ToKCast (Brett Hall)

Here we explore the distinction between classical notions of time (including spacetime physics) as approximations to how time is understood in the multiverse. How perfectly deterministic laws lead to subjective unpredictability. Consequences for free will, questions about what happened before time began (or after it ends), new discoveries since the publication of The Fabric of Reality was published in 1997 and David's subtle alterations to phrasing between The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity (in particular with reference to identical vs fungible and how tossing "fair" coins in our universe isn't 50/50 heads and tails. If you would like to discuss any of the content in this video with me at length, sign up to Airchat at https://www.air.chat where I am active daily answering people's questions and engaging with those interested in the work of David Deutsch and associated thinkers and ideas explored in his work, wider physics, philosophy and everything.

This is the third in a 3 part series devoted to Chapter 15 of "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch. All about "The Evolution of Culture", in this part we are looking at the conditions under which a dynamic society can gradually evolve and persist. Importantly we distinguish between rational and anti-rational (not merely irrational) memes.

Just a bit of fun more than anything else. A quick response (despite the length of the podcast!) to the pessimism, despair and implied authoritarianism found in an "article" on the Guardian penned by the academics at Monash University in Australia. The article may or may not survive, who knows? So at my Substack here https://bretthall.substack.com/p/the-planetary-health-authority?sd=nfs&s=w#details

the article has been cut and pasted by me as an image. But the original article as of today is here: https://www.theguardian.com/monash-university-the-endangered-generation/2022/may/17/wake-up-call-are-we-really-endangering-the-next-generation

In this question we discuss Stephen Hawking's claim that people are "chemical scum" on a typical planet orbiting a typical star in a typical galaxy and so on. How suitable is our planet for life, actually? How suitable is it for people in particular?

This is the complete and unabridged discussion I had with David Deutsch largely about "The Beginning of Infinity". It contains all my "Questions for David" - which were published separately - AND much more content too.

00:00 Introduction

12:51 Why aren’t testable theories enough?

14:37 Predictions vs Explanations

18:33 Verisimilitude

23:54 Are people a “chemical scum”?

25:43 The Earth is uniquely suited to life?

30:22 What does “provable” mean?

33:44 Undecidability

37:45 Classifying abstractions

41:29 The nature of physical laws.

47:06 Direct Observation

50:29 The nature of mind

55:40 The Supernatural

59:52 Epistemology and Morality

01:02:00 The physical limitations of knowledge?

01:09:24 Some history of quantum computation

01:16:44 Tic Tacs, UFOs and aliens

01:19:01 Dark Energy

Support the podcast by following the links to Patreon or Paypal here: www.bretthall.org

This is the first episode in a new series devoted to an entirely new book: “The Science of Can and Can’t” by Chiara Marletto. Get the book anywhere ebooks are available (as of May, 2021) and learn more about Chiara and her work here: https://www.chiaramarletto.com​

This book is an amazing work. It presents for the lay reader an introduction to “Constructor Theory” without losing any scientific or philosophical rigour. In this first episode, I explain the motivation for Constructor Theory as a departure from the traditional conception of physics as being about “dynamical laws”. For the first time in science, Constructor Theory attempts to provide a way of creating physical theories about counterfactuals. We go some way to exploring what a counterfactual is and at this early stage of the series outline a sketch of where the constructor theory approach may be found useful. This episode constitutes the first part of chapter 1. It covers some of the philosophy of counterfactuals and the application of constructor theory to epistemology. Discussion of the physics will be left to episode 2.

Julian Barbour is an independent British Physicist and the author of technical and popular books including the best selling "The End of Time" and most recently "The Janus Point: A New Theory of Time". In this lecture, Julian shows just how interesting Newtonian Mechanics can get. Can it be a fundamental theory of space, time and physical reality? This is a tour de force of the history of ideas in physics by an iconoclastic scientists working at the deepest foundations of his subject.

The video version of this lecture can be found at https://youtu.be/VzZbjL_Jvwk which may be helpful. 

This is not a regular ToKCast episode - it is highly technical in places. We will return to regular programming for episode 225 when we will have passed 1 million downloads. Thankyou to all fans! If you would like to support ToKCast, go to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/c/tokcast or paypal via https://www.paypal.com/donate?token=qyzc2PwQaXf2XNAZS8g5Ke9eRfYfUs73xlBzXNfM8Bnjdm__ETUCyw86HKQ9wd1jBQ4zVKLsW0uRmB53

An outside broadcast as you will hear. Image generation and virtual reality provide a window on the physics of time travel. Why is that? And what about all those time travel paradoxes? The resolution to all is found herein.

Yes, the AMA will be delayed until episode 103 because of some wonderful remarks made by Joe Rogan that resonated so well with some of what I like to say about the multiverse, our place in it, and what we come to understand about it and how. 

Credit to the Joe Rogan Experience #1746 with Blaire White where Joe explains his understanding of our ability to experience reality. I compare this to what we understand from physics and our best understanding of the philosophy of science. Music in order of tracks is: Ketsa - Rewinding Time (First half of video) Ketsa - Heart Science (Second half of video). Both tracks available at https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa#contact-artist

Very brief readings from and lengthy reflections upon David Deutsch's paper "The Philosophy of Constructor Theory" published here https://link.springer.com/article/10.... and available in full here: https://www.constructortheory.org/por... #physics #knowledge #philosophy #epistemology #daviddeutsch #science

Also available on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMCx2Com7LU

Discuss this or any episode of ToKCast on ToKChat: a channel on "Airchat" available here for download for iPhone and Android: https://www.getairchat.com/

ToKChat is here: https://www.getairchat.com/bretthall/tokchat

Timestamps/chapters:

00:00 Introduction

00:45 Predictions are not always possible

01:27 The Unpredictable

02:33 The Content of Future Theories

03:36 Better Theories Better Explain What Exists

04:31 The Principle of Testability

04:58 The Negation of an Explanation is Not an Explanation

06:04 Knowledge is the most significant entity in the universe

06:33 The Most Important Kind of Abstract Constructor Is Knowledge (Part 1)

07:22 The Most Important Kind of Abstract Constructor Is Knowledge (Part 2)

07:44 Physics is almost entirely the study of the effects of knowledge

08:40 Knowledge is not primarily about the content of minds

09:20 People are more significant than any religion realises

10:15 Wealth = Knowledge + Resources

11:15 Ultimately, Knowledge is the Only Scarce Resource

12:05 Knowledge determines which physical transformations happen

13:17 Knowledge is Information with Causal Power

14:13 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 1)

15:11 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 2)

16:01 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 3)

16:12 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 4)

17:01 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 5)

17:44 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 6)

18:34 Knowledge is Substrate Independent (Part 7)

19:35 The Role of Emotion in Objective Knowledge Creation

20:31 On Why People are Unique

21:16 Humans Routinely Defy Their Instincts

22:13 People are Universal Explainers

23:16 Human Brains obey the Laws of Physics

23:57 Many “Rationalists” Endorse the Supernatural

24:32 Good Explanations and Decision Making

25:33 Inexplicit Knowledge and Misconceptions

26:38 Quaila: We have them. We cannot describe them

27:42 Intuitions are conjectures

28:51 Either you have a Good Explanation or you don’t

29:45 Vibes can be an indication to investigate further

30:43 Knowledge is not just a “decision engine”

31:31 Obsession with guessing the future is irrational

32:15 A “simulation” of a mind is a mind.

33:08 We cannot predict the output of a creative entity

34:04 Knowledge Rekindles Light When Other Lights Go Out.

