Shawn Ryan

But like ideally, like it's a bad framework if it can't like in principle encompass the things that we do have the intuition for in the book.

This is way over my head.

But it's way over everybody's.

I mean, that's the thing.

It's just like, you know, like, I think that I, especially when this hype happened when I was younger, I was very much like, I'm going to go and read a bunch of textbooks because I want to be able to like answer good questions or like, you know, know how to tell the flat earthers why they're wrong or like, you're representing science somehow in a funny way.

And it's just like, ah,

Like you need a much better working memory for that.

Or I don't know.

I think the thing is that, you know, you don't need it.

Like in our job, you can do this kind of like you're diving in and you're doing a computation.

And then sometimes you lose sight of the breadth of it.

But I also think that now it's a fun time where you can kind of take a step back and see if there are things where, you know, the resource limitations or just the way that physics is done doesn't need to be that way because like now, you know, one researcher doesn't need to hire a whole team of like

data scientists to treat the corpus as a data set and do something with it.

Like there's a lot of power to having like funny eye tools and like you get to just basically play around with doing things that you never would want to do normally as a good researcher because that wouldn't help you with your career.

Yeah, but in a weird lawyer sense, not like in the way, you know,

No, I think what we're saying is like all these objects that you're thinking in the bulk and like there would be some state on the boundary theory that's equivalent to it in these types of holographic setups.

I don't want to say that I understand flat space holography to the level where like I'm confident in that, but in ADS-CFT context, their dictionaries are like, yep, like this massive state is this other operator in the CFT type of- Potentially, everything we see in space could be a hologram.

Basically, the whole point is that there's two equivalent theories.

The thing that you have in the bulk, you want to add in the boundary theory.

Can you formulate a theory that lives one dimension lower?