Some more long introductory remarks and commentary throughout readings of the closing pages of the chapter culminating in the explanation of the "punchline" conclusion of the chapter which is: "Necessary truth is the subject matter of mathematics. It is not the reward we get for doing mathematics". This is a good exploration of fallibility, the relationship of physics to mathematics and how science is, in a sense, logically prior to mathematics (and logic for that matter!)...all because proof is a physical process.

The nature of proof and mathematics as a creative enterprise. Not all that is true can be proved as such, the high hopes of David Hilbert for placing the entirety of mathematics on a "firm foundation", the mathematical world-shattering results of Kurt Gödel which frustrated that project, a history of proof and finally Roger Penrose and whether human brains are computers in the Turing sense. And some very long remarks by me, especially in the introduction. Become a subscriber at https://patreon.com/tokcast?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink

Drawing on Chapter 15 "The Evolution of Culture" from "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and then applying it to some special cases. Come and chat to me about this or anything else at https://www.getairchat.com/brett Timestamps: 00:00 Speech, Trade and Democracy 02:39 Is Democracy under attack? 07:05 Free Speech as Error Identification 09:14 Limits on Free Speech? 13:02 Case Study 1: North Korea 14:18 Case Study 2: Afghanistan and Iraq 17:30 Case Study 3: South Korea 19:43 Case Study 4: China 24:43 The Evolution of Culture by David Deutsch 1 29:43 Protecting liberty in Western Nations 30:30 Bringing Liberty to nations without it. 32:25 Case Study 5: Japan 35:01 Immigration: Why worry? 35:58 The Evolution of Culture by David Deutsch 2 39:01 Preserve the means of error correction at all costs Support me at www.bretthall.org

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

The certainty of mathematics and its place in the supposed hierarchy of subjects (assumed to be above science which is itself above philosophy in turn). Some more remarks on Bayesianism and somehow ghosts and alien life.

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

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!

Commentary (and Explainer) This podcast is largely an op-ed about the "feminisation" of Western militaries and the effect of so-called "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideologies on modern defence forces. I look at what the purpose of a military is and the tension between its aims and the ways some arms of some defence forces are "marketing" themselves to their own people. Of chief concern to some has been the way the US army has chosen to attempt to recruit people into its ranks. Timestamps/Chapters and references below. 00:00 Introduction secs: concerns of late about military decline/changes in standards 00:25 Concerns about politicising the military 1:23 - Should physical standards be lowered to accommodate “diversity” in the military? 2:18 The Military as a deterrent (as nuclear weapons are a special case of) First Pass 3:08: The “Mutually Assured Destruction” trope is a lie 5:01 - Chinese/Russian tech (military & other) is a stolen, poor imitation of Western innovation 6:20 - A comparison of military forces in terms of numbers (expenditure, land/air/manpower, materiel, capabilities) 10:30 The difference in Military Cultures (Jocko Willink on decentralised command). 12:14 - Gandalf’s cameo 12:18 - raw soldier numbers vs army cultures and capabilities 12:31 Case Study: North Korea “the world’s 4th largest army”. 13:54 - Case Study: The Russia Ukraine war 14:24 Case Study: The First Gulf War - The Tank Battle 16:18 Case study: the 6 day Israeli war 17:46 The Military as a deterrent (Second Pass) 19:08 Gratuitous Holiday Snap 19:56 The Mother Military Thesis 21:56 North Korea/Communism and Cancel Culture 22:51 Contemporary Western Nations and Cancel Culture 23:27 Woke Culture and Toxic Masculinity 26:23 Is there sexism in custody proceedings? 27:54 - Toxic “Father” Masculinity vs A Feminist “Mother” Military 28:39 The US Army recruitment advertisement controversy 30:53 Alan Watts on “Prickles and Goo” 31:21 Masculine and Feminine traits: some comparisons 33:50 James Damore and “the Google Memo” - commentary 34:19 The function and public face of the military 35:46 Pathological Goo: Jordan Peterson and The Devouring Mother 37:14 Early Signs of military culture rot? 39:04 Exclusive Clubs, Bouncers and Gay Culture 39:57 The Military as a Deterrent (Third Pass) 40:34 - Comparison of Recruitment Tactics - US Army vs US Marines or US Army vs Russian/Chinese Army. 41:24 Conclusions 42:11 Credits, How to support the channel, podcast and me References: 1. https://youtu.be/MIYGFSONKbk?si=C8mFqnObEburxXqz 2. A recent article from Australian media about coercion of "LGBTQIA+" ideologies on cadets: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-27/adf-academy-cadets-claim-they-were-pressured-to-remove-uniforms/102780562 3. US Marine corps recruitment ad for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9gTAjbiQEM 4. Humorous Aussie analysis of US vs Russian & Chinese army recruitment commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXmyWdZfdgk 5. Ex-Marine comments on US Military Matters (Jameson's Travels) - https://www.youtube.com/@UC-N44TadAniwC7v8Zj858nQ #woke #feminism #military #transition #army #philosophy "Like" my video and "subscribe" to my channel :)

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.

This is a "return to regular format" episode in one respect - readings from and reflections upon "The Fabric of Reality" but also a departure from regular formatting in another respect: I teach a bunch of simple mathematics. This is for those who might think "quantum computation" and "quantum algorithms" will be forever beyond me. They are not! I begin with (quite literally) primary school mathematics level stuff (what's a prime number, what is the "fundamental theorem of arithmetic") and very gradually move up into algebra and some modular arithmetic and present examples using real numbers of what the problem is and then lead us to a place where we can glimpse the solution (which is Shor's Algorithm). I do not promise to bring the listener to a graduate quantum physics-degree-level of proficiency in quantum information theory and cryptography - but you will gain quite some insight. I refer to the following more in-depth expositions of all this and hopefully bridge the gap I think is there between "I know a little bit of maths and physics" and the kind of thing the following more "high level" videos offer (which I present in order of increasing technical difficulty) 1. The PBS Infinite Series on all this stuff is brilliant. In particular this introduction:    • How to Break Cryp...   and this video focussed more narrowly on Shor's algorithm:    • Hacking at Quantu...   2. Here is Peter Shor himself explaining the history of his work:    • The Story of Shor...   3. Artur Ekert's graduate level free online course on Quantum Information Theory: https://www.youtube.com/@ArturEkert/v... in particular his lecture focussed on Shor's Algorithm:    • IQIS Lecture 6.9 ...   (which, aside from "The Fabric of Reality" itself, served as the basis for this episode).

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

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:  

Science news from a "critical rational" perspective. No "believing" in explanations here, no time for instrumentalism and a focus on good explanations of the evidence. Introduction (epistemology in science): 00:00 Dark Matter: 04:32 Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): 08:12 Statistical confidence in physics: 15:23 Instrumentalism in modern physics: 19:00 Fusion Power 'News': 22:09 "Spinoffs" from fusion research: 24:56 Advice for investors in pure science: 28:26 James Webb Space Telescope latest: 31:59 Concluding Remarks: 37:42

Here in this second-to-last episode on the discussion of Chapter 9 from the Fabric of Reality we discuss some of the key distinctions between the classical and quantum - the philosophical and scientific implications and then some of the current experimental approaches to (and reporting on) the actual engineering of these devices. 

This serves as "part 2" of my "Are Consciousness and Creativity the same thing?" podcast, the Youtube version of which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjY4fR-qMU

This podcast was originally produced on Airchat: https://www.getairchat.com/bretthall/bretthall It is all about an interview that can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fv4Uz_i1iQ

This podcast episode is based around two sets of chits (two "chats") found on airchat at https://www.getairchat.com/bretthall/bretthall?t=440630 The articles associated with these chits and in the latter case many links are here: https://www.bretthall.org/blog/the-white-swan-and-red-pen and here: https://www.bretthall.org/blog/the-problem-with-fallibilism

The latest on the philosophy, science and technology of AI and AGI. ChatGPT, Deep Learning, Neural Networks and Large Language Models (LLMs). What do we know? Where is it going?

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.

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/

What is "St George in retirement" syndrome? This and much more in another random livestream about all sorts.