The video I am responding to is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6vY... which is on the @Mercatus Center channel with Tyler Cowen. The original is well worth watching in its entirety. My response does not do it justice and is just intended as a supplement for those who have watched the whole thing and might have some questions at the end about various parts. I’m not pretending to speak for David - I’m just giving my own perspective given my understanding of what I’ve read in, for example, “The Beginning of Infinity”. Tyler Cowen does a fantastic job here of questioning David and articulating what are some of the frequently heard objections about this world view. It is, for example, common to hear something between a denigration to a downplaying of the importance of Popper especially among academic types. David provides an excellent explanation of Popper and I have a few things to say about that myself.

This is additional material about Chapter 6 of "The Beginning of Infinity" - but goes into some additional areas. I compare Greek Gods to Blockchain (in a sense). I think "The Jump to Universality" is a particularly poorly understood chapter. I hope this inspires many to go back and re-read that part of the book. Again. And again.

Part 2: Time is in the instant. The instant is not in time. More on the quantum theory of time and how the "spacetime" view of time, and the flow of time are false. How time relates to the "block universe" model and how the multiverse fixes the paradoxes at the heart of our common sense (and classical physics) ideas about time - more readings from "The Fabric of Reality" chapter 11 and in addition:

A couple of acrostics about David Deutsch in terms of "Popper".

David's changing view of free will.

Readings on "free will" from "A Science of Can and Can't" by Chiara Marletto.

A summary of a paper by Marletto and Vedral on the "Page and Wooters" construction.

Brief remarks on Marietto's "Constructor Theory of Thermodynamics"

Kuyper's thesis "Developments in Unitary Quantum Theory"

The paradoxes involved in trying to picture time using diagrams.

Machian Dynamics (Ernst Mach's idea about absolute space and time being false and instead how the universe has dynamics of its own).

The Schrödinger vs Heisenberg Pictures

The Kuypers and Deutsch paper on "Everettian Relative States in the Heisenberg picture"

"And other topics" as Sam Harris says. Reference: Mentions of Sam Kuypers paper on "q number time" throughout: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2021.0970

The 50th episode! This is the third part (given there was a part 0, introduction) referring to chapter 16 of "The Beginning of Infinity" with substantive readings. We get into how memes evolved in non-human animals and then how these memes, and genes at some point allowed for a jump to universality. Specifically the universality of explanatory knowledge - which is a quality of a special kind of software - that which runs on our brains, or otherwise known as "a person's mind".

Yes, that's plural. Multiverses. I have spoken many times before on this podcast about "the multiverse". Indeed it is a central theme of ToKCast and a thread running through both the Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity. But here we discuss other kinds of multiverse - Max Tegmark's 4 species of multiverse. To what extent do they count as science? Are they testable? Does that matter? I found this one a lot of fun.

As an alternative to Max Tegmark's work on all this, the lesser known but perhaps more specialised Luke Barnes (@lukebarnesastro on Twitter) focusses on Fine Tuning in cosmology. His website https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/luke/ is prolific when it comes to this issue and he takes on the problem from a vast array of perspectives. 

This is Sabine Hossenfelder & Luke Barnes debating "The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM

And this is him "against" Sean Carroll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJEWg1ifUCg These discussions with Luke (a relative unknown) up against "celebrity" physicists can be really interesting for a couple of reasons sociologically. Luke's no-nonsense Aussie attitude against a continental European in the first instance and an American in the second instance is just worth noticing for the subtle cultural differences (very subtle perhaps!) and also because Luke, as I say, is highly specialised on this particular problem of fine tuning of the laws of physics. Sabine and Sean understand the basics of this - but it's not their day to day work. It is Luke's and so that difference is telling at times. Finally here is Luke's discussion with Robert Kuhn of "Closer to Truth" - what I said is my favourite Youtube channel (where you can also find discussions with David Deutsch, Jaron Lanier, Paul Davies and well, almost anyone who's anyone in physics/science/cosmology/philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY7Ck1y1fx4

Also see his page on the Closer to Truth website which has his background and links to lots of his videos: https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/luke-barnes/profile Luke may be an Aussie, but I don't actually know him personally - I just happen to think he is a particularly cogent voice on these issues!

This is part 1 of part 4 (if you take my meaning) of my "Things that make you go mmmmm?" series. It's called "Minds" and when recording I was unable to anticipate how long it would go for - so I've needed to split it into 2 parts. This is the first. 

I discuss what a mind might be, and what intelligence could be thought of as. What, then, is super intelligence? What is supernaturalism? What is creativity? What is the moral status of a person? What are the hazards of guessing at the problems our descendants will have? What are the moral dangers of a false epistemology? Is "super intelligent" and "super unintelligent" a strict contradiction? Does Google plan on test driving their self-driving cars? Yes: all this is discussed and more - hopefully in a somewhat fun way. 

Rational and anti-rational memes.

Static and dynamic societies.

Diversity of ideas and individuality.

Credit: "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch

I take another deep dive into a deeply insightful and original lecture by Karl Popper: The Myth of the Framework. In this first part (of 4) I spend most of the episode unpacking our motivations, Popper's own thoughts on his success in combating bad ideologies and the purposes of discussion. Indeed this piece can be considered an instruction manual for discussions: how to have them and why. Below: timestamps for this episode: 00:00 Purpose of this new series 05:41 Woke, DEI and Popper 10:47 Popper in his own words on his “success” 12:23: Marxism and Relativism as “ideas that survive” 19:47 Popper in the modern day 22:30 Frameworks and “echo chambers”. 26:05 Some personal anecdotes and reflections 32:43: Defending an idea is different to explaining one. 35:00 Personal anecdotes. 47:47 Discussions 49:33 Why do we talk to each other? :) 59:13 The Myth of the Framework. Section 1 1:01:04 Commentary Section 1 1:03:33 The Myth of the Framework Section 2 1:04:29 Commentary Section 2 1:06:15 The Myth of the Framework Section 3a 1:07:07 Commentary Section 3a 1:12:12 The Myth of the Framework Section 3b 1:13:40 Commentary Section 3b 1:16:39 Should we “talk” to North Korea? 1:26:12 The West and its enemies 1:28:42 The Myth of the Framework Section 3c 1:29:59 Commentary Section 3c 1:32:25 The Myth of the Framework Section 3d 1:33:24 Closing Reflection

In this “question for David” number 8 we speak about direct observation - “empiricism” and how that was progress over what came before even if it is false. More than anything else this question serves as a “teaser” for the content of question 9: some of David’s views on the nature of mind. Ways to support my work can be found at www.bretthall.org via Patreon or the "Donate" button. Visit https://nav.al and subscribe.

In this podcast we cover realism: the common sense claim that there exists an external reality beyond our own minds that we can come to understand through the tools of science and reason more broadly. We compare this to some of the popular rivals that have cropped up over the years out of academic philosophy including, chiefly, solipsism: the claim that "it's all a dream". We explain how we cannot logically disprove solipsism and we can mount no scientific argument, or bring forth evidence, to show solipsism is false. However we can do something more powerful: we can refute it by philosophical argument. This episode is chiefly about what is real, what exists and how we know.

