Видео

Excellent 😊

Me: will you please just admit you're wrong Him:

Hey sir I really love your voice and knowledge, I will read your book in near as I am listening you I feel very much understanding physics

Hope your well Deutsch .. hope you succeed.. Take care

God is real✝️✝️✝️ Christianity is the only Truth✝️✝️✝️ The Lord Jesus Christ is God✝️✝️✝️

Very interesting

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke How is that anti-enlightenment? Deutsch is critiquing the way reactionary forces characterise "woke" and yes probably how people who jump on bandwagons end up behaving. Btw he did the same mistake re. Brexit, believing people mean what they say, not seeing the hustle It is frustrating because his educational ideas "taking children seriously" are brilliant… and not in this spirit at all

Not a strong argument. Nazism advanced science faster in some areas _because_ they lacked moral restraint e.g regarding human experimentation on live subjects

The talk is called "What a Universal Constructor can and can't do" on the conference website. Maybe change title?

Why would an AGI have the same rights and freedoms as a person unless we assume it’s conscious?

Can someone help me understand the proof for the universal constructor David is speaking about here? I can’t quite wrap my head around it. 😅 From what I understand the classical laws of motion + initial condition worldview of physics can only account for necessary transformations, not for possible ones. David says according to constructor theory, there can be no fundamental theory of exact initial conditions. “The future is affected by knowledge we don’t have yet.” Therefore exact prediction of the future is impossible. In the same way exact prediction of the past is not possible, because knowledge of the past has been lost. On to the proof that universal constructor can exist. David say only finitely many kinds of objects that could be needed in constructions can possibly form spontaneously, i.e without knowledge. Everything complex either evolves in which case it can be made given the right knowledge or it can be made by a constructor, which can itself be made and so on to a chain of finite depth - using knowledge that can itself be created. Is David saying, that there is no law that would forbid a universal constructor to exist, which means it must be possible? I feel like I’m missing some key pieces 😅

I listen to everything DD says multiple times getting gold each time. Like he says in the Fabric of Reality. You can send knowledge on a journey of millions of light years and it can utterly transform its destination. His words on knowledge have transformed my view of reality utterly.

Tankyo bro lern me

David Deutsch is great! I'd love to hear him have a conversation with Iain McGilchrist

I love this guy :) I want to hear him talk to Iain McGilchrist and John Vervaeke

Mr Deutsch - my intellectual hero ! The chapter 'A physicists history of bad philosophy' from 'The Beginning of Infinity' should be a compulsory text for 1st year physics students'.

About knowledge that comes with no financial profit, power over others or, at the very least, substantial fame, no one will ever hear, regardless of it’s importance.

That does not mean half of number theory is not BS ! :)

Well put good sir. This ridiculous notion that placing guardrails on AGI will curtail it, or that there wont be bad actors and or nationstates that wouldnt continue towards supremacy with AGI. I say hands off the wheel lets see where this is going.

Key to success: - Define civilisation the way that makes you look civilised and, at the same time, pictures the ones using different definitions to be harmful, malicious dummies. So civilised, indeed!

Mathematics, in which I hold a straight A degree (for 34 years), is, indeed, the very essence of intellectualism and coincidentally, also the only source of every penny of profit ever made and every consequence that profit came with (the good, the bad and the ugly). It applies to all of our reality (to the ENTIRE universe) we chose to call discoverable. Similarly to Achilles who - due to the basic axioms of this made-up example - will never reach the turtle (since it always takes some time for him to get to it, and that time will always keeps the turtle ahead a tiny bit). Limitation that we introduce into any structure of assumed reality will limit the results we can possible gain while staying inside it. No, I’m not religious nor esoteric - not even limited in my scope of considerations.

Hopefully CT will help navigating toward the next frontier of understanding quantum gravity

There was a response on it from some woke guy. Why don't addressing it

When will this book be realsed. How to contact professor deutsch

Anti-intelectualism is everywhere and it sucks.

Without mathematical formulas and logic. The world as we know it today would not exist bottom line!

Top channel. Thanks.

Beautiful movie

😂

Thank you

When he says you can’t base political decisions on ’the Science’ what does he mean?

