Shawn Ryan

And if it were true, then the two things are equivalent, not that like, so like if A equals B, I'm not saying everything is B, I'm saying everything that is A is B, right?

So I'm more like saying there's equivalent set of things.

Like you can imagine a world where maybe I,

I don't know, try to project everything down to the earth and then talk about some rules for how those things interact.

And it was more convenient to talk about the extra dimension.

I don't know, like, but like you're not trying to lose content that way.

Certainly it's not supposed to lose anything.

But it is neat to think, okay, like if everything is described in terms of boundary observables, then it does kind of call into question which questions are well-defined in the book, for example.

I think that's it.

But again, there's a lot of people where you could probably motivate their research as inspired by.

And the question is like, I'll go on.

So it's funny, these things go in and out of fashion.

I think I've heard from some postdocs now that it's not cool anymore on your grant applications to be talking about quantum gravity.

But I still think that's why we go into, we don't go into the field because, there's two maybe reasons why people go into the field.

I think some people genuinely like paradoxes, and it always bothered me because it's just like any paradox where someone actually had the answer in the end, you just defined it wrong.

So I went into physics because I liked that I didn't have to learn as much.

I mean, the sense of I don't have to have an excellent working memory, nominally, if the laws of physics are simpler to then figure out what the rules are.

The rules are simpler than the solutions.

So I like physics for that.

That doesn't necessarily bode well when you have a very complicated corpus of things and so on.