This is the conclusion of Popper's grand lecture "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". We reach part 13 and move all the way through to part 17 - the conclusion. This is a celebration of Popper's epistemology. He summarises his outlook on how other views are mistaken and what it really takes to generate knowledge. He speaks of his vision as a critical rationalism and a critical empiricism - a form of knowledge creation that corrects the errors in advances made nearer to the beginning of the Enlightenment but also in the mould of some of the ancients like Xenophanes. Popper explains how truth is real and objective and why the idea that anyone can possess the truth causes knowledge to become subjective, rather than objective (in short because anyone claiming to possess the truth is themselves a subject claiming authority over truth). Popper explains in this part of the lecture how we are all equal in our infinite ignorance - and so his philosophy reaches into humanism - a celebration of fallibility and of our capacity to come to understand reality.

This is a podcast in 2 parts. I begin with a 10 minute introduction with some very broad remarks on the year and response to a question from a Patreon. Then the audio from my most recent livestream which went for around 2 hours and covered a wide variety of topics. Enjoy!

I strongly recommend watching this episode on Youtube as it is heavy on the visuals. That video can be found here: https://youtu.be/s3tMRgAHXgw

A version of this podcast/video without the music can be found here:              https://youtu.be/7Ay300_ZjVI           

This is a video/podcast both about the book "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and the July 2022 release of images by NASA from the James Webb Space Telescope. The 5 first images are discussed and the broader implications of "discovery science" for our view of our place in and significance for the cosmos. All music by Ketsa Tracks in order: 00:00 Beauty Calls 03:21 No Space 06:42 Falling Angels 10:17 Physics 13:26 Rewinding Time 16:39 Star Blessed Night 19:45 Night Shadows 23:22 Surroundings

This is the first episode that includes reading from Chapter 11 of "The Beginning of Infinity" about "The Multiverse". It is less edited...and rather more conversational. Compare this to episode 23 and let me know what you prefer. I will take on board comments moving forward. Thank you. As always, donations are welcome at www.brethall.org on the "donate" button. 

The great epistemologist, Peter Boghossian, created a video on Youtube that responded to me, in part. It's to be found in full here: https://youtu.be/5Vf-T8K0_zE?si=T2XkG8h8iNj1ZXGR

This first part is largely a response to Richard Dawkins on his notion of "Middle World" and Michael Shermer's notion we are not evolutionarily capable of understanding anything.

Here I discuss the "mathematician's misconception" from a number of angles: the confusion between mathematical reality - and our knowledge of that mathematical reality. We also discuss why it is mathematics is effective in the natural sciences, like physics and whether and to what extent physics must reduce to mathematics in some ultimate sense. In the discussion between Sam Harris and Max Tegmark here, they are really probing the border between metaphysics and physics.

This is my succinct explanation of "Objective Knowledge" - the concept and not the book of the same name by Karl Popper. However that book of course informs this entire thesis of what Objective Knowledge is. My view of objective knowledge is augmented by more recent advances in epistemology, philosophy and physics by David Deutsch as expressed largely in "The Beginning of Infinity" but also with some reference to "Constructor Theory". I will place more precise time stamps on this episode later but for now there exist roughly 4 parts to this episode:

1. Objectivity vs Subjectivity

2. Objective Knowledge

3. Other ideas about epistemology

4. Conclusions.

This episode not only explains "objective knowledge" from the so-called "Popperian" or "Critical Rationalist" perspective in the 21st century but also serves to refute the dominant other competing epistemological notions. In the order I deal with them using quotations from their own proponents and "primary sources" they are: Bayesian Epistemology (as endorsed by other "rationalists" and as explained in places like www.lesswrong.com) and "Objectivist Epistemology" (as first explained by Ayn Rand and promoted by, among others, the Ayn Rand Institute and self-identified "objectivists"). I show how both of these alternatives views of epistemology are not "objective" in two senses. And those two senses of objective are the criteria for objective and are only met by the Popperian framework.

This is the second part (after a part 0, introduction) referring to chapter 16 of The Beginning of Infinity with more substantive readings. We get into imitation and compare how apes "ape" and parrots "parrot" to what humans are doing when they learn. Meme replication and lyrebirds make an appearance.

Some readings and remarks about David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" Chapter 11 "The Multiverse". This is the 3rd episode in this series. As with some of the others, audio only listeners may miss a few visuals in this one...but they're not absolutely crucial this time around. There is a way to support this endeavor on my website www.bretthall.org where you can click the donate button and contribute one time, or monthly. Thank you :) 

This episode explores the issue of the finiteness of our “natural resources”, taking an optimistic view of our place in the cosmos and hence where we can expect to find resources. We must first explain what a resource is. Is the notion of a "natural resource" an oxymoron? I explain some of that in a Twitter thread here: https://twitter.com/ToKTeacher/status/1473642761676988418?s=20:

I then go on to explain this position in this short podcast.

I expect to be making more podcasts of about this length or shorter in the coming months and years.

I know some would prefer with this style of podcast that I did not have music underneath the speech. It would be possible for me to release both a music and a non-music version. Let me know if this is something that would appeal to you. Either on Twitter @ToKCast or email me at: brett@bretthall.org

Music in order of appearance is:

Dark Sky - Ketsa

Solstice Sighing - Ketsa

Vibration - Ketsa

Boats - Ketsa

Gloomy - Ostin

We know - Ketsa

Dark Sky - Ketsa

This is not a regular ToKCast (about a chapter from "The Beginning of Infinity"). Instead it will serve in part firstly as a stand alone episode about an esoteric piece of epistemology: what is the function of the experiment in the natural sciences? (As explained by David Deutsch in his paper "The Logic of Experimental Tests particularly Everettian Quantum Theory"). I make many remarks - including many new remarks. The final third or so of this episode is largely devoted to a defense of Popper broadly and his criterion of demarcation in particular. 

Secondly this episode is like an "episode 1a" of Chapter 11 "The Multiverse". This episode contains some useful material for anyone interested in "the quantum multiverse" and its testability. Spoiler alert: it's testable, no matter what others say. 

Sources:

You can find David's Paper "The Logic of Experimental Tests" here

My exposition of that paper is here: http://www.bretthall.org/philosophy-of-science.html

You can download a free pdf copy of Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" here 

(it's well and truly out of copyright, so feel no guilt about the download!)

The crucial differences between AGI and regular AI: minds vs the mindless. Is "competency" at completing tasks what makes a system "intelligent". I explain why that is, in a deep sense, the opposite to what intelligence may be - or at least the kind of intelligence that is interesting in the I in AGI.

I recommend the version found here that contains visuals and music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlvgxEBekP4

However the same message will come through on this audio only podcast.

Full Credit for all ideas to:

James (Jim) Pierce

Naval and Nivi

and

David Deutsch

With mistakes all my own

See also James' website (and relevant article) here: https://www.james-pierce.com/writings/effortless-stoicism

His instagram account including the original "Effortless Stoicism" video here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CuuDzL9sKOG/

His Twitter and relevant thread here: https://twitter.com/jimmpierce/status/1190810962493788160?s=20

Naval and Nivi's work on "How to get rich" where you can download their podcast from Naval's website here: https://nav.al/rich

Or the Youtube version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-TZqOsVCNM

See also Akira The Don's outstanding magical version along with other original music featuring Naval here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nX7x9AzwUTaGMFNVAxrLNXUJrKFotQ84Y

And my new favorite Naval/Nivi/Akira song here: https://www.meaningwave.com/blogs/meaningwave/akira-the-don-naval-ravikant-ft-nivi-you-will-need-to-rent-your-time-to-get-started-single

Fear not! ToKCast is not becoming a pure Q&A "show". This is literally a kind of "break" for me that I find easy and I note the listeners find fun. Today's a little shorter and - here's some of the topics covered!