Witchcraft it’s a craft. You don’t know what your talking about . And I’m not joking. If you know you know. Fuq the internet

Understanding the universe around you is something that we can all do. But the nurture of your upbringing can and does affect your ability to get to the Truth. Because it can be difficult to drop the things that you have be taught to be true, but some ideas can not be proven. And therefore cannot be said to be true. So first observe the universe around you. Find something of interest, and ask How then Why. You can Guess the How and Why, but then you Must test your Guesses. But, If your results shows that your guesses were Wrong, Guess Again! Others should also test out your theory. You need to keep testing your theories, till you get to a point where you’re test results can show your hypothesis the most likely. This is the Scientific Method. There is no other way! The Truth depends on it. And it’s the because of the Scientific Method that you are reading this comment. 😊

Was this guy the basis for Austin Powers?

My 9 y.o. daughter asked me if magician schools are real - they are, in the fairytales, said I - and is there anything that isn’t even possible in fairy tales? Now, thanks to you, I have the right answer: Yes, they are those things we don’t yet know we don’t know about. Not to mention the things of which we will never even be able to figure out that we don’t know them...

"it would be living hell" truer words have never been spoken 😅

Love these!

I need to get in contact with you! I get it and need to work with you on my formula.

53:25 is he David Pearce?

One interesting philosophical feature of constructor theory seems to be that it plays very well with strongly anti-reductionistic stances in debates about laws of nature. On the Ramsey-(David) Lewis account of natural laws, laws are the most general (strong & simple, given some vocabulary of so-called natural properties) statements of an exhaustive description of the universe. This is the reductionistic account, since it permits that laws change from a possible world to a possible world. This means, in other words, that there is no sharp distinction between initial state of a system and the differential equation describing it (in the pre-constructor theory vocabulary). This property, called confusingly Humean Supervenience (while barely having anything to do with Hume), of a physical theory is known to not be satisfied by any interpretation quantum mechanics due to its inseparability (this property is sometimes confusingly called "locality" but Bell's theorem doesn't say anything about locality proper of quantum mechanics!), as demonstrated famously by e.g. Bell's theorem (unless one is willing to give up the idea of a "physical system" and say that there are only states of individual particles and of the world as a whole ...which is completly unscientifc). But constructor theory from the very ground isolates the issue of initial & final states and laws constraining them (that is: possible transformations) very clearly, which is unsurprising, if the Ramsey-Lewis account fails specifically in quantum contexts, where the theory was born afterall. It also makes sense for a Popperian (critical rationalist) who emphasizes the non-cumulative nature of scientific evidence to make this move, of course, although since QM was introduced, and especially EPR, Bell etc. thought deeply about entanglement, it is also (immediately) warranted by physics. And, of course, with the multiple worlds interpretation of QM modality is introduced at the ground level which destroys the purpose of any reductive account, since the theory itself already talks about possible worlds.

Whenever anyone sees something new, they immediately try to classify it with the closet known thing or a combination of things that already exist. To truly appreciate NEW ideas is to simply observe it as it is, take it in and process it without classifying. The next day or later that week, you can revisit that art and begin to process judgements/thoughts but for the perspective of the NEW work itself, as it has existed in your past.

Hitchens would definitely agree

What is your point? Who is this aiming at

What horses mouth said the Truth shall set you free. It's a true tale, also not my secret to keep, and as much business of yours as you care to make it. #GoArch

That's like saying, "There's no such thing as the probability I'll win this game of chess, it depends on what moves I'll make." There is, it's called P(win | do(moves)). P(wiped out | do(protection)) is perfectly reasonable

We *think* paper obeys quantum physics.

"In Russian Roulette, there's nothing you can do to change the probability of doom -- according to the rules of the game -- in real life you could --" Love that!

I wish to bet against David Deutsch on any topic he proposes including theoretical physics. My superior knowledge of probability means I can never lose.

I work as a bookmaker and everyday I make money because I can calculate probabilities better than the Mug Punters who bet with me. Deutsch seems to say that I shouldn"t win or that I am lucky. Hey David Deutsch! I challenge you to any contest in predicticting probability, I wish to bet against you on this mate.

this one is not that deep tbh