University, they did a we study. They, they not only, people are often wrong about how their dog is feeling and wrong about their confidence in it.
[00:14:51] According to at
[00:14:52] least one of the authors in this study, a woman called
[00:14:54] Holly Malindo, she said, our research shows not only are people not probably right, [00:15:00]
[00:15:00] They're not
[00:15:00] even looking at the dog when they're trying to work out what their emotions actually
[00:15:03] WILL: are.
[00:15:04] No. Well, you look at
[00:15:05] um, other
[00:15:06] ROD: The walls
[00:15:08] a book.
[00:15:08] My phone.
[00:15:10] So,
[00:15:11] what they mean is
[00:15:11] people tend to
[00:15:12] spend a lot more time assuming what the dog is telling them from the expectation of the context, rather than actually relating it
[00:15:19] to the behavior of the
[00:15:20] dog.
[00:15:21] WILL: So, okay. So I would
[00:15:22] say
[00:15:22] context probably
[00:15:23] does, does mean a
[00:15:24] fair
[00:15:25] bit,
[00:15:25] didn't matter. Like, Like, I, I have a possum. It comes over our
[00:15:28] house regularly
[00:15:29] at night.
[00:15:30] and, um, our dog,
[00:15:31] it, it's
[00:15:33] close friend, close friend of this possum wants to go outside
[00:15:36] and say hello,
[00:15:37] um, quite regularly.
[00:15:38] I
[00:15:38] ROD: hug you with
[00:15:39] my mouth and
[00:15:39] WILL: teeth
[00:15:39] and so let's go. The context is, is possum runs across the roof and jumps into the backyard. Yep.
[00:15:45] I can guess
[00:15:46] my dog's emotion is I would
[00:15:48] really like to go out there and
[00:15:50] ROD: hug the
[00:15:51] WILL: Well, some version
[00:15:52] of contact may get that possum out of my yard or
[00:15:55] you know, some
[00:15:56] ROD: of that. Into my
[00:15:57] belly.
[00:15:57] WILL: Yeah.
[00:15:58] into my, well,
[00:15:58] my doubt. Why [00:16:00] she would not have the guts to
[00:16:01] eat a possum.
[00:16:02] ROD: And she bites when then goes, what do I do
[00:16:03] now?
[00:16:04] WILL: I'm so screwed.
[00:16:05] ROD: What do I
[00:16:05] do?
[00:16:06] WILL: it's
[00:16:06] a
[00:16:06] wild
[00:16:07] animal. Why didn't you tell me?
[00:16:08] ROD: I'm cut and messy
[00:16:10] so.
[00:16:12] What she means is, or what the researchers mean is
[00:16:14] people tend to spend more time assuming what the dog is telling them, rather than actually checking in. Like
[00:16:20] when the
[00:16:20] vacuum's going off and the dog starts going crazy.
[00:16:23] Yeah.
[00:16:23] Okay.
[00:16:24] You go, well, obviously the dog's afraid.
[00:16:26] okay. Okay. Of The
[00:16:27] vacuum,
[00:16:28] but that
[00:16:28] might
[00:16:28] not necessarily be true.
[00:16:31] WILL: Well, okay.
[00:16:33] I wait.
[00:16:33] ROD: The interpretation
[00:16:34] might
[00:16:35] WILL: So, Just
[00:16:35] gimme this one. gimme
[00:16:36] this one. So my dog hates when I get the lawnmower out.
[00:16:40] Mm.
[00:16:40] To the point where she can see my lawnmowers is
[00:16:43] breaking down a fair bit. I have to use, I have to use some pliers and some stuff to get it started.
[00:16:47] Um, and So if I go to the shed, one of
[00:16:50] my sheds, and
[00:16:51] get
[00:16:51] ROD: pliers out. Sorry to show
[00:16:52] WILL: she's like, I know what you are doing.
[00:16:54] I'm gonna.
[00:16:55] Bark at this, this monster,
[00:16:56] this shit. And so fires a monster. Yeah.