00:00: David Deutsch mentioned on Lex Fridman

04:15: Dennis Noble debates Richard Dawkins on the selfish gene

16:47: The goal driven life and AI

27:51 Self similarity - minds and universes

34:39: The hard problem of consciousness and Popperian epistemology

41:30: Wave particle duality

53:53 The fun criterion - and some reflections on responsibility and “toil”.

1:05:44 - Communication and the difficulty thereof between people

1:07:13 - Roger Penrose and the universality of (quantum) computation (or Taking Theories Seriously…)

1:13:35 Book recommendations.

Audio listeners, please note: This episode contains a lot more visuals than my usual podcasts. As always this can be found on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWZ4GcRd-_8 if you want the full experience. I'm referring to images and so on throughout, or the images are illustrating what I am saying without comment.

In this chapter we counter a number of prevailing views about the arts: the purposes of art and the possibility of objective standards of beauty. This leads to a discussion of the place of inexplicit knowledge when creating in the arts and how the "hard to vary" quality of explanations finds an analogue in the art. All of this discussion comes through the lens of beauty in nature and how flowers evolved to be attractive. But this attractive quality of flowers is not a mere matter of opinion for both insects and people find flowers attractive.

In this, the third part discussing the first chapter of "The Fabric of Reality" we speak more about reductionism. In particular we look at the limitations of the traditional conception of physics and how attempts to make breakthroughs in fundamental physics tend not to rely on a completely new "mode of explanation". We speak about unifications and all of this is very much a prelude - clues here for the taking - of "Constructor Theory". I provide a quick overview of "the relativity of simultaneity" where I am suggesting that the "in principle" claim to be able to have a predictive theory even in physics seems to me to be a dead end. There is genuine creativity in the world - things that cannot be predicted. But even taking the laws of physics as they are seriously, seems to put a boundary on the knowledge we would need in order to make even a reductive prediction. Some more comments on logical positivism, instrumentalism and Wittgenstein. The Nexus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTxBkmr4LE In this video I mention the work of physicist Sam Kuypers. He gives a talk on non-commuting qubits here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0LauOLR70

"Slides" are referred to in this episode. Their absence will not hinder understanding for audio-only listeners - enjoy!

This is a "talk about a talk". Back in 2015 David Deutsch gave a lecture titled "Physics without Probability" which ranged over the history of probability, it's uses and misuses and essentially concluded there was no way in which probability featured in the real world - according to known physics. This is a shocking (for most) conclusion and something many will baulk at. The original talk can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE... and I strongly commend it to all listeners/viewers. Over the years since I have found myself over and again referring to this talk and pointing others to it on the topics of quantum theory or Bayesianism or simply risk assessment.

I do not understand why that talk does not have 10 times the number of viewings. Or 100. It is ground breaking, useful, compelling stuff. It is neither too technical nor too subtle. So this is my attempt to re-sell that talk and provide a slightly different phrasing of what I think is a clear articulation of those important ideas.

People claim to think in terms of probabilities. Physicists speak in terms of probabilities. Philosophers and those who endorse Bayesianism speak in terms of probabilities. How can we do away with it? As an instrument probability might work well. But then so can assuming that your local land is flat even though we know that - strictly - the Earth is curved. Does this matter? If you care about reality and explaining it and hence genuine rationality then you should. Especially when it comes to risk assessment. Towards the end of the podcast I go beyond David's talk into my own musings about various topics - including the notion of risk which has been a request on ToKCast. As always errors herein are my own. If you enjoy this podcast, consider supporting me on Patreon or Paypal. The links for donating can be found on the landing page right here: https://www.bretthall.org

Here I present a "positive vision" of the kind I complained was absent in the episode right before this ("Criticism is never enough"). Here I am riffing off a line which contains a deep truth out of the Beginning of Infinity where Socrates is speaking with the god Hermes. In that passage David links a moral injunction "Do not" to an epistemological concept (error). From this stepping stone I explore some of the institutions which emerge from such a commitment, but which themselves can also be regarded as fundamental features of a dynamic society.

In his book "Our Mathematical Universe" Max Tegmark claims we occupy 4 different kinds of multiverse and that ultimate base reality is made of mathematics. I analyse these claims and his 4 levels of multiverse distinguishing between scientific and metaphysical claims by describing possible experimental tests of some of the multiverses - and remark on this desire many express for an ultimate, final explanation of reality.

This episode covers chapter 2 titled "Beyond Laws of Motion?". In this chapter we explain some of the successes of the "dynanical laws + supplementary conditions" vision of physics and some of the limitations. Those limitations include the fact that the supplementary conditions - notably the initial conditions - cannot be explained under that scheme. Nor can time itself. The idea of things being possible or impossible in the universe (for example computers) may better be understood via constructor theory and there is more grist-for-my-mill when I get back on my hobbyhorse about free will (to mix some metaphors).

If you are distracted by, or simply prefer a version without, the background music - you can find that here: https://youtu.be/xSbqTTs1nl0

My preferred version is here: https://youtu.be/2IneL4VpShE as there are some helpful (though not essential) visuals.

This is about knowledge creation and the the commonalities between the two forms known (evolution (by natural selection) and explanatory) and the differences between them. It teases out and synthesises some of the work of Darwin, Popper and Deutsch on these matters of what creativity means. I also consider the place of prediction and prophecy and the "urge" to know what the future will hold. This is sometimes the dividing line between optimism and pessimism.

You can support this ongoing exercise in optimism, exposition and encouraging rapid progress by following the links here: https://www.bretthall.org/ Thankyou for any and all support. Know it is much appreciated.

This is the first episode in a 3 part series about Chapter 12 of "The Beginning of Infinity". As this chapter is about Bad Philosophy, I thought an episode that sets the context - especially the contemporary context - might be timely. 

With a special introduction for audio only listeners, here in this "rather different" episode, I've tried tapping in to my inner Douglas Murray to summon the right level of outrage. This is about as angry as I get. I’m essentially reading through and responding to this “Scientific American” article (which has nothing scientific nor American about it) https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar... with some supplementary remarks about a “Nature” article which goes a long way towards rubbishing the good name of that great journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/s4146... If you’re not in agreement with the articles you might appreciate trading my time spent making this defence of freedom, free trade and progress with some of your own money here: https://www.patreon.com/tokcast or here for a monthly contribution: https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall or on my website click “Donate” to make a one off contribution www.bretthall.org

After a short introduction by me, the remainder of this episode is a reproduction of "The Deutsch Files IV" the latest in a series of conversations between myself, Naval Ravikant and David Deutsch about a wide variety of topics including, and sometimes going far beyond the contents of "The Fabric of Reality", "The Beginning of Infinity" and Constructor Theory. Go to https://nav.al to access all the other "Deutsch Files" as well as earlier content Naval and I produced about all the Big Questions of Life, the Universe and Everything and, helpfully, the transcripts to all our discussions.  

Everything that we’ve covered on ToKCast so far for those in a hurry or those wanting a refresher. It’s the synecdoche episode. 183 episodes down and David Deutsch has spoken with Naval Ravikant and Tim Ferris, and so begins another cohort of people - a new generation if you like - of people coming to optimism in Deutsch's sense and the infinite potential of people and explanatory knowledge. I begin with some reflections on David’s appearance on The Tim Ferris show. If you watch no other ToKCast episodes or don't have the time for complete commitment - this is the one for you.