Thursday 16 March 2023 Livestream - Patreon and Twitter Questions and Science News Articles discussed: JWST news: https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-star-soon-go-supernova-photos Volcanoes on Venus: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/03/15/venus-is-volcanically-active-right-now-say-scientists-using-32-year-old-images/?sh=7e868b8fd11f Plagues in Africa killing amphibian: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/15/a-skin-eating-fungal-plague-is-silently-tearing-through-wildlife-across-africa-scientists-warn/?sh=3086d9573f02 ChatGPT4: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gabrielasilva/2023/03/14/the-chatgpt-debate-are-we-intelligent-enough-to-understand-intelligence/?sh=2246e1c684f2

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.

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.

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 the second part of a two part series. Here we focus exclusively upon "It from Qubit" (2002) by David Deutsch as found here: https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-co... I read and comment upon the paper, unpacking its significance for physics, epistemology (i.e: the search for good explanations), metaphysics (ultimate reality beyond what science tells us) and compare this vision of reality to alternatives (for example as presented in the "It from Bit" thesis by Wheeler. The Simulator Hypothesis makes an appearance as does some of the mechanics behind quantum computation itself. But, overall, this is a work stranding physics and philosophy namely: what the former can tell us about having an informed explanation of the latter. To that end both Einstein and Popper are quoted by Deutsch herein.

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 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.

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.

I strongly recommend watching the video version of this podcast which is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_2tOxitykU&t=1s&ab_channel=BrettHall   What could we say to the people of the year 3025 that might be of use to them? Given they should know everything we know and far, far more I see only one situation where any knowledge we possess would be found insightful to them. So here is my discussion of all that.

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.

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.

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.

I refer to three other articles I have written related to this piece: 1. "Free Will, Consciousness, Creativity, Explanations, Knowledge and Choice" - https://www.bretthall.org/free-will-consciousness-creativity-explanations-knowledge-and-choice.html 2. Humans and Other Animals: https://www.bretthall.org/humans-and-other-animals.html 3. The idea we have thoughts but are not identical to any particular thought or even set of thoughts: https://www.bretthall.org/critically-creative-3.html   The article/script related to this piece can be found here: https://www.bretthall.org/creativity-and-consciousness.html  

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!

Here we set the scene for an explanation of the functioning of quantum computers and their significance. What are the problems that quantum computation might solve? What is the fundamental advantage of computation and hence quantum computation for humanity and for an understanding of "the fabric of reality". We connect quantum computation to the technologies that preceded it - indeed back to the use of hammer, chisel and water wheels. Understanding reality and the laws that govern it enable technology which enables automation and increased time to work on the next problems allowing solutions that continue this ratcheting up of objective progress in the world. This chapter could very well be a book on its own as we mount the argument that not only is computation, life and thought significant in this world but that the laws of physics mandate the existence of all three in a deep way. How can we explain this apparent providence? Answers in this episode :)

In this episode I respond to an article in the Science Journal “Nature”. Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x  Nature is among the highest tier of journals in the world - highly respected and the place every scientist would love to have their work published at some point in their career. Nature has editorials as well as journal articles and they have effectively a letters to the editor section and commentary. Nonetheless, although this article is labelled as “comment” it has 8 authors all claiming expertise in disciplines from environmental science through to ecological economics and sociology. I refute the article paragraph by paragraph and point by point providing analysis, opinion and reflections. This is a clash of worldviews: that of decline and degrowth and pro-environment and that of progress, growth and pro-people. This was something of a “straw that breaks the camel’s back” moment. Just as around the world many people are struggling to pay energy bills and governments persist in implementing policies that will only see the cost of living due to energy policy increase further while the overall wealth of households decreases, Nature sees fit to publish a defence of strong-socialism. This piece refers to “science” and yet it is not science. It is not even economics. It is an ideology screed. And a screed of this kind needs to be answered because, as I conclude - this is dangerous. This is literally life, livelihood and liberty threatening. The brakes are presently on the economies of the world because of the misconception that rapid progress and growth are a bad thing. That population increase is a bad thing. That cheap reliable energy is a bad thing and the prescription for this is to coerce people into using forms of energy that are not yet shown to have worked reliably anywhere (in other words entirely untested in even one place before being mandated on all places) and in many places simply not available yet, while coal and fossil fuel supplies are decommissioned too early. This is a threat to nation states and to the globe. This is my defence of humanity against anti-rational memes, prosaic “bad ideas” and stasis.   Enjoy! :)

This is an out-of-the-box episode. 2 hours and 20 minutes of me discussing some Tweets. It was an experiment of sorts: with Elon Musk taking over ownership of the platform people have been complaining (among other things) that Twitter is worse than usual. Granted some are saying it's better. But some have quit or are threatening to quit. But why? I tried to find out by Tweeting more than normal and to see what came back. Could I find the trolls? Did I become addicted? Was the experience terrible? These are my reflections. Followers of mine from Twitter may hear themselves mentioned. I still discuss many of the usual issues about knowledge and science as I often do - but this is a fun approach to it. I might try to add timestamps to this at some point.

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. 

John Locke, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell are herein credited with advancing the cause of tolerance. Popper makes the case for tolerance following Voltaire who argued from fallibility that we should stand ready to forgive others around us - and therefore be tolerant for humans make errors. We discuss what "interpretation" meant to Bacon (it is quite the opposite to what it means today to most people most of the time) as he speaks of interpreting nature. So does this make him an early Popperian? Socrates "maieutic" (the "Socratic method" - his means of elucidating knowledge by the asking of careful questions) seems to come in two versions: that designed to uncover absolute truth and that with more of an emphasis on correcting errors. In this fourth part we are really getting a deep lesson in philosophy from Karl Popper himself through his summaries and analysis of the greats in the Greek and British/European philosophical traditions. 

Here we cover the cosmic significance of life and thought. I begin with some discussion of Stephen Jay Gould's view of aspects of evolution by natural selection - specifically with some analysis of his paper "The Spandrel's of San Marco" which is available here: https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf

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.

This chapter is about just what you get in the title: the significance of life. Is it true we are just a chemical scum? Much of "The Beginning of Infinity" worldview is contained here, in an earlier form, in this chapter. In this, the first part, we primarily consider the question of what life itself is. We conclude that it is best thought of as a kind of resilient information. And that is knowledge.

How can we perceive the truth? Was it naive for the ancients to think it was "the Muses" or some such who guaranteed the truth was the truth? Was Descartes way off base to think the Christian God guaranteed what we thought of as certain as indeed...certainly true? Today people still endorse ideas about "not possibly being mistaken" - but what is their basis for thinking this if not "the divine guarantor"? Here Popper continues his masterclass in the history of epistemology explaining how we have arrived at the place we are at today. He explains how knowledge creation is a process of sifting the true from the false - but how does that work? In a wonderful example Popper does this before our eyes with epistemology itself - sifting the true and false, better and worse, good and bad ideas from the ancients and classics into his own epistemology: a refined optimism of how knowledge is possible and we can all learn whatever it is anyone else can learn. It's a matter of conjecturing and correcting errors. There is no room left for someone feeling pessimistic that they cannot possibly learn a thing. 

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.

Part 1 of a new short series where I am commenting on Karl Popper's lecture "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". This paper sets the scene for the link between objective knowledge and fallibilism - refuting, as it does so, the empiricism of the classic British tradition and the rationalism of the Continental Tradition. I make the case at one point that most modern intellectuals (I mention the Americans in particular - perhaps unfairly) blend both classic philosophies into an epistemology of "certainly true knowledge" which is evidence based ("empirical") and inerrant (because it is "rational"). In all cases these are "the truth is manifest" crowd and that can lead to authoritarianism. The Popperian tradition is to take both the virtues of empiricism and rationalism - and thus by the light of both evidence and reason come to objective knowledge: knowledge that solves a problem but could possibly be wrong.

This is a preview of a series where I will be commenting on Popper's "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". In this part I remark on my own experience encountering Popper as a university student who took some philosophy subjects - how Popper was presented. How he compares to his contemporaries - like Wittgenstein. Popper's style of writing and as I keep emphasising on ToKCast - Popper's tendency to go to science - to ideas there in science and how it works set him apart. He does not invent "examples in the abstract" - thought experiments are barely a thing for Popper (while they are almost everything for Wittgenstein). Popper speaks about concretes - what was actually done, why and how. So I do this because I need a break from critiquing all those other philosophers and philosophies I have been - the contrast is stark between Popper and almost all others. Wittgenstein may be "the philosopher's philosopher". He can keep the title. Popper is "the anti-philosopher philosopher" - and a hero for being so.

