Connect your Claude, Codex or OpenClaw for full transcripts on millions of podcasts. Two week free trial, cancel anytime.

CR Carlo Rovelli On Within Reason

“Physics is badly overrated. There's this idea. Oh, we figure out the fundamental equation of the universe. We have figured out the universe. It's bullshit. We haven't figured out anything. It's like, oh, if I learn the basic rule of chess, I figure out playing chess. No, you haven't at all.”

Within Reason · Ideas & Essays · October 2026

“Physics is badly overrated. There's this idea. Oh, we figure out the fundamental equation of the universe. We have figured out the universe. It's bullshit. We haven't figured out anything. It's like, oh, if I learn the basic rule of chess, I figure out playing chess. No, you haven't at all.” — Carlo Rovelli, Within Reason

The physicist is arguing against the idea that particle physics is the level of reality everything else rests on. His example: a Nobel-winning particle physicist can't fix his bicycle, but the mechanic downstairs can. Knowing the basic rules, he says, is not knowing the world.

Transcript

Within Reason Around 57:34 into the episode
Carlo Rovelli

…of a chair or there's only the way it behaves and affects us? I don't want you to answer that because you know Hume, you know various. I want to tell me what is the difference between this question asked for a chair and this question asked from an electron. I never understood the difference.

Alex O'Connor

…of all the atoms, then I kind of know the position of the chair, for example, right? And in a way that doesn't go the other way. I can know that the chair is there, but I can't know what all of its atoms are doing. But if I know what all of its atoms are doing, I know what the chair is. Yeah,

Carlo Rovelli

this is what you said at the beginning. You introduced by saying this, this is a sort of fundamental basic. Well, I would respond to that by saying that this idea that the physical level, it's a fundamental level on which everything else sort of supervenes, to use the physical word. How should I put it? It's not actually wrong, but it's a silly thing to say. In the following sense, that's my preferred way of putting it. Suppose you and I want to learn playing chess. Okay. Now, chess is based on some basic rules. The king moves one step, the queen marice, and so on. Once you have these rules, all possible chess games are fixed. All possible probabilities of which movies better, which move is worse are fixed. There's nothing else to say about chess. Okay. So why there are books and books about chess? Everything is in the rules. There's nothing else relevant about chess and that. Well, that's obviously a stupid thing to say, right? Because I could learn very well the basic moves of chess. I can be capable of telling them, I mean, a seven-year-old kid can do that. And yet be a…

Alex O'Connor

Not the perspective.

Carlo Rovelli

Not the perspective.

Alex O'Connor

Yeah. Do you think it's

Speaker names from our own diarization · position estimated from where the line sits in the episode

More from Within Reason