Decision theory as a soultion to the issue of probabilities in the many worlds interpretation, and the many worlds interpretation is just nonsense as well,
I just randomly found this video yesterday and must say I am intrigued by David, his splendorous logic and approach towards truth. Just hearing him speak with such clearance and succinctness made me happy that I found this video. Just marvelous.
@@theodorepaul2610 Not quite. A good example of bad philosophy is pragmatism itself. The reason it is bad philosophy is because says we should not take any scientific theory seriously if it does not have any application. Einsteins Relativity had no real world applications until it was used to engineer the worlds first GPS. If scientists had really taken pragmatism seriously, Relativity would have been ruled out, essentially preventing progress in fundamental physics. This is what he Deutsch means.
That doesn't mean pragmatism, or positivism is "bad" on the whole, but rather that there are some bad things in it, or that it can be taken beyond reasonable limits. We need to be surgens(forgot how to spell) and remove only the bad bits and not throw the whole thing out as bad... Labelling schools of thought as binary good or bad is itself doing philosophy in a vague or "bad" way itself. While thinking in nuanced ways is "good" philosophy, or rather an aspect of what it means to do good philosophy. But even vague statements can have their place. General vs specific can have a balance.
David Deutsch is the antidote to dogmatism that is so very needed in science today. His ideas are relevant to science, meaning, and even consciousness.
This is like music to my ears. Last minute is sublime 9:20. It basically goes like this: + what's the antidote to "bad philosophy"? - good philosophy (i.e. "truth", the scientific method...) will always pass the "tests" for it to be worthy of being promoted, whereas bad philosophy will not. The truth will prevale. Not because a book says so, but because it will be impossible for another book not to say so. I hope I've made my point, my english could be better, lol.
I'm just starting down the Deutsch rabbit hole. One area I'm intrigued by is the concept of "the mode of explanation". Coming at problems from a different perspective that leads to a line of inquiry that ultimately provides new insight. What's the source of these "modes"? Genius? Creativity? Why have some people like Einstein, Darwin etc capable of coming up with these "angles of attack" to problems. The quest for good explanations...some are better than others. How and why? I'm obsessed.
"The Truth is reflects it's value to the observer to validate the observation in dynamic rather than state fundamental of reality." Got that today in a fortune cookie anyway, hope this helps.
5:50 "False philosophy is not harmful. In fact error is the standard state of human knowledge, where we can expect to find error everywhere and including in the theories that we most cherished as true."
and so being rich or successful in dating or whatever- asymptotically at least- without knowing its how&why is not so desirable after all- for it's just luck, asymptotically cutting both ways...
While conversing with another woman about religion, her defense was that those in churches give each other support. I agreed, and when I asked her if what they teach within the churches is based on truth, she informed me that truth comes in many layers. I replied that that was news to me, because I always believed that if truth existed, it would only have one layer.
My definition of TRUTH is...a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It accounts for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.
BTW, Deutsch is also the same guy who invented so-called 'Constructor Theory' for describing the Laws of the Universe and their relation to the 'possibilities', which has started receiving a lotta attention lately... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory
Today, when I'm watching this video (19 September 2022) - I barely could focus on what he was saying as my mind was constantly wandering off. I didn't get what he was saying.... I understood nearly 10% (being generous to me) of what he said. I'm about to read his book The beginning of Infinity. I also am going to practice to silence my monkey mind progressively with time. I'll keep coming back to this video until I understand what he is trying to say. I want to raise my dopamine standards. I hope, when I edit this comment (which I'll do 5-6 times) I hope to be making progress. Till - I feel, I've embodied the quality of focus and sense of urgency my mentors had. It's not the philosophy I'm behind, it's the Intent which I look for.
I once found this video utterly confusing, understanding barely anything. But now after a couple of years of reading his books and watching every video I can find, I can generally understand everything. Each time I re listen I understand more. So it’s definitely possible. What’s funny is that his ideas actually become intuitive and simple, compared to most irrational thinking. It’s like we should have been taught this stuff when we were kids. It’s super easy to understand, it’s just everything else that’s been drilled into us otherwise. Just the simple concept alone of bad philosophies are those that close off progress (but error is totally expected) - such a basic sentence that explains so much.