ToKCast is now ranked in the top 1% of podcasts worldwide according to "Listen Notes". https://lnns.co/AwGLfoTRgHZ

Thankyou to all listeners and especially all supporters. You can support ToKCast by following the links here to Patreon or Paypal: https://www.bretthall.org/

Yes, this is me asking David Deutsch about the supposed "evidence" of UFOs that are the US Military's release of footage from jet aircraft that have become known as "Tic Tacs". I do not mention this in the video, but the best explanation I have seen of at least some of this stuff is by Mick West who was able to reproduce at least some of the images: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fq... Neil deGrasse Tyson also makes broadly similar remarks to David in this podcast with Sam Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBVg5... Whatever the case, the deeper point is the more general one. When we do not know the explanation for a set of observations, then we have a problem. Not a solution. In this case, we seem to have either very prosaic solutions (as Mick West explains - in the form of camera effects) or perhaps something we "don't know". What we do not have is "evidence for" something amazing. Namely alien life visiting us in their spacecraft. The only way "evidence for" actually works is when it *rules out* every other theory. That is, in fact, the purpose of evidence in science. For more on that, see here: http://www.bretthall.org/general-rela... and here: http://www.bretthall.org/philosophy-o... #Tictacs #UFO

The Penultimate “The Beginning of Infinity” episode. Herein we contrast pessimism with optimism - what the conditions are for providing succour to either philosophy and who some of the leaders are. While science writers such as John Horgan, author of “The End of Science” may provide something of an introduction to the ways in which people can conclude “the end is night”, philosophers like Nick Bostrom and Verner Vinge take things further providing academic papers on “the singularity” and “the doomsday argument” and “the simulation argument” - all of which regard people as being but a prelude to something else: a time without or beyond people. The arguments are summarised and countered. I provide my own spin on things, and invoke the work of computer scientist Jaron Lanier, who (while at times writing of a bleak *now*) exhaults people in the same way as David Deutsch via a different method and looks forward to a future where people are ascendant. What does our best science tell us about what is to come? If we are to take seriously our best theories - is there hope? And is there an opportunity to even find fun and funniness in what we are promised for the future? I have some ideas.

This is an advertisement more than a regular ToKCast episode/video. I will sometimes publish some rough and ready material (compared to what appears here on the actual podcast and so forth) on Substack. If you don't know what Substack is - it's just a place where people write stuff (normally). Usually it's journalists who do most of the stuff there. I am choosing a format where I can write and/or also do audio. Go here to see https://bretthall.substack.com/p/manners-and-marketing?r=3r9kb&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web and sign up. I won't publish everything that I produce there here as well. As I say the purpose of Substack, for me, will be to produce less polished material and perhaps stuff that is less "timeless" - so I can comment on cultural issues and perhaps topics of the day. I mention a few things in this episode and links to those things are: Science Historian criticises Neil Tyson: https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/nil-degrasse-tyson-knows-nothing-about-nothing/ Astronomical Disdain: https://www.bretthall.org/blog/astronomical-disdain

Penn Jillette on the funding of libraries: https://youtu.be/nGAO100hYcQ?t=280

A conversation with physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, polyglot and polymath - Charley Lineweaver.

00:00 - My introduction

08:57 - Charley’s fascinating early years

12:14 - From an English/History degree to physics

13:53 - Charley’s historic work on the Cosmic Microwave Background

17:34 - Methods of probing deep space

19:51 - Our accelerating universe

22:15 - Dark Matter Candidates

23:20 - The Fermi Problem and the “Planet of the Apes” Hypothesis

28:37 - Natural experiments in the evolution of intelligence

33:38: What can the early appearance of life on Earth tell us about aliens?

37:31: Non-intelligent alien life.

38:06: Deep homology and misconceptions about convergent biological evolution

44:31 The Shadow Biosphere

48:53 The significance of extremophiles

50:23 Does life arise from non-life easily or not? What do we know?

53:32 What is life?

55:56 A “debate” about people?

1:10:20 - The Potato Radius

1:15:00 - What Charley is working on now

This is not a regular episode - and if you have listened to episode 44 you do NOT need to listen to this because it is simply excerpts from that episode. It is simply an extraction from that episode of the material - solely my remarks rather than any reading - about the concept of "free will". The following is the Youtube description of this episode:

This is an excerpt from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oypz57aosnE but is focussed on my remarks about "free will". This is my best attempt at a response to Sam Harris or "CosmicSkeptic's" video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqj32jxOC0Y It seems to me almost every public intellectual, more or less (Daniel Dennett aside) is allergic to the notion of "free will" because they guess it must be linked to some supernatural notion or must defy physics or is in some other sense irrational. I try to explain the scientific notion of the little we know and advance the case that a denial of free will simply moves the same mystery - the same problem - elsewhere.

Everything and more one might ever want to know about the topic...that other epistemology people often talk about. The central project is to distinguish between 4 "species" of what is often called "Bayesianism" 

1. Bayes' Theorem.

2. Bayesian Statistics.

3. Bayesian Reasoning

4. Bayesian Epistemology. 

Actual timestampes and chapters are:

00:00 - Introduction to this podcast

02:55 Epistemology 

11:30 Substrate Independence

12:30 Inexplicit Knowledge/Knowledge without a knower

21:30 Explanatory Universality and Supernaturalism

24:30 When we lack good explanations

29:00 Rational Decision Theory 

33:39: Bayes’ Theorem

41:40 Bayesian Statistics

1:07:50 Bayesian Reasoning

1:16:00 Bayesian “Epistemology”

1:20:13: Quick Recap

1:20:49 A question from Stephen Mix

1:21:50 “Confidence” in epistemology

1:26:13 Measurement and Uncertainty

1:31:50 Confidence and experimental replication

Join the conversation https://getairchat.com/s/p3ql7kNB

Defending reason and rationality via a discussion of material at https://www.ecosophia.net/blogs-and-essays/the-well-of-galabes/the-clenched-fist-of-reason/ after a question from a listener.

This serves as an introduction to the chapter proper. I cover what justification is, David's stated ways in which he might revise the wording chosen in parts of this chapter, inductivism, Bayesianism, "God Shaped Gaps" and "Induction shaped gaps". This episode links well with the episode immediately prior to this one - episode 128 about Pinker's chapter on Bayesian Reasoning from his book "Rationality".

A ToKCast Special: Brett talks about what he's learned over the years from various academics about the question of alien life. Although I don't mention it, I draw my inspiration from an academic paper I wrote years ago as part of my Masters degree in Astronomy - it can be found here: The Rare Earth That might be a bit more sober, hard-going and not exactly entertaining. I hope this video is fun. I don't read - I simply talk. It's a somewhat different style for ToKCast.

This episode is an interlude for the "Things that make you go mmmmm?" series. It provides, I hope, some helpful advice for "spotting errors" motivated by my recent readings of certain other "popular science" books where I kept spotting certain errors, mistakes and misconceptions. My conclusion: the writer lacked something like a more coherent worldview. I present a very brief exposition of an alternative: namely to have a coherent worldview and what that could look like.

This is an excerpt from a longer episode yet to come. After my analysis of Objectivist Epistemology (so far) I was implored to read a book by objectivist "David Harriman" titled "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" (2010). It is available here: https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/dp/0451230051/ref=sr_1_1?crid=B5MBF53NNWR0&keywords=The+Logical+Leap&qid=1664073086&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjU0IiwicXNhIjoiMS41NCIsInFzcCI6IjEuNDYifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=the+logical+leap%2Caps%2C334&sr=8-1 

This is my analysis of a couple of important sections of the book.

Another response episode. This time to Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson. Douglas and Jordan are seeking a way to construct a positive vision for society, but they seem at a loss for what in fundamental terms, this might include. Part 1 of 2.