This is part 2 of a deep dive into the role of induction in objectivist epistemology as interpreted by an objectivist scholar of Ayn Rand. Thomas Miovas Jr operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs It is the above paper I am analysing. In this episode I discuss more about induction as it is used by Thomas and his invocation of some science - physics in particular and the broader objectivist usage of the term "induction" and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.

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.

Stop Presses. We interrupt regular programming to discuss the announcement of David Deutsch's share in the award of a Breakthrough Prize - one of the highest honours in science. ToKCast does not, as a rule, cover "news" - but this one exception allows me to turn something "timely" into something "timeless". There is a webpage for this episode here: https://www.bretthall.org/breakthrough.html

This is in response to a paper by Objectivist scholar Thomas Miovas Jr who operates a website about Objectivism here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com. The relevant paper can be found here: https://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/induction-in-philosophy-and-the-special-sciences.html?fbclid=IwAR2cNLVGxyguM5R2TXaYe3OVclhw34lAdIKN0Mp13zTLK-J8dPMmnfNVlOs In this episode I discuss induction broadly speaking, the objectivist usage of the term and Thomas Miovas attempts to salvage the word despite noticing issues with it as it is typically formulated. This leads to a comparison between Rand's style of philosophy - especially epistemology and it's tendency towards abstractions and Karl Popper's far more practical and concrete problem centred approach. Herein I look at how theory-laden any observation is - like simply observing how the sky can be blue. What does "The sky is blue" mean? Is there a sky? Is the air blue? What is scattering? Popper's vision of how knowledge is constructed accounts for this complex notion of our minds coming to solve such problems: Rand's on the other hand is left grappling with why we do not "observe the facts of reality" as she, and other objectivists such as Thomas Miovas, claim we can.

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.

Here I read from Ayn Rand's work "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and reflect upon it by comparing it to actual epistemology (how knowledge is created). We explain the misconceptions in the view that knowledge is all about the goings on in minds and how Rand's epistemology is root-and-branch subjectivist. Ayn Rand is an excellent defender of free trade and capitalism, the inherent value of people: her ideas are pro-human and broadly optimistic. However the epistemology is fundamentally flawed containing pure speculation about how people learn (so-called "concept formation") and disconnected from problems in (for example) science and where knowledge is being constructed. Her examples are highly abstract rather than being based in the concrete reality of the history of ideas and for this reasons she reaches the same conclusions as almost all other philosophers on this topic. Namely that knowledge is derived from reality through our senses (empiricism) and is induced by noticing similarities between objects. This is not explanatory, it is not insightful and it is demonstrably false - as I explain.

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.

A version of this on Youtube has music and images as a farewell finale to the "Things that make you go mm?" series. This is about meaning: what is it, is there a meaning for us? Does the question make sense?

Rational and anti-rational memes. Static and dynamic societies. Diversity of ideas and individuality. Credit: "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch

Minds are the makers of memes; ideas that survive. But how is it memes are replicated and transmitted through a culture? What counts as a meme?

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.

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?

Stability under rapid change - progress - has happened rarely in history. It has been sustained only once. In any case it began in Britain? Why? We cannot articulate all the reasons, much of that content remains inexplicit. But we cannot ignore systems of governance - and in that case the constitutional monarchy. ER II 1926-2022

What is metaphysics? Is there a point in subscribing to one? Some think believing in certain theories about the way ultimate reality must be is helpful. How is a metaphysical stance consistent with both realism and fallibilism? 

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 continues the theme about fallibilism and is a brief recount of David Deutsch's insightful talk given at the award of the 2017 Dirac Medal - found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7HeDX_7Heg&t=10096s (cued up to just before David begins speaking) or the transcript available here: http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MathematiciansMisconception.pdf This is a very "counter-culture" idea (academic culture, that is) and I feel I get more resistance to this idea than even, for example, The Multiverse. 

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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 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.

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 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 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 part of "The Fabric of Reality" series of podcasts, working as a supplement to material in Chapter 7 "A Conversation about Justification". In this episode I am beginning to draw a line from where Popper was, what epistemological worldview he was trying to (philosophically!) escape from - where he began in that journey, what he passed through, where Deutsch took off from and where we are now. This one may be for the real Popper "die hards" so to speak. Although esoteric and quibbling, nonetheless there should be something in here of use to anyone new to Popper or just interested in science, the philosophy of science and epistemology.

This chapter continues the themes from Chapter 5 and purports to be an exploration of the use of so-called "rational choice theory". I discuss this "theory" and how well it applies to the "real life process of the same name". How do we make rational choices? By assigning probabilities? By weighing our options? Something else?

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".

This chapter continues the themes from Chapter 4 as well as my episode all about probability, risk and Bayesianism found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK5aiASmKM which is an exploration of another talk given by David Deutsch on the nature of probability given what we know about physics. So this chapter of Pinker's book Rationality - being centrally concerned about the use of what is called "Bayesian Reasoning" is compared in this episode to alternative explanations of what rationality and reason amount to. More than previous episodes so far that I have published on the book "Rationality" this one is very much a critique. There is much to recommend the book "Rationality" for two reasons (1) it does summarise and explain some common misconceptions about how to reason or common mistakes people make when reasoning - and these are worth knowing (2) it works as an excellent summary of the prevailing intellectual/academic perspective on these matters for people who are interested in what the truth of the matter is. Knowing what "academic experts" think about this stuff means knowing what gets taught and what filters eventually into culture itself via the "top down" education system we presently have. All that is worth knowing. But here, in this chapter, we encounter the fundamental clash of epistemological worldviews: the mainstream intellectual *prescription* of what they think should be the way people think as against Karl Popper's *description* of the reality as to how knowledge is generated and progress made through incremental identification of errors and their correction. Have fun listening!

A quick reaction video to the first 10 minutes of Sam Harris' "Making Sense" episode number 288 "The End of Global Order" - found here https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-bwjew-145a8d0b?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share or anywhere podcasts can be found (as of writing this it was not yet on Youtube). This video/podcast is more fun than anything else.

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

These is the audio from knitted together livestreams conducted on YouTube recently. Lots of new questions and common topics discussed. A special introduction for the podcast version of this at the beginning to explain what’s going on. Audio listeners should feel free to submit me questions: find me on Twitter @ToKteacher or else find me on YouTube and leave a comment under any video at all - I read them all. There's no reason at all audio listeners need to worry about watching the video of these - but incase you want to know where the playlist is, it's here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsE51P_yPQCQx7tQSucLA3gYHvPdu1Yri

This chapter traverses a terrain of "computers" - the abstract ideas of Turing and Church, the physical computers envisaged by Deutsch and hence quantum computation, the relationship between what computers can do and what mathematics makes possible and ultimately what people can explain and why the universe and reality broadly is comprehensible. We look at the science, the physics and the philosophical consequences of all of this. An inspiring chapter about technology, people and the unbounded possibility of coming to understand reality ever better and thus the physical possibility of always being able to solve problems and make progress.

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  

In this episode - unlike the other also titled "Work and Heat" - we actually cover the content of Chiara's book and go through some readings. We look at Work and Heat through the lens of Constructor Theory. How so-called "work-like" transformations are reversible but "heat-like" are not and hence we have an avenue to an exact expression of the second law without approximations or talk of what will "most likely" or "probably" happen. We also go over some discussions about the universal constructor.

This is an extended Substack Newsletter article on the issue of energy production and associated issues. The article with rather many links and references can be found here (especially for those who doubt the facts and figures) https://bretthall.substack.com/p/energy?sd=pf 

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

This is part of my series on Chiara Marletto's groundbreaking book on Constructor Theory "The Science of Can and Can't". In this episode, I do not read from the book but set the scene for newcomers who may not have a physics/engineering/chemistry or perhaps the scientific background to be familiar with some of the concepts introduced in the next chapter from that book. Chapter 6 is called "Work and Heat" and Chiara (along with David Deutsch) are working on a "Constructor Theoretic" approach to thermodynamics: which is a first. I thought it instructive to first look at where we have come from: what the understandings are at the moment with all this, what the history has been and therefore set the scene for what Constructor Theory adds which is new. In this episode I cover the basics (but subtleties!) of the 4 laws of thermodynamics, heat engines, temperature, heat, work, energy, degraded energy and entropy along with some remarks about the philosophy and pedagogy of it all. Readings from physical chemist Peter Atkin's and physicist Paul Davies older and more recent books are made so we get an understanding of the significance many place on this area of physics elevating it to a position alongside quantum theory and general relativity as an essential component of a complete worldview for understanding physical reality as of this moment.