Does David not accept ontological reductionism, i. e. the view that any higher level “emergent” phenomenon could in principle be fully described solely by reference to the parts involved in the phenomenon? Another way to phrase the question would be to ask whether David believes in the possibility of what philosophers have dubbed “strong emergence.” I can’t really tell whether it’s that or whether he’s just saying that higher level explanations are often times more suitable and that seeking them is more conducive to the advancement of understanding than trying to understand everything at a fundamental level. In other words, is David rejecting ontological reductionism or just methodological reductionism?
Brilliant. Science (expalanation) does not have to be about reductionism/ because it is about connections which are most true. Because they are reoccurring and therefore predictive, or of the highest relevance level (importance) to understand a current state. Because reality is also momentum driven and therefore does not only depend on reoccurrence.
"A good explanation is one that is hard to vary while still explaining what it purports to explain"...so, fine tuning may not be a problem but a virtue?
[Fact, Real, and Truth] Truth is the logic that is always absolutely right, regardless of the physical world, fact is what happened in the physical world, and ‘real’ is the case that truth or fact reveals as it is. So whether it is truth or not is a matter of whether it is always true regardless of the physical space and time or not, whether it is a fact or not is a matter of whether it happened in the physical world or not, and whether it is real or false is a matter of whether the revealed truth or fact is revealed as it is or not, that is, whether the truth or fact is hided, masqueraded or manipulated, or not. OnCharm Lee (Author of the book "Humans & Truth - Human life is the awakening process")
I agree that a mathematical formula may not be an explanation, but that implies that we do not yet have a proper and rigorous language for explanation. Or perhaps there are many languages, but they are not rigorous enough to guarantee good explanation.
2:00 I don't quite agree with or misunderstand this bit. The origin of species is explained by the TOE. Ok, but there should be some underlying mechanism that make evolution part of the bigger picture of molecules, atoms, quantum mechanics... And there is no clear link yet, so why is it a good explanation? I mean, when you tell me, well, there are genetic mutations, I would ask why do the happen. And if you tell me, there is still going to be a why... And to be a 'good explanation' any deeper explanation that you would give me would need to show why exactly the upper level reality emerges out of this deeper reality, and not something else... So, isn't a good explanation the one that has no whys after it?
Interesting, but I don't see he's saying much more than Popper did with his notion of falsifiability. There is something more, but it's a bit odd, because on the one hand he is really trying to be non-dogmatic about the notion of explanation (for example, science shouldn't be constrained by a dogmatic reductionism; I think that's a good stancemyself), but then he presents a *single* notion of explanation which he believes can be applied to *every* domain of scientific, juridical, ethical, and philosophical thought. But, like the "explanation" of the magic trick as actual he (rightly) dismisses as a bad explanation because it can be applied to anything, his own theory of explanation seems to be deracinated by its applicability to everything.
Yes, but good explanations will be general, and general explanations will be "simple." A good, general explanation cannot be more "complicated" than the object of the explanation.
In his example of bad or non-explanations, he didn't address the fact that the value of the explanation depends on level of understanding the recipient has for the topic being explained. If the recipient, or student, really, has no prior knowledge of conjuring, then the explanation, "well, the conjurer did something" would be of value and, hence, a good explanation. It's only a bad explanation if this is already understood. It's an incomplete explanation, mind you, but then all explanations are because all must end on an agreed point of satisfaction. Explanations are only deemed good if: 1) they don't state what is already known by the student, 2) say something new to the student, and 3) advance the student's understanding. E.g. explanations would differ wildly if the student is a practitioner and or a neophyte.
"Bad philosophy is philosophy whose effect is to close off growth of knowledge in that field" Is this statement a bad philosophy itself then? Should it not include bad philosophies as one the tools in the toolbox as well?
So Occam's Razor is bad philosophy? It disregards things beyond human experience, such as the unseen statistical outliers. If it is beyond human experience, we may still care, but it may be impractical to put it at a high prioriy to explore. Do we just need more intellectual humility? "I don't know." is often a true statement and an honest explanation.
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical fallacy of its truth? The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize that truth, by definition, isn't true . . . The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that an analysis is in progress. Truth infers an analysis of the probability that it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2), an inference that a truth is never 100% true. Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the exact degree that that truth was not true. Are we reaching synthesis as what is true from testing our truths OR are we killing what is true, one truth at a time?
Testability is the only way to make progress, that's pretty obvious. Checking if something does work or if it doesn't is the only way to discover what actually works and to which point it works. Still, this is not enough to reach "the truth", if there's any... We'd need an infinite amount of time and resources for that quest of reaching some kind of empirical truth. We're going to be treating for always with temporal and partial "truths" merged with illusions.