[00:16:58] And
[00:16:58] then
[00:16:59] I start the, and [00:17:00] barking. Barking while I'm starting the lawnmower. And then once you
[00:17:02] start, she's like, fricking
[00:17:04] yeah.
[00:17:04] ROD: what? I,
[00:17:05] WILL: I get that. She probably
[00:17:06] hates the thing, she hates the noise of it. she
[00:17:08] thinks it's a very threatening
[00:17:09] sort of thing.
[00:17:10] Doesn't like it.
[00:17:10] It's gotta happen.
[00:17:11] But,
[00:17:12] ROD: you might be right, but the.
[00:17:14] WILL: Science is
[00:17:14] ROD: going
[00:17:15] to, you know, check this out more clearly. So what they did was they, they filmed the dog reacting to both positive and negative situations. Like positive is like being offered a lead. Yeah. Given a treat and a
[00:17:25] negative. I love the quote is being gently told
[00:17:28] WILL: off,
[00:17:28] ROD: okay,
[00:17:29] oh no, naughty, naughty poppy,
[00:17:31] as opposed to, you fucking wants
[00:17:32] to reckon a man here in your offspring.
[00:17:35] Anyway, so they
[00:17:35] used the footage for two experiments. They took a whole bunch of situations, or at least a number of situations with the dog and how they react to positive or negative, clearly positive or negative
[00:17:43] WILL: things.
[00:17:44] ROD: So
[00:17:45] first they took, I dunno, why this number? 383 members of the Public
[00:17:49] Power.
[00:17:50] WILL: power law.
[00:17:51] ROD: Absolutely, yeah.
[00:17:51] They used the GS spot,
[00:17:53] G Star, sorry.
[00:17:54] WILL: So
[00:17:55] ROD: They played the video.
[00:17:55] So they, they were giving them both with and without the context of the behavior. So some of them saw, [00:18:00] here's a dog with a
[00:18:00] vacuum and others
[00:18:02] just saw the dog reacting.
[00:18:04] They'd try and pick what it was.
[00:18:05] This is
[00:18:05] baseline for interpretation of what's going on.
[00:18:08] Then they edited the videos,
[00:18:09] So
[00:18:10] sometimes the dog's behavior and the stimulus were mismatched,
[00:18:14] Uhhuh.
[00:18:15] So here's a treat, but here's a vacuum reaction.
[00:18:17] Yes,
[00:18:17] yes. For example,
[00:18:19] then they got
[00:18:20] 485 members of the
[00:18:22] WILL: Okay. Okay.
[00:18:24] ROD: Participants
[00:18:24] had to
[00:18:24] rate
[00:18:25] WILL: they're like, cause they're
[00:18:26] getting a
[00:18:26] treat. They have to be happy. And that's the
[00:18:28] happy,
[00:18:28] ROD: that kind of thing. Yeah. So how
[00:18:30] happy, how sad are they? How excited or calm, et cetera. What they found
[00:18:33] was people would react, they'd see a dog, what they thought was reacting to the vacuum cleaner and
[00:18:37] they'd go, oh my God, that dog is freaking out.
[00:18:39] Yeah. But then they'd show exactly the same
[00:18:40] video with a leash and go, fuck that.
[00:18:42] Dog's
[00:18:42] WILL: excited.
[00:18:43] Do, do you know, just, just, just to I don't
[00:18:45] know if you're going to tell this
[00:18:46] ROD: bit,
[00:18:46] I don't know
[00:18:46] WILL: either, but
[00:18:47] do You know, you know how they get um, uh, for a movie.
[00:18:50] dog fights. you get dogs playing and then you load
[00:18:54] down the sound of them being happy and you put in
[00:18:56] some barking sounds and, and it looks
[00:18:58] exactly
[00:18:59] ROD: same. The other [00:19:00] one, I think it
[00:19:00] was, uh, what was the name of the anthropologist?
[00:19:02] WILL: Uh. I
[00:19:03] ROD: I blanked on his name. Looking at
[00:19:04] WILL: just, just to pause
[00:19:05] you chimps. Okay.