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

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

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.

Although an episode devoted to "virtual reality" may seem quirky, parochial or quaint: the fact is that the concept of virtual reality runs very deep. Our understanding of reality is via virtual reality: that conjuring of the external physical world that our minds manage to do. I cannot do better than a part of the chapter itself where David writes "All reasoning, all thinking and all external experience are forms of virtual reality. These things are physical processes which so far have been observed in only one place in the universe, namely the vicinity of the planet Earth. We shall see... that all living processes involve virtual reality too, but human beings in particular have a special relationship with it. Biologically speaking, the virtual-reality rendering of their environment is the characteristic means by which human beings survive. In other words, it is the reason why human beings exist."(1) These are lofty claims but as always - as appropriate for this book, grounded entirely in reality and understood through reason. I refer to this chapter in some senses as the "synecdoche" chapter: a part of the book that represents the whole. (1) Deutsch, David. The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Science) (p. 121). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This is the podcast version of my Substack Newsletter number 3 here https://bretthall.substack.com/p/manners-and-misattributions?r=3r9kb&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web   Links referred to in the podcast can all be found in that article however here is a link to the historian who writes about Dr. Neil Tyson https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/nil-degrasse-tyson-knows-nothing-about-nothing/ and crucially here is a link to my page providing a pdf version of "Schools of Hellas" the book by Kenneth John Freeman https://www.bretthall.org/schools-of-hellas.html  

Pinker lecturing on Rationality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW43X... Link to "psychological study" on what people think about meteorological predictions: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1... titled “A 30% Chance of Rain Tomorrow”: How Does the Public Understand Probabilistic Weather Forecasts?” This video and associated podcast are about Steven Pinker's book "Rationality". Today I am looking at the chapter titled "Probability and Randomness". Well, to be fair: more than "looking" I am doing a close reading...perhaps an excruciating close reading for some. However the book is about rationality and I think we need to be especially careful when explaining this concept to be precise and careful and - yes - perhaps even consistent (as far as is possible). This episode of ToKCast can be watched or listened to in conjunction with episode number 111 titled "Probability: Reality, Rationality and Risk" because in that episode I summarise David Deutsch's lecture on the topic of probability which brings to bear physical realism to the topic and so what I am doing here is comparing the perspective on "Probability" (and randomness) as described in the book "Rationality" with the perspective on probability as viewed under David Deutsch's realistic conception of the concept given what we know from physics (and philosophy). Todays episode serves 3 functions: (1) as a close reading (i.e: a critique in places) of how the concepts "probability" and "randomness" are used in the book - sometimes, as I argue in ways that appear to be inconsistent (2) as a summary of much of the good content in the chapter - for example anyone who wants a refresher on the high school mathematics of probability - we go through some of that (this is not meant to be a backhanded comment - it is interesting material!) and (3) as I have already said this version of probability which I might call the "mainstream academic" vision of probability as compared with probability in light of more recent discoveries in physics. At this point I should also advertise: my newsletter (see episode 112 for details on that) and my Patreon and donations links at www.bretthall.org

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

"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

A version of this podcast without the musical soundtrack can be found here: https://youtu.be/YfVl70treS8   An explanation of a tradition of criticism as an error correction mechanism helping ensure the stability of a society. Also a defence of free speech and liberty for the 21st century. Music by Ketsa: 1. "Tradition" 2. "Our Little Blessings"   And for those who need it: a pocket sized response to modern day anti-enlightenment figures who say “the west” lacks culture/tradition. Inspired by "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.

Morality, like physics, is objective. It is about solving moral problems. In this first part about the nature of objective morality, I discuss "The Principle of Optimism". First stated in "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch in Chapter 9 of that book titled "Optimism" it states that "All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge". These 7 words have the profound effect of linking epistemology and morality and further, providing people with hope that no matter the conundrum (moral problem) then it, like a puzzle in physics, has a solution which we can find if we try.

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 :)

This is a plain language summary of the most up to date epistemology (as of early 2022) in the tradition of Karl Popper due to the work of David Deutsch about what explanations are. Some of David's earliest work published on this is found in his TED talk here: https://youtu.be/folTvNDL08A . For further details consult "The Beginning of Infinity" - all of it, but especially chapter 1. The search for good explanations does not merely solve our problems and provides us with objective knowledge about all aspects of reality but in a sense might be thought of as among the most profound reasons for human existence.

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.

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 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 “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?

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  

As it says: an "AMA" episode. 00:00 Introduction 01:24 When defines the "tipping point" between a static and a dynamic society - specifically our own?  08:13 Why do children seem to learn faster than adults? 14:00 What are the best refutations of anti-realism & instrumentalism? 19:25 What does quantum computation tell us about reality? 25:00 What is the delineation of reason vs unreason? 27:23 What is a "fact"? 28:45 Is a person a "beginning of infinity"? 31:10 What are your thoughts on "inborn knowledge" in people? 37:08 What do you think about monopolies in markets? 44:42 What is the role of the state to realise the ethics of society? 48:51 What open questions does David's work point us to? 54:38 Could you please elaborate on the Simulation Argument? 01:01:35 Can you do a response video about Yoval Harari? 01:04:14 Why has the Beginning of Infinity risen in popularity in recent years? Do you think this will continue?

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 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 cutting edge physics and epistemology from Chiara Marletto, following David Deutsch and working from and upon to advance the discoveries of Karl Popper. Here I make some quite lengthy introductory remarks laying out the standard academic takes when it comes to epistemology in order to set the scene for the most modern interpretation in our quest to refine our understandings of what knowledge is. We leave behind ancient and modern subjective notions of knowledge (which still prevail in the academy, intellectual circles and even attempts to counter those trends in other traditions of counter-culture communities) and take seriously objective knowledge and then build on it. This is a unique and very modern take on knowledge which brings epistemology within the scope of physics for the very first time. Marletto leads the reader gently through this landscape of physics and philosophy and so it is unsurprising some reviewers have not understood the profundity of the points made in the book as a whole let alone this chapter. This is subtle and powerful stuff: a new unification which one might guess is going to direct the course of progress on many fronts. I hope this video serves as a useful companion to the book and to further investigations into "the land of counterfactuals" as some of the deep ideas are, I think, easy to miss for the casual reader.

Here I provide some background information on dark energy and then David answers a question about possible explanations for dark energy given what we already know about the big bang.

This is a video in response to this video by Yaron Brook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFqbC... I'm a fan of both Yaron and Sam. I turn to Yaron for all things economics and individual rights and have great respect for him: indeed so much respect I bothered to spend hours making and editing this video. In the video I refer to: 1. Michael Neilsen's article on the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle: https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/inter... 2. David Deutsch's speech from his Dirac Medal Award ceremony. Transcript here: http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-con... 3. David Deutsch's seminal historic paper that laid the foundations for quantum computation and which brought computation into physics: http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-con... 4. "The Nexus" - my video which goes into detail on the mystery of personhood and the science of what we know about this presently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTxB... Number 2 on that list above is "required extra reading" if my argument alone is not convincing. For more, see "The Fabric of Reality" chapters 5 and 6 especially. See also "The Beginning of Infinity" and consult the index for passages on computation and universality. Universality is poorly understood as being central to understanding computers and people. For more on that see my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnkPl... Images used in the thumbnail and in this video are used under a "Creative Commons" license. Fair use for commentary is claimed for the clips of The Yaron Brook Show (which is one of my favourite podcasts).