The final episode of readings from "The Science of Can and Can't" by Chiara Marietta. This serves as something of a summary chapter with pointers about the future of Constructor Theory.

This is an "irregular" ToKCast which is all about a short essay by Popper titled "The Aim of Science". I read parts of the essay and comment on it and compare it to some more recent developments in the philosophy of science. Readings for this - like the paper itself - can be found here: http://www.bretthall.org/the-aim-of-s... The thing about the essay that is amazing is how certain paragraphs are as clear as anything one might say on this topic today: and yet he is breaking the ground in many ways with what he is saying. People struggled until Popper to even make a coherent case for what science was all about let alone how it managed to do it. There are only a few images in this "video" so you can easily get away with listening to the audio only version of this.

Ayn Rand claims we are "observing the facts of reality" when forming concepts. Here I explain why that is wrong and how facts are things we conclude *only at the end* of a long chain of interpretation. This is an excerpt from an episode to be released after this one, also on "objectivist epistemology", and in addition to the previous episode released about "An introduction to objectivist epistemology" by Ayn Rand.

I did a livestream on Youtube and this is the audio taken from that. Questions were taken from Twitter and Youtube. The first 20 mins or so of this episode is a response to a question about Sam Harris' recent "Making Sense" podcast featuring Stuart Russell and Gary Marcus called "The Trouble with AI". Then there are questions from all over the place :)

This is “Ask Me Anything” number 2: questions from Twitter (mainly) and elsewhere.

Here are the questions/timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

01:50 How do people learn false things?

06:32 Why does persuasion fail?

15:20 What’s wrong with physicalism?

18:30 How are mind and the laws of physics abstractions?

21:18 What are your favourite chapters from David’s books?

26:46 Are facts theory laden?

27:49 Is a fact “fallibly true”?

30:24 What are your thoughts on the mind-body problem?

34:50 How has Deutsch improved on Popper?

40:05 What is the most difficult idea to explain from David’s books?

44:58 Do the ideas in “BoI” trace back to Judeo-Christian values?

48:32 What is the plan for the future spreading of David Deutsch’s ideas?

51:38 How do we resolve the apparent conflict between “incremental change” and “rapid progress”?

54:27 What parts of David’s work do you disagree with? What did David Deutsch get wrong?

58:24 Why isn’t morality about suffering?

01:03:50 Are free will, consciousness and explanatory knowledge fundamentally tied?

01:06:10 Does Ayn Rand’s objectivism follow from Deutsch/Popper?

01:13:52 If a problem is a conflict between ideas, what is the conflict with the problem of the universe’s initial conditions?

01:15:52 How can we reconcile the subjectivity of problems with the objectivity of knowledge?

01:18:04 Can’t machines create new choices through abstraction?

01:20:58 Did Popper/Deutsch influence your libertarianism?

01:26:22 What is the beef between Popper/Deutsch and the formal education system?

01:27:02 Are there Popperian resources on child rearing?

01:31:59 Are there pre-requisites for understanding “The Beginning of Infinity”?

01:35:29 What other books can help with thinking?

01:36:10 If a person has struggled academically, what is to blame?

01:40:21 Do you have any (other!) book recommendations?

01:44:32 Doesn’t quantum mechanics and the multiverse violate common sense and logic?

This is the first in the series of "Things that make you go mm?" (Get it - shorter!). Minisodes getting to the fundamentals of each of the Mmmms I've been discussing recently. Theories are misconceptions. All our knowledge contains misconceptions - as well as truth.

The best part! If you missed the others, don't miss this one. All four strands come together to explain the possibility of time travel and the intrigue that arises when considering travelling to "your" past or future to visit "yourself".

Rough timestamps follow: 00:00 introduction and the significance of virtual reality 04:03 Physically possible renderings and resolving paradoxes 07:30 what does VR time travel tell us about physics?  11:05 Personhood and time travel  13:30 Highly unlikely events, the multiverse and “never”. 15:45 General Relativity and time travel 18:51 David’s 70th birthday online acknowledgement https://dd70th.weebly.com/ 20:14 Past directed time travel: the consensus 25:25 Black holes, wormholes and time travel 34:10 More on paradoxes and quantum gravity 38:00 The unpredictability of the growth of knowledge . 42:05 Visitors from the future 45:50 Time travel, BoI and Fungibility 56:00 Knowledge Paradoxes? 1:00:40 Creation ex nihilo and “recombination”. 1:06:39 Biological and explanatory knowledge 1:11:32 Useless information and the resolution of knowledge “paradoxes” 1:15:23 The knowledge “crystal” - structure across the multiverse. 1:22:18 The entire biosphere as a computation. 1:26:20 Civilisations as virtual reality renderings. 1:30:00 The four main strands and time travel.

Here we delve more deeply into the ways our senses and our reason might go wrong in the creation of knowledge. There are no authoritative inerrant sources of knowledge and yet we can nonetheless come to knowledge...by creating it. Unusually for ToKCast we take a left turn into visual arts as Popper refers to some art history and remarks by the British landscape artist John Constable. Constable makes the claim his paintings are like scientific experiments. How? We get through parts 11 and 12 of Popper's lecture and provide further critique of the linguistic approach to philosophy and why this cannot help with the solving of problems either in philosophy or science. 

This is an ask me anything episode. The questions and timestamps are as follows:

01:13 Arjun Khemani “Why are problems inevitable?"

06:41 Jiten Terricola “There are differences between men and women. They have different propensities for doing things. What explains this when we’re all universal explainers each capable of doing what any other person can do?”

20:48 - David Hurn “With the right knowledge,can we change the laws of physics/reality? Or can we only get round them? #Optimism"

30:00 - Jeffcoast Bourbon “He’s written a bit on education; does he have any updated thoughts?”

44:58 DingbattusSapiens “Please ask him/her what fallibilism means :) Also, are we a self-domesticated species and why does Adam Sandler have a career.”

57:00  Kees Manshanden “How would you guard against knowledge production that's potentially catastrophic to humanity? For example, the knowledge to create 'easy nukes'; a weapon of mass destruction that can be made by anyone with a high school diploma.”

01:11:27 dean_of_no What is scientific thinking?

01:19:38 Alan Curtis “Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?”

01:32:00 Resty T “I know Deutsch describes his ideas as footnotes to Popper, but didn't he make improvements like "good explanations are hard-to-vary" or was that something Popper expressed too?”

Areo Magazine: https://areomagazine.com

Support Areo Magazine: https://www.patreon.com/Areo

Iona Italia: https://twitter.com/IonaItalia

Arjun Khemani: https://arjunkhemani.com

Links to my website and how to support this project through Patreon and/or Paypal: https://www.bretthall.org

David Deutsch: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk

Naval Ravikant: https://nav.al

What is mathematics? Does it provide us with "epistemological bedrock" - a finally, once and for all certainly true foundation? 

What does fallibilism say about any of this? Is mathematical knowledge not immune from error?

In this podcast we cover the supposed hierarchy of knowledge from "the certainty" of mathematical proof through to the "near certainty" gifted to us by scientific arguments supported by evidence all the way down to the lowly philosophical arguments that are a mere matter of taste. We explore more about the tension between realism and its alternatives, how contributing to science is available to anyone (because the evidence is almost everywhere) and finally we end with an exploration of what Popper had to say on some of these topics.