[00:19:06] They're not an anthropologist then. I was just gonna say, you've just gotta be careful
[00:19:09] going from a dog story to an anthropologist, because
[00:19:11] that, that suggests looking at
[00:19:13] humans and I just,
[00:19:14] ROD: anthropology
[00:19:14] does also go to your non-human primates.
[00:19:17] WILL: Oh. But is it the
[00:19:18] study of primates?
[00:19:19] Is it.
[00:19:20] ROD: Sometimes
[00:19:21] according to. Okay.
[00:19:22] WILL: Alright. I'll take, I'll take,
[00:19:23] ROD: what the fuck was his
[00:19:24] WILL: I was just worried that
[00:19:24] you were gonna
[00:19:25] say,
[00:19:25] you know,
[00:19:26] ROD: we're all monkeys, man. Or
[00:19:27] WILL: man. Or
[00:19:27] something,
[00:19:28] ROD: but there, there's a classic example that they took a bunch of like chimps interacting with each other. Yep.
[00:19:33] And
[00:19:34] unless you have full context, you can't tell if they're
[00:19:36] playing or
[00:19:36] fighting. No,
[00:19:36] totally. You absolutely
[00:19:37] WILL: totally. And, and look, that's what I
[00:19:39] think about, you know, when,
[00:19:40] ROD: um, your children.
[00:19:44] WILL: I was gonna go, you know,
[00:19:44] war
[00:19:45] or
[00:19:45] ROD: like that. Well, yeah, yeah,
[00:19:46] No, they're blowing each other up, but
[00:19:47] for
[00:19:48] WILL: Exactly,
[00:19:48] exactly.
[00:19:49] I'm shooting him in the head and it's all
[00:19:51] game.
[00:19:51] ROD: is
[00:19:52] giggly torture as opposed to actually trying to
[00:19:54] extract information. So they showed all these just sort of conflicting
[00:19:59] images. This is a [00:20:00] dog reactive, a vacuum cleaner, but here's a treat, et cetera, et cetera.
[00:20:02] But it turns out
[00:20:03] really as a rule, people would always judge it on context, not actually really paying deep attention to the dog's actual.
[00:20:10] Behavior.
[00:20:11] WILL: okay.
[00:20:11] Fair.
[00:20:11] enough.
[00:20:12] ROD: Um,
[00:20:12] also what is interesting was people clearly projected their own emotions
[00:20:16] onto the
[00:20:16] dog. So
[00:20:17] they, they
[00:20:17] took measures of how they were feeling before they went in. Like, if people were feeling happy, they're more likely to go, what a happy
[00:20:21] puppy.
[00:20:23] Yeah. And
[00:20:23] if they're in their shits, they're like, well, this dog's furious or terrified.
[00:20:26] So
[00:20:27] people, they,
[00:20:28] they, researchers were wondering if people not knowing the dog might make
[00:20:30] a difference, like, well this is not a dog I'm aware
[00:20:32] of.
[00:20:33] WILL: Yeah, yeah, I dunno. Its
[00:20:34] ROD: Yeah, exactly. I dunno the specifics of the
[00:20:36] dog. Um, but even the guy who was acting in the videos whose dog it was.
[00:20:40] would
[00:20:40] get it wrong when shown the videos in different orders.
[00:20:44] So that's
[00:20:45] one person. That's only one case, but the suspicion was they got it wrong.
[00:20:50] So
[00:20:51] the bottom line is, unless we're really paying attention,
[00:20:54] We're shit scientists who just take shortcuts and run with assumptions. Shock,
[00:20:57] horror,
[00:20:57] shock. It's like we don't move through the world like [00:21:00] scientists. But also what this really blows my mind about is I've just been recently watching this
[00:21:04] A, B, C series, master Dogs.
[00:21:07] cause it's just
[00:21:07] delightful.
[00:21:09] And the people who know how to train dogs and really read their
[00:21:12] cues, they've always
[00:21:13] blown my mind.
[00:21:14] But
[00:21:14] WILL: no good on that.