This video and associated podcast are 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 first two chapters. There are a number of images and videos in the Youtube version which may help with particular concepts as we go along. 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 "Rationality" 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. In Chapter 2, Professor Pinker not only agrees with the "justified true belief" conception of knowledge but uses it in practise to explain what might be called the "rational" and "irrational". I thus spend a good portion of the second half of this video suggesting ways in which that very conception of knowledge itself leads to irrationality and explain a better way of understanding concepts like "knowledge" as compared to "belief" and how to understand the phrase "I know". I intend to cover 2 chapters per episode. 00:00 Introduction 03:30 “Enlightenment Now” and praise for "The Beginning of Infinity". 07:50 Timeless errors, timely examples. 13:05 “Rationality” in “The Beginning of Infinity” sense. 17:15 Do ancient-type tribal people have a “scientific mindset”? 25:00 Explanatory Universality & Anti-rational memes 34:34 Skill with logic puzzles and *being* logical/rational 42:00 The Wason Selection task 51:25 The Monty Hall Problem 1:02:50 The Linda Problem (& remarks on uses and misuses of probability) 1:11:42 Popper and theory laden observations 1:14:20 Knowledge as Justified True Belief - Why Popper matters 1:27:00 Objective truth 1:32:30 Reason is fun 1:38:18 Closing remarks about chapter 2

I recommend this episode be viewed in its video format here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfuQI_LgDBE or here https://odysee.com/@BrettHall:c/wealth-and-the-conflict-of-ideas:1 as it's got lots of nice images and videos...some of which I constructed myself. That said, the actual "message" can be appreciated fully with audio only.    Although I do not explicitly mention it, this entire episode was motivated by a Sam Harris “meme post” found here: https://www.instagram.com/p/B-sWqk5n1... The claim that appears there (which reads “The free market is not producing effective responses to our most important problems” is emblematic of an intellectual culture that now holds sway not only in the academy but broadly in public discourse and, of course, it is readily consumed by people hungry for simple solutions and perversely promoted by business people afraid of their left-leaning customers. In this episode I spend time on a very brief historic analysis of the motivation for such rejections of freedom and capitalism (which we must admit are relatively new creations when put beside ancient tribalism) and I look at some of the failures of central planning or rejection of the free market. I agree with those who say “there is no actual capitalism” there are merely degrees of socialism in existence. Where there is freedom in a socialist framework, to the degree there is freedom: wealth grows. And to the degree there are top down controls: poverty increases. I regard this as an opportunity cost to some extent. It should not be necessary to defend the fundamentals of economic systems that allow for wealth creation and problem solving. But we live in a time where, for various reasons, a neo-Marxist move is on the ascendency. On that: I also voice concerns I have about allies on the side of liberty turning on one another rather too often out of concern this or that “capitalist” is not sufficiently “capitalist”. I see this as a wonderful way for socialists to continue to gain ground in institutions at all levels of government. A partial script for this episode can be found here: https://www.bretthall.org/our-most-im... This video and ones like it take many days (sometimes weeks) of production from research and reading for the script through to filming and audio recording, searching libraries of stock videos and music, organising copyright issues and finally editing - because I work alone. If you would like to support this effort, you may donate at www.bretthall.org where there is a "Donate" button for one off or monthly donations. On the same page are links to my Patreon accounts where you can also support me. Thankyou :)

In this answer David provides some unique insight into the mystery that remains the nature of the mind. We are constrained by some of what we already know (like computational universality, among other things) and so given this, what can we say about the mind?

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 a universal scheme for problem solving and then focus in on the special case of problem solving in science and compare this to outdated and refuted attempts to explain how knowledge was supposed to be "justified". Popper wrote that "all life is problem solving" - so I discuss that briefly and throughout we consider that if problems are indeed soluble (as they are) how it is that problems eventually get solved. It takes effort, it takes creativity, the process can be messy and there is no single method: but there are ways to be right about what's going on and ways to be wrong.   Credit to: David Deutsch for writing "The Fabric of Reality" Naval Ravikant for his ongoing support of this project. My other Patrons and supporters at Patreon. If you would also like to support this podcast, please head over to either https://www.patreon.com/tokcast to sponsor me per episode. Or per month here: https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall Or click on the "Donate" button at www.bretthall.org where you can send me a one off or monthly donation. Though this has always been and will remain a "labour of love" I thankyou everyone for any and all support which will allow me to continue to improve the sound, presentation and delivery of this series.

This is the audio only version of the video found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxeXbTv1dug and is one of my occasional episodes backed by some music.   Inspired largely by the work of David Deutsch with underlying themes of Popperian critical rationalism: this is my exploration of fallibilism. The three music tracks were composed by Ketsa https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa/ and are, in order: 1. "Mixed Up" 2. "Start of Something Beautiful" 3."Hear me out" and are used under a Creative Commons license.   All videos are purchased from and used under license from "Storyblocks" https://www.storyblocks.com/

As the title suggests: this is about Quantum Information. It is “Quantum Information Theory” to be more precise. Now physics is sometimes regarded as strange by people who know little about it. And even for people who know a little more about it - well they might regard quantum physics as strange. And even those who know a little about quantum physics - they can regard quantum information theory as rather esoteric. This episode, following Chapter 4 of Chiara Marletto’s excellent book, begins from the ground up to explore how quantum systems can do more with information than classical systems (which is what all present day computers use). There is an excellent talk by David Wallace about the Mach Zehnder interferometer that I mention. It’s here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJT9... Coupled with my own remarks about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu4HH... Anyone should come away with a good understanding of what is actually going on.

There is an article associated with this podcast episode here: https://www.bretthall.org/critically-creative-1.html   I mention this article from the University of Sydney, Australia: https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/critical-thinking.html   While recording this podcast, I had in mind teachers: they are my primary “target audience” so to speak. But this will, I hope be useful for anyone with a “stake” in the education system: so of course students, their parents, university lecturers, administrators - people in a position to make decisions about schools and curriculum. The topic is essentially “Critical Thinking” and what I think it is, in the Popperian tradition. As I will mention, unlike even just 15 years ago, “Critical Thinking” is now a fashionable term thrown around in schools, universities and among those charged with deciding what students are taught and how. Often “Creative Thinking” is thrown into the mix as well. All sorts of activities are devised for students to improve these “skills”: sometimes entire new subjects are created for students to take that are supposed to be about improving “critical thinking”. It’s all - from the education system’s point of view - very new. And because it’s new *there* they are, largely speaking, inventing things on the fly or designating certain techniques or rules or activities “critical and creative thinking”. It really is all the buzz in many places. The time stamps below will give you some better idea of the full content. Time Stamps   00:00:00 Introduction - and what should be in a school curriculum. 00:04:00 Educational buzz words and “lock in”. 00:07:55 Some initial thoughts about +the practical* uses of epistemology 00:10:30 Teaching vs Learning Strategies and “Student Engagement” 14:30 Criticisms - what are they? 15:30 What it takes to pass exams. 16:40 To be creative should you obey no rules? 18:30 A second pass on the practical applications of critical thinking 22:25 The Grass Eating cure for the 100th time ;) 25:20 “The Explanation Criteria” 28:30 Peer review (& double blind placebo controlled trials in medicine) and *when* it is we can say we know what we know. 32:45 Critical Thinking everywhere 33:00 Explanationless science, mathematics 35:30 What is “criticism” exactly? 36:00 As applied to history & music. 36:50 How to come up with good criticisms and some discussion of the possibility of heuristics for better critical thinking. 39:10 Constructive vs Destructive criticism. (& the distinction between ideas and people). 44:00 Popper - an introduction for those involved in education 45:30 The anti-rational hangup ballast. 48:35 A very general two-step process for framing any analysis that requires the use of “critical thinking”. 50:13 Some more specific explicit unpacking of some critical thinking “techniques” or heuristics. 52:09 A “fundamental” theorem of criticism or the chief principle of critical thinking. :) 56:27 Creative thinking: the little we know. 59:00 Remarks about economics and free vs regulated markets 01:01:27 How can we improve creative thinking? 01:01:03 Creativity and criticism in evolution by natural selection 01:04:07 How does human creativity work? Remarks on AGI. 01:09:09 How a child teaches us 01:14:38 Final “critically creative” thoughts. 01:18:00 Typical “critical thinking” as it is taught at university: https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/critical-thinking.html 01:20:00 The purpose of critical and creative thinking as taught at schools/universities.

This is the first part of a discussion about chapter 3 of "The Fabric of Reality". It is about...problem solving with a significant focus on science and how scientific theories are generated. It contains criticism of the prevailing "justificationist" and "inductivist" notions. I see it as a good companion to (perhaps an introduction to) my episode "The Aim of Science" which I would consider a little more "heavy". This was wide ranging and a lot of fun to produce!

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.