The substack article with links can be found here: https://bretthall.substack.com/p/the-jubilee-peace-progress-and-policing?sd=fs&s=w#details

In this second part I spend a large portion of our time comparing author John Horgan's work "The End of Science" to David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity". What errors does Horgan make on the way to reaching the conclusion that science is coming to an end? I also summarise cases where critics of Popper seem to turn to character assassination rather than being focussed on his ideas. We end by considering reasons why - particularly in fundamental physics - science is not at an end given open questions especially in cosmology.

Consider becoming a supporter of the podcast by subscribing through either of my Patreon pages.

For a "per episode" donation here: https://www.patreon.com/tokcast

or a "per month" donation here: https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall

or go here http://www.bretthall.org and click on the yellow "Donate" button to make a one-off Paypal donation. Any and all contributions are highly appreciated.

I strongly recommend this episode be watched on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r15jeZaNBHs However audio only listeners should still be able to follow along.

This, the first in a new series is "science news" from a critically empiricist and rationalist perspective. Have the first generation of stars - usually known as Population III stars, been observed by the James Webb Space Telescope? More background and context than you can poke a spectroscope at.

This is the second part of "Minds" which is the 5th part of the "Things that make you go mmmmm?" series. In this we encounter some deep misconceptions. What is intelligence? Is it about setting and achieving goals? Can a system be intelligent and yet only obey its instructions? What is the relevance of disobedience? What are the practical moral implications of misunderstanding epistemology?

This is me at my most animated.

What is a mind? Can we pin it down? To what do the pronouns "I" and "you" really refer? Is the mind different to its contents? What do we know and what are we struggling still to understand?

I put out a call on Twitter/@X for questions and got a deluge. Between those and more from YouTube itself - this is the result ranging over predicting the future, through to theories of learning, AGI and AI, optimism and epistemology - many of the major hits and more.

This is newsletter number 8 which is an unusually lengthy one, hence it is being released here also as an "irregular" podcast. 

The transcript and references can be found here: https://bretthall.substack.com/p/heat-work-universality-and-exams?r=3r9kb&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The title says it all. This episode is about quasars. I return to my original “training” in astrophysics in order to correct some misconceptions that may have crept into my video titled “The Nexus” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTxBkmr4LE 

This episode covers three basic things:

The history of the discovery of quasars

The physics of quasars

Varieties of quasars

As with episodes of this kind, it is "image intensive" and although I hope listeners of the audio only will find value - there might be something missed without the images.

This episode is also in recognition of the long term work of author Danny Frederick's contribution to the promotion of Popperian epistemology. May Danny be remembered as a philosopher of deep insight into epistemology and a critically rational worldview.

Some random thoughts about random tweets. Ok, so not entirely random. Actually on physical law: not random at all). Better: some thoughts on some interesting tweets.

00:00 Introduction

08:03 Interview Begins

09:42 How Chiara found herself at the foundations of physics

15:30 How Chiara found Everett

19:13 No Special Physics is required for Observers

21:02 What is a counterfactual? How is it linked to a constructor?

29:05 What is (classical) information? How is it different to quantum information?

32:30 Quantum Information is more constrained. This makes it more powerful.

34:08 Is the universe made of information?

38:04 The Simulation Hypothesis

40:33 The second law of thermodynamics

53:16 The AI Apocalypse?

58:02 How do we help a human become passionate about knowledge?

59:39 The Fine Tuning Problem

01:07:48 The Constructor Theoretic Notion of Knowledge

01:10:52 Constructor Theoretic Knowledge as a window on the origins of life.

01:12:16 The links between physics, epistemology and biology

01:14:15 Experimentally testing the quantum nature of gravity

01:26:05 Where to find out more

Support me by following the links at www.bretthall.org

Parts 1 and 2 were, admittedly, long. So if you could not persevere through those, this gets the major points out serving both as an appendix to tie up some loose ends and as a summary of parts 1 and 2.

This is the first in a two part series unpacking, breaking down, reading, reflecting and commenting upon David Deutsch’s paper “It from Qubit” available here: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/ItFromQubit.pdf or here https://philpapers.org/rec/DEUIFQ or even as the chapter of a Barrow and Davies book here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/science-and-ultimate-reality/it-from-qubit/BA7B507C25C37B180FC34802555D4423 I will be referring to the Chapter of the book (that matters as you will hear!). This, the first part, lays the groundwork for discussing “It from Qubit” by first discussing the thesis that went before, coined and explained by John Wheeler: It from Bit. Wheeler, as you will hear in this episode, had an absolutely astonishing “life in physics”. Here we discuss that man, his view and the science and philosophy of “It from Bit”. As a teaser recognise that Wheeler supervised both Richard Feynman and Hugh Everett, collaborated with Einstein and Bohr and is named as one of the two biggest professional influences upon David Deutsch by David Deutsch (references herein).

Here, we get to the conversation itself. We draw a line with some laughs along the way from early Popper, to later Popper, early Fabric of Reality, through to The Beginning of Infinity and to "The Logic of Experimental Tests" - what I regard as the current best known explanation of explanations and science in particular. We can see an evolution - a refinement of Popperian epistemology which, of course is the same as just "epistemology". This chapter shows not only the fallacious way in which inductivism casts science as merely being about prediction but is also a knock down refutation of variants thereof like Bayesianism. Enjoy - this one was a lot of fun to record, so I hope it's likewise an enjoyable listen.

This is the third episode in a 3 part series about chapter 12 of "The Beginning of Infinity". This part is focussed in a more specific way on bad science (that being explanationless science). We also delve into the nature of personhood once more, its moral significance and the possibility of having an experience as a human animal versus a non-human animal. 

This is a cross-post from my Substack podcast "The 3Rs: Reality, Reason, Rationality" the text of which can be found here: https://bretthall.substack.com/p/where-do-ideas-come-from?sd=pf#details

This diagram is also relevant:

Is time travel into the past and the future possible? What is time dilation? Subjective and objective senses of "time travel". David Deutsch's own documentary on Time Travel from the BBB (192) https://youtu.be/C6_gxoLwrWw?si=8vw8cwbP49XkY6e8

Reading a short chapter from "What's Eating the Universe?" by Paul Davies titled "The Big Bang" - and adding some exposition and commentary. Also: AMA as time permits. As always I do not monetise anything (there are no ads/I get zero income from youtube) - but if you'd like to support me just go to www.bretthall.org and follow the links to donate. Also the "superchat" feature in Youtube is something that would get to me.

This episode is an introduction to the chapter. Although there are some readings, they are limited and I provide context by diving deep into David's more recent work on all this. Specifically we go through the connection of Chapter 10 here (published in 1997) and Chapter 5 "The Reality of Abstractions" from "The Beginning of Infinity" (published in 2011) and then also in light of David's recent speech given at his Dirac Medal award ceremony (published in 2017) - here is the timestamped link to that https://www.youtube.com/live/J7HeDX_7... and the text of that speech is online here: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-co... None of that is essential reading (or listening) for this episode - but it can help. As always - buy "The Fabric of Reality" and read along as I never read the entire chapter - just excerpts!

This podcast is about Steven Pinker's new book "Rationality". I read a small number of brief excerpts from the book itself, alongside commenting, criticising and reviewing the content of the third chapter “Logic and Critical Thinking”. 

The first half (or so) of this episode is not about the book as much as my personal reflections on academic culture and its treatment of these subject areas "logic" and "critical thinking". I spend some time discussing the global culture of schooling and changes in recent years which incorporate "critical thinking" - following in the footsteps of what has become a fashion in tertiary education. Almost no matter the course a student enrols in now, there is some promise that it will develop one's "critical thinking" skills. 

