ToKCast

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: [email protected] 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.