[00:21:15] ROD: it's amazing what they do and
[00:21:17] don't see, and they genuinely do because you can
[00:21:19] see, 'cause the way the dogs
[00:21:20] actually
[00:21:20] respond to them,
[00:21:21] it's phenomenal.
[00:21:21] WILL: I was just gonna say, you know, there, there's a, there's a movement in, in all, um, animal ethics. might have been started in, in places where there is a higher ethical, not a higher
[00:21:31] ethical duty, but you know,
[00:21:32] we are, we are more intimate.
[00:21:33] So people doing research
[00:21:34] ROD: dogs, so Denmark obviously, 'cause they're always
[00:21:36] better at everything.
[00:21:37] WILL: I was thinking more like the people doing research with dogs versus
[00:21:40] people. doing
[00:21:40] research with mice.
[00:21:41] Right.
[00:21:41] But still, um, involving consent in
[00:21:44] animal research. And what they're saying is if the dog doesn't want to. Be part of the study.
[00:21:49] You've gotta allow
[00:21:50] them to not be part of the study, you know, we do that with human ethics all the
[00:21:54] time. We do.
[00:21:54] And, and, and it's a little bit weird when you go, okay, how do you, how do you allow an
[00:21:58] ROD: animal?
[00:21:58] So
[00:21:59] rover. [00:22:00]
[00:22:00] WILL: No
[00:22:00] but they are, but they're, they're like, okay, here's the
[00:22:02] study over here and you can go lie down in your bed if you don't
[00:22:04] wanna. if you don't wanna be
[00:22:05] ROD: wanna I have zero problem with the principle. the practice of
[00:22:07] it is demonstrably
[00:22:09] more complicated.
[00:22:10] WILL: Yeah, yeah, But remember
[00:22:12] whinging about this. Someone, someone was like, oh, what if we had an AI translator for your dog's
[00:22:15] emotions? Yeah.
[00:22:16] And, and there's a bit of me that's like, I know what my dog is thinking when, it's tapping on the door and wants to go out and bark at the possum.
[00:22:22] That's what it wants when it's, close to walk time. When
[00:22:24] it's close to feed time. I, I know, but
[00:22:27] they're all contextual, so maybe I'm
[00:22:29] terrible at it.
[00:22:29] ROD: Yeah, and, and look, obviously
[00:22:31] like most science, it needs more, but
[00:22:34] WILL: It's interesting, it's interesting.
[00:22:34] ROD: It's interesting, it's interesting.
[00:22:35] I'm
[00:22:35] curious.
[00:22:37] WILL: so if you
[00:22:38] want to
[00:22:38] commit some crimes,
[00:22:40] ROD: and I do,
[00:22:41] WILL: I've got, uh,
[00:22:42] some, uh, some research for you that, uh, you might want to know about.
[00:22:46] Okay.
[00:22:47] So I'm gonna go from a couple of different
[00:22:49] studies
[00:22:50] here. Mm-hmm.
[00:22:51] Um, and just tell you a few interesting results.
[00:22:54] So modern forensic
[00:22:56] techniques.
[00:22:58] Can, uh,
[00:22:59] ROD: with which [00:23:00] I'm
[00:23:00] very familiar. Yeah,
[00:23:00] WILL: Yeah, I know,
[00:23:01] ROD: I
[00:23:01] know, Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:23:02] WILL: Yeah, They can get DNA from like pretty small
[00:23:05] samples
[00:23:06] ROD: these
[00:23:06] days. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
[00:23:07] WILL: it's
[00:23:07] pretty tiny.
[00:23:09] ROD: blood
[00:23:10] WILL: semen, you know, we've got a, we've got a lot, a lot of that. and that's causing a problem because as these research papers are saying, forensically aware, criminals.
[00:23:19] Can utilize GR gloves and meticulously clean crime scenes to remove DNA traces of themselves from
[00:23:25] contacted
[00:23:26] surfaces. Okay. so forensically aware
[00:23:28] criminals
[00:23:29] cleaning up,
[00:23:30] you
[00:23:30] ROD: know,
[00:23:30] burn burn
[00:23:31] the place
[00:23:31] WILL: Yeah. So our
[00:23:32] forensic friends have said, you know what we can do,
[00:23:35] ah, we
[00:23:36] can do,
[00:23:36] the stuff they can't clean.