The original link for this (without the introduction I provide here) can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEcHS... “Do Explain” is a podcast interview series created by Christofer Lövgren (Chris as I call him because I can’t pronounce his surname). Find “Do Explain” anywhere podcasts can be found - for example Apple here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j... or “Tune In” here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j... The main website and host for Do Explain for now is here: https://doexplain.buzzsprout.com In this episode I cover all my "big hits" - consciousness, free will, Bayesianism and as the original title says "The nature of knowledge".

This is essentially a sequel to episode 1 of this series about the "reality of abstractions". This question considers the special case of the laws of physics. In what sense do the laws of physics exist? Can we deny their existence as some philosophers do?

In this episode I actually do some readings from the chapter (unlike in last episode). Here we really delve into the new science of the constructor theory of information. We learn about what the physical requirements are for information to exist in our universe and therefore why it is that information is a physical property. The very possibility that matter can allow for negation (or flip) operations and copy operations is a property of matter in our universe. It did not have to be this way. A physical account, therefore, of these operations and further the so-called “interoperability” of information (the substrate independence of information or the capacity of information to be transferred or copied from disparate media to other media) all lead to a discussion of the universality of information. All of these are counterfactual rather than factual properties of physical systems in our universe.   This is fascinating but subtle stuff that few physicists have yet grasped the significance of and for that reason alone is well worth understanding for anyone who would like to be at the cutting edge of problem solving at the foundations of physics.

This is me asking David about interesting and inherently uninteresting things. What effect might "undecidable" propositions have in the physical world? David gives an answer I have been looking for.

In this the fourth episode about Chiara Marletto's excellent work "The Science of Can and Can't" I discuss the science of information. Chapter 3 of the book is called "Information" but in this episode I do not actually read from the book. This is a broader overview of issues in epistemology, folk philosophy, physics and mathematics that have some connection to the topic of "information". I thought these might be useful contextual remarks before leaping into reading the book. That will happen next episode. Quite a few images and I move through a mathematical problem at one point on the screen which may be difficult given audio only. The video version is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8uTVbdjMy8

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  

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 interview can, in its original form be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MEgZ4f7Bw   “Do Explain” is a podcast interview series created by Christofer Lövgren (Chris as I call him because I can’t pronounce his surname). Find “Do Explain” anywhere podcasts can be found - for example Apple here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjr6PqYvdDxAhVbb30KHb_dDwMQFjAMegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fus%2Fpodcast%2Fdo-explain-with-christofer-l%25C3%25B6vgren%2Fid1482313214&usg=AOvVaw0G27IzC-h5LsxVAY3_tY44 or “Tune In” here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjr6PqYvdDxAhVbb30KHb_dDwMQFjACegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftunein.com%2Fpodcasts%2FEducation-Podcasts%2FDo-Explain-p1284002%2F&usg=AOvVaw2LktTeYavrEMGpDDG7xC4r   The main website and host for Do Explain for now is here: https://doexplain.buzzsprout.com

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

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.

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

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).

This is a question for David about Popper's notion of "verisimilitude". Can we utter the truth? What does David think about probability? Two excellent talks by David referred to in this video are the one he did on "Statements, Propositions and Truth" with the Oxford Karl Popper Society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs and the one on Probability (which is somewhat misleadingly titled "David Deutsch on Physics Without Probability" - it's actually far broader than this and should be required viewing for anyone who thinks they already understand lots about probability. After this, they might need to rethink their life ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE...

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

This is the second part of my interview with David - with me making some remarks about it. I will eventually release the entire conversation.   If you would like to support this endeavor, do consider making a one off (or even monthly) donation by clicking the “Donate” button on the front page of www.bretthall.org or you may “subscribe” at https://patreon.com/BrettRHall or contribute "per episode" at https://www.patreon.com/tokcast

The first episode in a new series of "Questions for David" - featuring David Deutsch himself - as a supplement or appendix to my series on "The Beginning of Infinity". This first one is about "The Reality of Abstractions".

This is the final "The Beginning of Infinity" episode. I must say: the Youtube version of this contains many useful videos and images to help with what is being described and explained.    Either way: Enjoy! (And rest assured "The Science of Can and Can't" and "The Fabric of Reality" episodes will continue to come out weekly. This is not the end, but "The Beginning").   Here is a time-stamped summary of the contents of this episode: 00:00 “The Horizon”: An introduction to “The Beginning of Infinity” 03:10 The Beginning. A throwback. 04:20 The point of all this. 06:15 Comments on Ricky Gervais and Sam Harris “Absolutely Mental” podcast and related themes 09:30 A place for religion and people. 16:00 A central message of BoI 16:45 Books that inform a worldview: including "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris 22:30 Some criteria for understanding 27:40 Competing “epistemologies”. 31:20 Some comments on Ayn Rand’s philosophy 32:30 The “knowledge density” of "The Beginning of Infinity" 38:20 Critical thinking 43:15 Common Sense Realism 47:30 The end of the introduction 48:00 Reading Part 1 49:05 My reflections on historian Roy Porter and the competing Enlightenments 56:45 Reading Part 2 57:00 Prophesies and Predictions. 59:15 Reading Part 3 59:30 "Popperian Provisos" 1:00:35 Reading Part 4 1:00:51 The infinite potential of explanatory knowledge 1:01:40 Reading Part 5 1:04:10 Physical reality and laws of physics 1:05:15 Reading Part 6 1:05:30 Simulations vs recordings of people 1:06:35 Reading Part 7 1:08:00 Misunderstandings of Explanatory Universality 1:10:00 The Final Reading 1:11:00 The Beginning. A Throwback Part 2 1:12:30 Extended credits.   Music: "Double Slit Test" by Ketsa: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa/The_Double_Slit_Test/Double_Slit_Test   Made for Mum & Jem.

This podcast is abut crypto - and recent volatility. I explain some of the psychological motivation for crypto currency and compare it to fiat currency and the liabilities of both. Some comments on so-called “Modern Monetary Policy/Theory”.    If you wish to support my podcast, that can be done here: ToKCast is creating Videos, Podcast and Articles | Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com › BrettRHall or here Brett Hall is creating Videoes and Podcasts about ... - Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com › tokcast   or for Paypal donations - either one off or monthly go here and click on "Donate" http://www.bretthall.org

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. 

This episode is focussed on the physics content of chapter 1. I explain what the current “conception” of physics is in terms of dynamical laws and initial conditions. I run through a simple example of how equations of motion are used and discuss how this has been, hitherto, the way physics has been done, is done and is expected to continue to be done according to most philosophers and physicists. We then compare this vision of physics to what constructor theory aims to achieve by considering more than just a single thread through the fabric of reality (what was, is and will be) and instead to consider what might have been and might still be. This clearly has implications for knowledge and, again, we hint at the possibility of a physics of epistemology. It also opens up the possibility for physics to address questions about why the initial conditions are the way they are and thus provides a new window into the origins of the universe and the problem of "fine tuning" when it comes to the constant of nature and the form of the physical laws.

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.

