ToKCast

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