[00:23:38] They can do the stuff They
[00:23:39] can't
[00:23:39] clean. Like what
[00:23:40] The air?
[00:23:41] Nope.
[00:23:42] the
[00:23:43] air. So I wanted to
[00:23:45] do,
[00:23:45] ROD: wait, wait, wait, wait. So even after
[00:23:47] someone's gone in, right,
[00:23:48] and they've murdered
[00:23:49] the
[00:23:49] parent,
[00:23:50] WILL: you've breathed, bathed
[00:23:51] ROD: in the fridge
[00:23:52] WILL: and
[00:23:52] you've breathed in a space
[00:23:54] ROD: they scrubbed everything clean and there's exit mold and bleach and everything.
[00:23:57] And yet the air still betrays them [00:24:00] serious.
[00:24:02] WILL: well, well, well, I'll tell you if
[00:24:04] you
[00:24:04] wanna commit some crimes. a
[00:24:05] ROD: could just be curious without being a criminal.
[00:24:07] WILL: No, indeed. A
[00:24:08] few results here. So number
[00:24:11] one, results of this
[00:24:13] pilot study show that human DNA
[00:24:15] can be
[00:24:15] collected on air conditioner units, surfaces, and
[00:24:18] ROD: from No,
[00:24:19] WILL: So
[00:24:20] ROD: can, it gets Sucked into the filter
[00:24:21] and
[00:24:21] it
[00:24:21] gets sucked. No. so
[00:24:23] just,
[00:24:23] WILL: and, and breathing
[00:24:24] can come out of your
[00:24:25] air conditioner
[00:24:26] ROD: So the only way to commit a crime is to hold your
[00:24:28] WILL: your breath.
[00:24:29] ROD: We're a plastic
[00:24:30] WILL: Wait, no. I've gotta a way to commit,
[00:24:31] a crime in a second.
[00:24:32] ROD: Wow.
[00:24:33] WILL: Air samples
[00:24:34] representing the more recent occupation while air conditioner
[00:24:37] units show the historic
[00:24:38] use of the room.
[00:24:39] So you go in there and You
[00:24:41] swipe the air. you don't swipe the
[00:24:42] air.
[00:24:43] There's a,
[00:24:43] ROD: machine. well, you run around with a cotton bud
[00:24:44] going,
[00:24:46] WILL: uh, but it gives you more.
[00:24:47] but but the air conditioner, that'll give you like a
[00:24:49] history
[00:24:49] ROD: It will gross as fuck.
[00:24:51] But yes.
[00:24:52] WILL: Another study.
[00:24:53] This
[00:24:53] study showed that human DNA can be collected from air in sufficient amounts to yield full
[00:24:58] genotypes.
[00:24:59] Jesus [00:25:00]
[00:25:01] ROD: Christ.
[00:25:03] This,
[00:25:04] WILL: suggesting that the potential use of aerosol DNA as a novel investigative tool for forensic applications. Now, the key thing of that study is they were in an office building and in fact they went into a forensic lab, which was quite clean, and they said.
[00:25:19] Fellas, we gotta, fellas and girls, we gotta be a little bit careful because us breathing
[00:25:23] is putting DNA into the
[00:25:25] air here.
[00:25:26] ROD: And
[00:25:26] I thought you meant when you said it was in an office environment. It's like, now we, if you're gonna steal a stapler, you've gotta be really,
[00:25:30] cautious these days.
[00:25:32] WILL: But here we go. If you do want to commit some crimes, I do have some positive
[00:25:36] news for you. This is via our friends
[00:25:38] from, Uh, Let's say I, I don't know the exact lap, but it's
[00:25:41] Forensic Victoria and forensic South
[00:25:43] Australia.
[00:25:44] Um, Big,
[00:25:45] big fans plus a couple of unis down, down near there.
[00:25:48] Yeah. Results of their
[00:25:49] ROD: study
[00:25:49] mm-hmm.
