I read the brief overview of the book that you signposted, but didn't hear the broadcast. I'm afraid that my incomprehension of the ideas referred to, is as profound as some of those theories seem to be. Or not to be.
What I'd like to know is this, from anyone who has read the book. Could an historian who has read a lot of 'popular science' but has no other scientific background, make sense of it? If so, I'll give it a go.
Daughter not allowed to know new baby’s name until she visits him


. (Failed physics O level 3 times but did go on to get a science degree - I thinks there's science and then there's physics!)