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 exploration of the first 7 pages of "The Fabric of Reality". I spend much of the time talking about the significance of the book, how I missed so much even on my first few readings of it and how we find even in these first few pages not merely the seeds of aspects of David Deutsch's later work, but an entire forest of important ideas that motivate much in "The Beginning of Infinity" and his other philosophical work such as "The Logic of Experimental Tests": https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271767/1-s2.0-S1355219816X00032/1-s2.0-S135521981530023X/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjELP%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDFvidQX0HdiKbHk8tDPI6Xx3d%2B08WVdW4bvTrJtAYhMQIhAOt3a6GjnI1w40bclPo3W%2FmgEaTVnQbmCk0bLelHxjBMKrQDCDwQAxoMMDU5MDAzNTQ2ODY1IgxMZezhD4njxDVguhMqkQNVjXPy%2FvRGzs%2FHY9Eq0tQcEX79UhxDO7Y%2B1Q71GgGvyy3IIsw3VGCgbYaLsIV7h%2BhoB6bfELgfSNGiy33pRrgxKytokoNoIXVQRSCJdkc%2F93GAjaEDCpzMDX1NV9Jujj9iQOHeLzbiLkqMCXld1sWannla7s7Nm2MOb7GdKYkHcGnHcba5fugyQE8HUhiCtGFHzyPRyq2ZnuoL7SFFGeC5tLB7X7TFQhT2YO%2FuXrt9LLkIiFAPCGsCAYW2AMr0XuQdkuG7CxWDYmTIWLTJ734iOlYtppxYbperE3Y63xDqTS7Jq80A79It3GulbT9iStjm7JBFy4LF3ZZbhs%2F60XABJ8U3WyEV4d4sYYWIzPsoTFZoFB3OQlchQg6WNuFwQXUHj5yLYnJDRkVP%2BnggZ%2Boln%2BJw8ILAe9BUexIxS1qGO2J8xgQciX04NQG2ELZ6ciEQnC12rc7l2nIMtz56C3JfPaYJhMwk%2B6%2FJkkxYlNvT5bhxxSwq4hTVPpBWXbMZNWx%2B5FilnKR6kIbmVmPM2L8MvjDg2NKEBjrqAQG87WkTVsRgGe2AoR45PfFE%2BVUqtcUC9qY8q8vzdDIEKGwhaA3BMdfISXsH8Sl7Jxw0TxNioDazf5uueAEQB2yFowtSVc9udD9N6mhwOlRby4RBAPLwkAEgz%2FWl4aXXE3%2FaWxCuXQfWEFbN9mSHtc2kmafJWYYfijbeOdmTC9kRwrCVraCdWAGPgzcUNGW0ciNWBo6s%2B9Vci2sCyZo7OCcVfYMuWZFDjcWYK0t3kGvEvVWQuFTLyOTSLsDvZNf0JeZo5%2BggGnUuqs8DFMZ0GlcEaeP5GnNcPaMdAqitYYF67f9vfRQdGsbGbg%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210507T033518Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYQHJSKL4E%2F20210507%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=5f11cec79591e29071a4fd8800fd5d04f1af8a99e6afc05e17f2f07b201e3a92&hash=5835606749c3a73dfb50b1c1a16451933716d7dd085bc5ca765562e01bae8aa1&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S135521981530023X&tid=spdf-d6a79e96-757a-4541-9f5d-c2e61a0df1ed&sid=cd7069598b3c214f033b0e3-bdecf1cfde71gxrqa&type=client For many who read "FoR" as it has affectionately become known prior to "The Beginning of Infinity" (BoI) - it was FoR that really shifted our mindset from a common-sense and traditional understanding of science and philosophy to a genuinely Popperian world view, updated and refined by David Deutsch. This is not a book to be read lightly if one is unaccustomed to the work of David Deutsch. It will change your mind. I do not mean in the colloquial sense of that phrase - like "It will change an idea you have". I mean it will change what your mind is to you. You will think differently. You be speak differently. You will behave differently. You will be different. In a much better way.

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.

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.

This episode is identical to episode 59 - only it contains no music. I don't think this is as good :) My preferred way to experience this is the video version version which is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTxBkmr4LE .  of this video (there is another published alongside this without any music -again, I don't think it is as good, but if you prefer "no music" - there is a video version without that also here: https://youtu.be/Ky4vMllidvM​   In either case this episode seeks to answer the question "What is a person?" in the context of our best scientific and philosophical understanding of evolution by natural selection, the theory of computation (including quantum computation), the theory of epistemology - how knowledge is created - and finally quantum theory - in particular the Everettian multiverse understanding of it in its most modern incarnation, as explained primarily by David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity" and invoking the concept of fungibility. The concept of "personhood" has been historically a very tricky idea; either mired in the murky waters of mysticism, or reduced by the near vacuousness of physicalism. This document attempts to provide a video essay on the topic given our most up to date notions of what is true in philosophy, mathematics, morality, epistemology and physics. Time stamps will be available soon. Credit for the music goes to “Ketsa” - https://ketsa.uk/​ where their music can be downloaded for free on a Creative Commons License here: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa​ and my own track breakdown is as follows: Track List and Times Save Ourselves (00:05​) Deliverance (03:02​) Astral Travel (06:22​) Blazing Stars (09:42​) Blessed Time (12:54​) Dancing by Twilight (38:30​) Wild Rivers (41:46​) Hear me out (44:42​) Gilded Moon (48:27​) Deep Math (53:58​) Built from Nothing (57:11​) Details for the creative commons license can be found at https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa​ and at the end of the video.

My preferred way to experience this is the video version version which is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTxBkmr4LE .  There is another version also published alongside this without any music - I don't think it is as good, but if you prefer "no music" - there is a version without that here: https://youtu.be/Ky4vMllidvM​   Note that episode 60 of the podcast is just "Episode 59 without the music" as well.    In either case this episode seeks to answer the question "What is a person?" in the context of our best scientific and philosophical understanding of evolution by natural selection, the theory of computation (including quantum computation), the theory of epistemology - how knowledge is created - and finally quantum theory - in particular the Everettian multiverse understanding of it in its most modern incarnation, as explained primarily by David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity" and invoking the concept of fungibility. The concept of "personhood" has been historically a very tricky idea; either mired in the murky waters of mysticism, or reduced by the near vacuousness of physicalism. This document attempts to provide a video essay on the topic given our most up to date notions of what is true in philosophy, mathematics, morality, epistemology and physics. Time stamps will be available soon. Credit for the music goes to “Ketsa” - https://ketsa.uk/​ where their music can be downloaded for free on a Creative Commons License here: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa​ and my own track breakdown is as follows: Track List and Times Save Ourselves (00:05​) Deliverance (03:02​) Astral Travel (06:22​) Blazing Stars (09:42​) Blessed Time (12:54​) Dancing by Twilight (38:30​) Wild Rivers (41:46​) Hear me out (44:42​) Gilded Moon (48:27​) Deep Math (53:58​) Built from Nothing (57:11​) Details for the creative commons license can be found at https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa​ and at the end of the video.

The beginning of "The Beginning" which is the chapter at the very end of "The Beginning of Infinity". :) Ignore what I say early on in this episode: this is episode 58, not 57. In this episode we revisit the idea that science, or knowledge broadly is coming to an "end". Even Feynman could become uncharacteristically pessimistic in this regard. Every new discovery reveals that there is more to know. Popper himself thought that as we increased our knowledge we would learn how much more ignorant we were - but that this has deep consequences for relating to each other. This is not the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning of The Beginning of Infinity. Support me monthly here: https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall​ or per episode here: https://www.patreon.com/tokcast​ or even a one off donation by clicking on the "Donate" button found here: http://www.bretthall.org/​

This is a podcast all about "Existential Risk". Made at the request of a Patreon, I cover the usual spectrum of ways in which people guess civilisation might end, discuss how to think about this from a rational - but critical - perspective and how to remain optimistic in the face of public intellectuals bombarding us with these claims about the coming end-times. If you would like to get early access to podcasts like this, consider becoming a Patreon either at https://www.patreon.com/tokcast (for per-episode support) or https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall (for per-month support).

The final part of the penultimate chapter. Here we cover "The parable of Europium" and other memorable pessimists from David's formative years. Some analysis of the present concerns about climate change and the rational problem solving - and optimistic approach as contrasted to the standard pessimistic lines.

What does it mean for something to exist?

Marx, Engels and Diamond present to us a vision of people as being in some sense impotent in the grand historical scheme - subject merely to natural forces and thus able to be predicted by a kind of natural law. This reductive view of people and their place in history (and the cosmos) leads to terrible historical ideas that bleed into pessimistic political ideologies. The truth instead is not bleak. People - in the form of their creative capacity to explain the world in which they find themselves leads to them being shapers of history. They are agents of change: powerful and good. We are reaching a crescendo of "The Beginning of Infinity".

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.

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.

What does the watchword of today "sustainable" really mean when taken seriously? In this episode we compare two titans of science communication: David Attenborough and Jacob Bronowski - for although they have inspired generations of scientists and those interested in science, their underlying philosophies could not have been more different. What are those philosophies and what consequences could they have if they were to drive actual policy? Also - a diversion on aspects of Australian and British history.

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".

What it says in the title :) A short and sweet introduction to a particular way of thinking and knowing. This is all about fallibilism and the possibilities that being wrong opens up.

This episode is highly visual and better viewed on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlcQ4ZFKrKk However, the substance is still there in this purely audio-only version. This is another episode not primarily about "The Beginning of Infinity" but it is deeply inspired by it. It is a discussion exploring the "resources" debate. Are resources finite or infinite? I look at the intersection between economics and cosmology or people and the universe. So this is all about how knowledge changes physical reality, or as David Deutsch has said: how explanations transform the world.