[00:25:50] WILL: Demonstrates yes, car seats can be valuable. DNA
[00:25:53] sources,
[00:25:54] ROD: um, yeah, they
[00:25:55] WILL: people breathe on the steering
[00:25:56] whales, but the air sampling in cars.[00:26:00]
[00:26:00] ROD: From the pollen filters
[00:26:01] WILL: did not
[00:26:01] produce informative
[00:26:03] ROD: from the car.
[00:26:04] WILL: you can't, can't get an air sample. You can't, you can't
[00:26:06] just swipe the air
[00:26:07] ROD: Always crime in a
[00:26:08] car.
[00:26:09] WILL: in the car.
[00:26:10] I just gotta say though, like I'm just like,
[00:26:12] I'm
[00:26:13] air air
[00:26:17] ROD: That is insane.
[00:26:19] WILL: You know, it's wild. It's so wild. I mean,
[00:26:22] I don't know. I don't know if any of these, these papers
[00:26:24] are all 23, 20 23,
[00:26:26] 20
[00:26:27] ROD: So we're way beyond that
[00:26:28] now.
[00:26:28] Okay.
[00:26:29] WILL: Uh, no, these
[00:26:30] ROD: are,
[00:26:30] they're right.
[00:26:30] WILL: They are, they're happening right now. So I don't know if any of this has been
[00:26:34] taken to court, like, and, and, and,
[00:26:36] fully.
[00:26:37] Gone through
[00:26:38] the.
[00:26:38] But the idea of , we,, wow, we know you are in this space. Even if you were meticulous, you got gloves,, you're like, you track suited up, you got the
[00:26:45] mask on.
[00:26:46] But, um,
[00:26:49] this,
[00:26:49] this,
[00:26:49] ROD: this,
[00:26:50] so
[00:26:50] this kind of, this comes back to my
[00:26:52] complaint about Gatica.
[00:26:54] Yes.
[00:26:54] The movie.
[00:26:55] WILL: Yes.
[00:26:56] ROD: For
[00:26:56] those of you who dunno, it's a movie [00:27:00] and
[00:27:00] DNA matters.
[00:27:03] But the scene, where is it? Matt Damon.
[00:27:05] WILL: is he the
[00:27:06] No, no, no, no. it's the
[00:27:07] ROD: other
[00:27:07] guy, the other Jude
[00:27:08] WILL: Law?
[00:27:08] no.
[00:27:08] no, no, no.
[00:27:09] No, no, no,
[00:27:10] ROD: Keith Wesley.
[00:27:11] WILL: No. Well, no, actually, I only know one of the actors. Like, like I, I think there's actually two guys in it. It might be Jude Law
[00:27:17] and it might
[00:27:18] be, um,
[00:27:19] ROD: Who's the guy? the guy?
[00:27:20] WILL: No, it's uh, uh, no,
[00:27:22] you know, he is like a
[00:27:24] ROD: the poor man's Matt Damon.
[00:27:25] Poor Russell Crow.
[00:27:27] WILL: I've got his
[00:27:28] face in
[00:27:28] my head. He's not
[00:27:29] Willam Defoe.
[00:27:30] He's like, he's like
[00:27:31] a version of Willam Defoe.
[00:27:32] Ethan Hawke.
[00:27:33] Ethan
[00:27:33] Hawke. There you go. Oh look, dude, we went through a celebrity
[00:27:36] marriage
[00:27:36] ROD: got there. We got there.
[00:27:38] But in that movie, when he's scrubbing himself, 'cause they're, they're clearly very advanced in detecting DNA and he's kind of faking, pretending to be this other person and he's scrubbing
[00:27:49] himself with brushes and he's washing carefully and all this sort of stuff.
[00:27:52] And I thought, if you are that good at DNA detection in this society, that's
[00:27:55] horseshit.
