But

Lee, aren't you guys still now with things like the RNA world, which we have to discuss? I mean, isn't it just Redux, this, you know, Redux reaction now, what was the Miller-Urey amino acid now? Oh, now we know the secret is RNA. So I would say

within every field, so I'm going to try and do this as delicately as possible, with every field, you have a field that gets stuck and they are, and the origin of life chemists are really interested in commentary or chemistry, the easiest route to x, y and z. And then they're and they see a series of smoking guns. And the thing is, I'm sure that Brian I readily agree that RNA is not the answer to the origin of life. But I think I have an understanding of the underlying theoretical framework. And that's what I'm going to push Brian on in just one moment. So life has little to do with the actual specific molecules. It's a bit like saying, I can only make a motor car. That's, you know, I don't know, let's take a BMW, I discover a BMW, or that I discover a Tesla, right? The, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, let's say there's the origin of automobiles on planet out there. And it's, you know, there's no space for tests. That's just BMW or there's no space for BMW is just Tesla. There's only one way of doing it. Or Kurt Lamborghini or Kurt Lamborghini. My son is into Ferrari. It's like, that is like Ferrari all the way. Getting the midlife crisis at age 10.

episode is brought to you by Microsoft Azure. Turn your ideas into reality with an Azure free account. Get everything you need to develop apps across cloud and hybrid environments, scale workloads, create cloud connected mobile experiences and so much more. Discover what you can create with popular services free for 12 months. Learn more at Azure.com. That's A-Z and sign up for a free account to start building in the cloud today. There's

not one way of solving that chemical problem and what I'm here to reassure Brian on is like, whoa, chemistry is special. Like it's not. The problem that chemists have is that they are playing around in the mess in the middle. So here, let me just frame the whole discipline. My ambition in my lifetime is not only to get to solve the origin of life and make artificial life and find aliens, those three things are needed, I think, together, because not one of them is going to be acceptable, I think. And also, as the alien discussion is going in our popular culture right now, and this is something that Sarah Walker has pointed out to me many times, it's really interesting that people are excited about aliens. And I kind of disagree with Brian a little bit. He says, oh, if people just get to find an alien life form, they won't care. They will, but it needs to be framed properly because people want to know, they want meaning. So going back to this origin of life, and is it wrong? Well, physicists deal with low memory systems, right? That's why we call them low memory systems. Physicists themselves are very high memory individuals, right? They have to be good at mathematics and modeling and so on. Low memory systems. That means that a few equations can broadly show you how things work. Not precisely. Then you go into chemistry, and chemistry is a bit messier. There's lots more compounds in Maine, more common to explosion, but again, chemists, alchemists, whatever, we can make new materials, molecules, and so on. Then you get to biology, and that's a medium memory. When you get to biology, you have all this contingency and evolution, Cambrian explosion, there are legs popping up everywhere, eyes everywhere, things calm down. You get to where we are on earth with dinosaurs, a chance of it comes, a dinosaur goes extinct, mammals run around and suddenly we have human beings building, and YouTube and whatever. And I think that the memory in those increases dramatically. We can't even conceive. Because physics has not, and we say it's all physics fault, right? I'm in defense of the chemist, physics doesn't understand entropy. It's wrong. The definition of entropy is wrong. Sadly, but this is huge.