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 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.

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.

Early on in the episode, I wrongly refer to this as "Episode 43". It's not: it's episode 44. This particular episode is largely about the concepts underpinning chapter 16 - with very little reading (I get through the first page or so). We explore creativity, choice and the associated "mysteries" (or problems of) consciousness and free will. Are these all facets of the same underlying - deeper truth - about personhood? This is one of those episodes with a couple of references to what is going on in the video version of the podcast...but I think most people will have sufficient imagination to guess what is going on :)

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.

This episode is not about "The Beginning of Infinity". It is largely a reading of an article that can be found on my website at http://www.bretthall.org/blog/an-autobiography-of-wealth The purpose of that article and this episode is to discuss the pervasive claim that the middle classes have seen a stagnation in "real wage growth". I do not go deep into economic matters but rather take a personal perspective which, I would guess, is applicable to almost anyone.

In this episode I cover more of David Deutsch's contributions to philosophy. In order these are: 1. The true function of evidence in science 2. How the quantum multiverse is a testable theory 3. All evils are due to insufficient knowledge and how morality is about "What to do next". 4. The mathematician's misconception (i.e: that mathematical proof is independent of the known laws of physics).

This is part 2 of my introduction to Popper series. Here I cover 1. The concept of "conjectures" 2. Common Sense 3. Realism 4. The bucket and the searchlight 5. Debating definitions Yes. It's only 2 episodes in, and I have violated my self-imposed 10 minute limit rule. But I think it was worth it, rather than splitting these in two. To support this podcast, visit https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall to make a monthly donation or https://www.patreon.com/tokcast to contribute per episode. Thank you kindly to all donors.

This is the second 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 causes of a static society: that rule (rather than the exception) about progress coming to a halt in human communities. We follow on from part 1 in looking at how memes get replicated and how different kinds of memes have different effects upon their holders the the wider society.

This is the first 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 notion of a meme and consider under what conditions ideas replicate. As we touch upon: this is a question of civilizational consequence as it is related to the ability of a society to break out of being "static" (one with little to no progress) and become a modern "dynamic" one (where progress is unbounded).

A very brief, and personal, introduction to the philosophy of Karl Popper and David Deutsch. Note that the Youtube version of this exists in 3 parts, each of which has visuals that may help some with the explanations.

This is some commentary upon a recent debate Douglas Murray was engaged in - which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3sSnmq9uKU It is, broadly speaking, an excellent encounter, modulo - as Douglas rightly observes - the tendency for his interlocutor to resort to insults or other ad hominem remarks. I reflect on Douglas' position (with which I largely agree) and attempt to connect his remarks to some underlying modern philosophy. (Modern, I hasten to add, not "postmodern"!).

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.    

This is some reading and reflections upon chapter 13 of "The Beginning of Infinity". In this second part we consider criteria for democracy and democratic institutions. I take a deep dive into Popper's own writings on the topic to supplement the material in David's book. There is even, what we might call, some "self help" when it comes to making choices, or making better choices, or cultivating a better approach to problem solving when no option seems viable. Popper's article on democracy can be found here: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited

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 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 the second episode in a 3 part series about chapter 12 of "The Beginning of Infinity". Here we get into some of the connections between poor "interpretations" of quantum theory and relativism.

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. 

The final part of "The Multiverse" series - and with some discussion (and a story!) of some little known material about how to test "The Multiverse" against other (so-called) interpretations of quantum theory.

With apologies to audio only listeners, this one was up on Youtube for a while (and contains a few visuals) - I simply forgot to upload it to Podbean and Apple Podcasts. It is largely an analysis of common misconceptions about the multiverse and references a conversation between Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein who spoke about the multiverse during a recent conversation. 

This is a very brief and non-standard non-Beginning of Infinity podcast. It also does not mention COVID-19 at all. It is inspired in part by some remarks made by Yaron Brook. There is an important post associated with this episode which appears here: http://www.bretthall.org/blog/mainstream-morality As with my last episode, we will return to the usual programming soon.

This is a non-Beginning of Infinity Podcast. While it makes some references, as always, to the work of David Deutsch, it is primarily some thoughts about finding ourselves in a given problem situation and what we need to find our way out in time. Of course there is some reference made to the present COVID-19 situation. A rather different episode to the usual. I hope to get back to regular programming soon. Includes also: some response to Sam Harris "Making Sense" podcast on April 16 2020. And some explanation for the BoI "hiatus" (essentially that my studio is presently a "home office"). I hope it's still worth your time :)

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 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. 

This episode is an introduction to chapter 11 from "The Beginning of Infinity". While there are no readings from the book this time around, there are readings from "The Fabric of Reality". Audio only listeners should be aware that there is a significant visual component of this episode: animations, diagrams and so forth.

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!)  

In this, the second episode covering Chapter 10 "A Dream of Socrates", we encounter Plato in dialogue with Socrates. An attempt is made to learn epistemology from Socrates by Plato. Epistemology is applied to political institutions and the concept of dynamic and static societies is explored and we get our first sense of what anti-rational memes are about (though this terminology is not yet being used). In the second half I compare and contrast kinds of democracy.

In this, the first episode covering Chapter 10 "A Dream of Socrates", we explore epistemology directly. Hermes comes to Socrates in a dream (or somehow!) and uses a quite "Socratic Method" to draw out Popperian epistemology from Socrates. Empiricism is refuted and the correct way knowledge is guest and criticized to improve it discussed.

An irregular episode barely touching upon "The Beginning of Infinity". Somewhat self-indulgently, and purely for my own fun, I take a lesser-known Popper paper - found here http://www.bretthall.org/the-nature-of-philosophical-problems.html and provide lengthy commentary upon it with some remarks about its significance for some contemporary issues.

In this, the final episode covering Chapter 9 Optimism, we explore optimism as applied to politics and institutions. A pessimistic view of people, as animals that sometimes cannot be reasoned with, would imply the initiation of force is required. But understanding people as beings of compassion and reason means we should initiate kindness and use force only ever in response to violence. Pessimism about problems - problem avoidance is something we should not only take seriously but personally as David argues in this chapter. Because if optimism was not repeatedly stamped out or required the intellectual energy to constantly defend, we would be immortal already and living among the stars. 

In part 2 on Optimism, we explore the implications of David Deutsch's philosophy for individuals and institutiuons. Given people are the agents that create knowledge - the solutions to problems - what moral stance should we take with respect to them? How will this affect our future and what threats to optimism still exist in the contemporary zeitgeist?

This is the first of a 3 part series on chapter 9 of David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity". Chapter 9 is titled "Optimism" and the week this is published marks the 50th anniversary of the first steps taken by humans on the moon. If we choose to continue to pursue solutions in an open ended way - if we choose to embrace what might be called "Deutschian Optimism" then next it can be Mars...and after that the stars.

Note that this one is not primarily about a chapter from "The Beginning of Infinity". Some remarks on Sam Harris position on "Free Will" as articulated in his book of the same name. I do mention BoI and FoR of course and borrow heavily from David's work in constructing the arguments herein. Most especially the "Copper Atom at the tip of the nose of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square" argument. An argument that I think deserves a label shorter than that because it deserves to be remembered.

Unlucky 13: The microphone failed for this one, so the backup audio has been used. It's a little sub par but still "listenable". The next one sounds better. Note to audio-only people: some visuals are in this one - so you can find that on Youtube.

David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" - some remarks by Brett Hall on Chapter 6 "The Jump to Universality". This is a chapter in 1 part.

David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" Chapter 5, Part 2 "The Reality of Abstractions".

David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" Chapter 5, Part 1 "The Reality of Abstractions". Some remarks by Brett Hall

This is David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity" - a discussion by Brett Hall, Chapter 4, Part 2. This one is largely about "Fine Tuning".

This is the first part of Chapter 4 "Creation" from David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity".

This is part 2 of the commentary on chapter 3 "The Spark" from David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity"

The next in the series on David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity"

This is the first episode in a series on David Deutsch's groundbreaking work "The Beginning of Infinity". I read some passages from Chapter 1 "The Reach of Explanations" and make some explanatory remarks and other comments. This podcast is intended as a companion to the book. Feel free to ask me questions at www.bretthall.org

ToKCast is a podcast largely about the work of David Deutsch. We begin with a discussion of "The Beginning of Infinity".