[00:27:56] WILL: you cannot enough. Yeah, That is
[00:27:57] ROD: absolutely
[00:27:58] WILL: horses. You, you, I
[00:27:58] mean like that, like that, that is [00:28:00] a. That is a non if, if you are
[00:28:02] able to detect
[00:28:03] DNA, that sort of, there's
[00:28:05] nothing you do about that. Absolutely. And so, I mean,
[00:28:07] ROD: I guess I was already annoyed by gatica by that.
[00:28:09] Then this has made me more
[00:28:10] WILL: your whole
[00:28:10] life. Is the, is
[00:28:12] like that's
[00:28:12] ROD: well
[00:28:12] most of us
[00:28:13] do that.
[00:28:13] WILL: that. But you might
[00:28:14] be
[00:28:14] suspicious for
[00:28:15] other reasons why,
[00:28:16] but yeah, you just, you just, can't
[00:28:18] ROD: you make it outta denim so it looks
[00:28:19] normal.
[00:28:21] WILL: Deni hazmat
[00:28:22] suit. I want one.
[00:28:25] ROD: one. I'll
[00:28:25] get you one.
[00:28:26] WILL: I feel I feel like Britney
[00:28:28] Spears and
[00:28:30] she wore one in the
[00:28:31] nineties. Denim
[00:28:32] hazmat.
[00:28:33] ROD: Yeah, but it was only protecting her button. her
[00:28:35] WILL: was, yeah, I
[00:28:39] ROD: a quick
[00:28:39] complaint. It's false
[00:28:40] advertising.
[00:28:41] Oh.
[00:28:42] From our very good friends or my very good friends at New Scientists Daily,
[00:28:46] they sent out a newsletter on the 31st of
[00:28:48] October,
[00:28:50] and
[00:28:50] here's the headline, dinosaur Dingdong.
[00:28:52] WILL: dong. But I I, I can believe while you are
[00:28:55] like finally
[00:28:56] like,
[00:28:56] like this is
[00:28:57] This is
[00:28:57] the, this, this will be great podcast [00:29:00] material. Or you
[00:29:00] are like, finally
[00:29:02] the wishes that I had as a
[00:29:04] schoolboy to see a
[00:29:06] ROD: And by
[00:29:06] schoolboy you mean Recently
[00:29:09] I was
[00:29:09] like, really new scientist. Yay for you. And you've put a headline, dinosaur dingdong. And I
[00:29:14] thought I'd fricking love you guys. you
[00:29:15] guys rock.
[00:29:16] WILL: thank you for coming with
[00:29:17] Dingdong.
[00:29:17] ROD: Exactly. '
[00:29:18] So I
[00:29:19] started reading the little snippet from the, uh, newsletter
[00:29:23] Dinosaur Fossil
[00:29:24] thought to be a juvenile tyrannosaurus Rex is in fact a fully grown carnivore of a different species.
[00:29:29] I'm
[00:29:29] like.
[00:29:30] Keep going. Let's
[00:29:31] get to the
[00:29:31] dick.
[00:29:33] According to
[00:29:33] researchers. exactly. The abstract goes on according to researchers who believe they finally settled the long running in fierce debate in paleontology.
[00:29:45] So this is, there's been a brawl since the 1940s over whether this particular fossil is
[00:29:51] a tyrannosaurs baby or a different kind
[00:29:53] WILL: of Oh,
[00:29:54] okay.
[00:29:54] Dinosaur.
[00:29:55] Yeah,
[00:29:55] sure.
[00:29:56] ROD: And it turns out
[00:29:57] it's just been settled. Finally since the [00:30:00] 1940s that it's a different kind of dinosaur. And I'm like,
[00:30:02] WILL: good on
[00:30:02] them.
[00:30:03] ROD: that. Tell me about the ding
[00:30:04] WILL: dong.
[00:30:07] ROD: Like
[00:30:07] the headline says Dinosaur dingdong.
[00:30:09] Tell me about the
[00:30:10] dingdong. Like, do they have bones in it? How could it be fossilized?
[00:30:13] And it turns out what they meant by dingdong
[00:30:14] WILL: was,
[00:30:15] well, some, some ding dongs do have
[00:30:16] bones,
[00:30:17] ROD: like
[00:30:17] whales.