I compare Pinker's vision of rationality with what might be interpreted about that same topic from the work of David Deutsch and Karl Popper. In summary: I found the book highly entertaining in places and an excellent overview of this topic as it might be taught in an Ivy League University in The United States (indeed Pinker says that such a course that he taught was part of the impetus for the book). In terms of being a good substitute for those who might never have been able to afford due to chance, location or cost actually attending such an institution and taking on a course such as one on "Critical Thinking" and “Logic” the book could readily serve as a series of well written university lecture notes. To that end, it is certainly worth the cost for anyone interested in these topics. 

If you would like to support "ToKCast" - links for how to do so can be found at the homepage of www.bretthall.org

Thankyou kindly to those who donate :)

Sam Harris and Lex Fridman vs The Multiverse and Constructor Theory. Although this is a reaction video, it's just 10 minutes of Sam with the rest of the time spent me doing some analysis, dissection and "what went wrong" reflection as a vehicle for explaining certain parts of physics and philosophy.

This is episode 99 of ToKCast. More than any other work, the contents of "The Beginning of Infinity" (BoI) have informed the content of this podcast, so in celebration of Episode 99 I set myself the challenge of taking on each chapter in sequence, retelling the main points of it in my own words (no readings from the actual book itself this time) and construct an episode as close as possible to 99 minutes long. Obviously this required quite some editing - this episode now holds the record for time-taken-to-edit. As much was left on the virtual "cutting room floor" and extended "directors cut" is available for Patreons and other supporters of ToKCast. Become a Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/tokcast (per episode support) or https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall (monthly donation).

Timestamps:

00:00:00 Introduction

00:10:10 Chapter 1 The Reach of Explanations

00:15:21 Chapter 2 Closer to Reality

00:19:50 Chapter 3 The Spark

00:24:14 Chapter 4 Creation

00:29:06 Chapter 5 The Reality of Abstractions

00:34:14 Chapter 6 The Jump to Universality 

00:38:51 Chapter 7 Artificial Creativity

00:43:58 Chapter 8 A Window on Infinity

00:49:01 Chapter 9 Optimism

00:53:47 Chapter 10 A Dream of Socrates

00:58:20 Chapter 11 The Multiverse

01:03:26 Chapter 12 A Physicist's History of Bad Philosophy

01:08:36 Chapter 13 Choices

01:13:42 Chapter 14 Why are Flowers Beautiful?

01:18:00 Chapter 15 The Evolution of Culture

01:22:56 Chapter 16 The Evolution of Creativity

01:28:23 Chapter 17 Unsustainable

01:33:24 Chapter 18 The Beginning

01:37:43 Concluding Remarks

This is a recording (with a brief introduction first) of a keynote address I gave to open the 2024 "Naturalistic Decision Making Association" conference. People from business, government and academia came together for 3 days to talk about how to make better decisions under pressure. It was an opportunity for me to share the work of David Deutsch and Karl Popper with everyone from people working in international militaries and government defence organisations, through to leaders in business and university academics and students. Regular listeners will notice this is an adaptation of another recent episode - but I think this live version is better as I say in my introduction.

A personal recollection about how even the better schools can, with all the best intentions, undo some of the value they do provide in spite of themselves, over the course of years...in less than a day.

In this I take things a little slower - but it's well worth the journey through Plato - even Plato's uncle "Critias" makes an appearance - and the great defender of liberalism John Milton who was one of the first to argue against censorship. Milton was one of the first to argue "truth will out" in a battle against falsehood. Popper disagreed - but agreed with Milton that censorship was never good. So what was the disagreement and how was it resolved? We learn Plato endorsed a "blood and soil" fallacy that tyrants (and not so tyrants) have used to exploit racial divisions for political reasons through to today. Popper criticises not merely the low-hanging fruit of racism but also of the origins of liberal ideas and how they can also lead to tyranny if not looked at under the brighter light of fallibilism - which as I have argued before is like an acid that is able to dissolve through dogmatism and relativism alike. Popper uses the idea that truth is NOT manifest to explain how we can better build a tolerant society by just appreciating that we can all be in error.

What does it mean for something to exist?

In this episode, I read David’s explanation of the multiverse and make some remarks on it. This, more than anything in my actual physics lessons, helped me *understand* quantum theory. This, in a sense, is the “abridged” version of my multiverse series found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6C_K18A4f8&list=PLsE51P_yPQCQqJDb65AIVLads8PKxYuPm which I recommend for anyone who wants more details. 

If you would like to support me, find me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall or donate via Paypal. Link on my website at www.bretthall.org

This is the first episode of 2 parts all about chapter 13 "Choices" from "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch. Here we take a deep dive into voting systems and what this means for decision making more broadly: both as societies and individuals. Logic and fairness seem to come in conflict if we become reductionist and turn only to mathematics in order to make rational choices. As always the "David Deutsch" take on what might otherwise seem to be a parochial issue turns out to have civilisation level consequences.

This is the first episode of a new series about the multiverse, mathematics, morality, mind, metaphysics, M-theory, misconceptions, mistakes and much more. It is prompted by an episode of "Making Sense" where Sam Harris' spoke with physicist Max Tegmark. I am using that more as a prompt than anything else to give my own views on the wide range of topics they cover there and present a different perspective on what they discuss there. Sam's own "intuitions" are challenged at times by Max's and I want to go a few steps further still in challenging even our intuitions about intuitions...among other things. It's a lot of fun and in keeping with the M-theme, there's even minuscule musical moments. 

Here we consider whether when collecting data we are able to distinguish between the signal (hits) and noise (false alarms). I make the case the author early on is doing a good job of explaining "random error" when conducting experiments. However, broadly speaking this is an issue of increasing precision in our measurements. No mention seems to be made, crucially, in understanding the possibility of systematic error (a problem for accuracy). How do precision and accuracy differ? Why won't repeating our experiments and collecting more data help guard against certain kinds of errors? All this and more discussed in this episode.

Here we discuss the inherent differences between classical and quantum physics. Systems representing both can exhibit "unpredictable" behaviour - so what is the difference? In classical physics chaos theory is a genuine phenomena - but only in theory. The real world does not obey classical physics. It obeys quantum theory and there, that kind of "chaos" simply does not happen. The Butterfly effect is therefore false in reality for reasons explained herein. Those classical effects cause classical systems to be unpredictable due to the sensitivity of systems to initial conditions which cannot be specified, or known, with perfect precision. But quantum systems can be "intractable" making them unpredictable for different reasons. Rather than being a barrier to knowledge and computation this is an opportunity. We discuss Feynman and then Deutsch's own contribution to the field of quantum computation.

Easter Island, Incans, Llamas and Australia. Resources and knowledge, creativity and stasis. We begin to bring together the chapters that have come before as we move into the crescendo of "The Beginning of Infinity". Images (on Youtube) all used under a creative commons licence. All music composed by me.

In this, the second part of discussion about the first chapter of “The Fabric of Reality”, we delve more deeply into what the distinction between “The theory of everything” that particle physicists have in mind and what David Deutsch’s more encompassing, more grand vision is for a unification of our deepest theories (of which the particle-physicists hoped-for unification of the forces is only a part). The former, purely physics-of-motion theory may be “predictive” in some sense but not fully explanatory. We discuss the crucial importance of the concept of “emergence” and I end this episode with “The Parable of the Copper Atom” which is first encountered here, in this first chapter of “FoR” - makes a comeback in “The Beginning of Infinity” and has taken on a life of its own out there in social media and philosophical space as a withering refutation of reductionism.