ToKCast

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