[00:30:18] WILL: I don't
[00:30:19] know. But I'm just saying that it ocelots.
[00:30:22] ROD: So it's not about the d the dingdong refers
[00:30:24] to our very, uh, prim British friends, the brawl over, whether it was the Tyrannosaurus or
[00:30:29] WILL: not,
[00:30:31] ROD: not so the Dingdong.
[00:30:32] As an asto,
[00:30:33] WILL: I am, uh,
[00:30:35] disappointed
[00:30:36] very
[00:30:37] ROD: ditto, and like, look, I'll be, I'm an
[00:30:39] Australian, right? So root means
[00:30:41] sex and dingdong means
[00:30:44] Penis,
[00:30:45] But it did
[00:30:46] not. Here I've been lied to.
[00:30:47] I'm very
[00:30:48] WILL: But you can't use it in
[00:30:49] a headline. No,
[00:30:49] you should check
[00:30:50] ROD: that.
[00:30:50] Yeah.
[00:30:50] Dinosaur ding-dong means we've got a
[00:30:52] fossilized
[00:30:52] WILL: dick. Finally. Yeah.
[00:30:53] Finally, the thing that not many people, I, I actually think,
[00:30:57] um, lied to.
[00:30:57] I suspect they are
[00:30:59] klaw, [00:31:00] aker bearing creatures.
[00:31:01] Um,
[00:31:02] ROD: the ones with
[00:31:02] ding-dongs.
[00:31:03] WILL: No, they wouldn't be. I mean
[00:31:04] by by definition, if they had
[00:31:06] ding-dongs, they would be dingdong
[00:31:08] bearing creatures. But
[00:31:09] maybe both. I think, I
[00:31:10] think, latest studies suggest that they are more of the
[00:31:13] cloaker
[00:31:14] ROD: a A tad
[00:31:15] birdish.
[00:31:15] WILL: Yeah, it tad burish.
[00:31:17] Unsurprisingly,
[00:31:17] ROD: we have one
[00:31:18] aura for, for all things
[00:31:21] at the lower parts.
[00:31:22] WILL: new scientist, uh,
[00:31:24] pick up. Lift your game, lift
[00:31:25] your game, and use
[00:31:25] some colloquialisms that
[00:31:27] the world
[00:31:27] appreciates.
[00:31:28] Not
[00:31:28] ROD: just,
[00:31:29] and by the
[00:31:29] world we mean us in Australia. Because seriously, if you're gonna say, ding-dong, give me my penis
[00:31:33] story.
[00:31:36] WILL: Well, uh,
[00:31:37] that is your little
[00:31:38] bit of science. Yep.
[00:31:38] take with it what you will,
[00:31:40] ROD: share it with people. Tell everyone that they should listen because
[00:31:42] they should.
[00:31:43] WILL: Yeah. They, they
[00:31:44] should
[00:31:44] ROD: give us the 19 star
[00:31:45] WILL: you have a fossilized dinosaur dingdong,
[00:31:48] ROD: um, email us at
[00:31:49] WILL: our email Cheers at
[00:31:51] a little bit of science.com
[00:31:54] au and thank
[00:31:54] you. Yeah. Thank you Laura.
[00:31:57] ROD: Thank
[00:31:57] WILL: writing back to us. I'm sorry it took
[00:31:58] us so long to get back [00:32:00] to the place where you listen.
[00:32:01] But here we are again.
[00:32:02] Um, Our friend from the US
[00:32:04] Yeah, well, no, one of our many, one of
[00:32:07] our many.
[00:32:07] ROD: This
[00:32:08] particular friend from the US
[00:32:09] WILL: Yeah, exactly.
[00:32:10] ROD: stands out amongst the millions.
[00:32:12] WILL: Yeah, so,
[00:32:12] so write us an email and
[00:32:13] tell us
[00:32:13] some cool
[00:32:14] stuff.
[00:32:14] ROD: Tell us you love us. Tell everyone you love us, and then we will be able to live off
[00:32:18] this for at least a minute or two.
[00:32:19]