Bob Aldo This is what you take away from all that wonderful explanation: How someone looks a certain way?! I bet you're a Trump supporter, too. Actually, that would be a good explanation for your demonstrated degree of stupidity and misguided sense of coolness. Get a life.
It’s amazing how quickly people invoke trump. Might as well be hitler or Satan or Stalin. “If you do or think something I consider to be negative, then Trump!”
Truthiness "act or quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than those known to be true," catch word popularized in this sense by U.S. comedian Stephen Colbert, declared by American Dialect Society to be "2005 Word of the Year."
The statement that a good explanation is hard to vary while still explaining what it purports to explain is very odd. If an explanation explains something, it adds nothing more to say that if it is not varied (because it is hard to vary) it continues to explain that thing. There must be a much better way to phrase the idea.
im not sure i agree entirely. depends on which fields he's talking about when he's saying that bad philosophy has dominated. it's certainly not true of philosophy of religion, where alvin plantinga revived it. his modal ontological argument for gods existence can easily be combined with for example the works of etzel cardeña on synchronicity and penrose and hameroffs work on quantum consciousness. i don't take his argument to mean that god exists, but that there's a fundamental nature of existence that is non-contingent. to me, this means that consciousness has a fundamental nature in some sense, and i hypothesize several or possibly infinite amounts of discrete and individual 'consciousnesses' on a more fundamental level, and that causality arises bottom up from there, explaining for example why and how synchronicity works among other things. i think there's a lot of physicists who don't know enough about philosophy of religion. to create a fundamental theory of everything cannot be limited to physics, as physics only describes the machinery itself, but not how it arises. alvin plantinga explained the reality of a necessary existence. the problem is to realize what is necessary and it cannot be bound to physical laws of causality, which is why you can't get at it to understand physics. but to look at for example the variants of physics that people predominantly practice, there is no explanation for the well attested concept of synchronicity. usually, synchronicity is explained as being mere coincidence. i don't understand how physicists, ignorant of the fundamental nature of reality, write off such things such as synchronicity even though they do NOT know the fundamental nature of reality. i find existence to be in a sort of perfect harmony, so i find the assertion that everything is arbitrary to be baseless. on that note, for example, richard dawkins assumes that for evolution to have teleology, its purpose must have been to minimize suffering to the greatest degree possible, and to make everything as efficient as possible. i do not understand this at all. but if you take the view that i have, it's perfectly obvious why everything is kind of clunky. consciousness is at the fundamental nature of reality, and humans like diversity, adversity and struggle. considering this, we should not imagine that we come by everything we want easily, or that we never get cancer, or that murder is impossible, or any sort of thing of the sort.
If our outer reality is presented to our senses as "icons on a desktop" as described by Professor Donald Hoffman, how about exploring our inner reality? Experiment: Sing *HU* . Search how to sing *HU* . A sonic tuning fork to safely personal frequency.
Aren't the mathematical formulas the best explanations we have right now, because they make really accurate predictions? That doesn't mean other less accurate explanations are bad, but often just not as useful. In the humanities scientists can try to find explanations in both quantitative and qualitative ways. There is really no reason to neglect either of these approaches. Both methods can be done well or poorly.
I didn't say it is an ultimate foundation, did you reply to the wrong comment?. I said it produces much better predictions in problems where it's applicable. I think predictive power is the most useful part of explanatory power.
Mikko Haavisto Within certain disciplines perhaps. But in the sciences in general? I think not. English is just as useful and powerful a language as Mathematics!
Mikko Haavisto No absolutely not. There are some things the mathematics can do, that English can not. Mathematics is designed to perform a particular task. Not all tasks that humans are interested in can be reduced to mathematics. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved this.
1. Human experience IS the only thing worthy of investigation. 2. The investigation of the non-experienced is a waste of life. What purpose other than your experience does your investigation of the non-experienced serve? Do you do it for world peace and prosperity of mankind? No. You do it because the process and/or its outcome gives you some kind of experience. E.g. when our ancestors experienced cold they investigated how to feel warmer and came up with winter clothing expecting to change the experience of being cold. All our motivation is nothing but expectations of experiences. And to have an experience is the whole point of being alive. So by mocking the idea that human experience could be the single most important thing to investigate, you're confessing to be absolutely clueless about reality, including your own.
The only "real" magic that I have been able to identify is death. A thing (you) that exists suddenly does not exist anymore, even though all of the matter and cells and parts are lying there looking just the same, you are gone. Abracadabra, indeed.
You are a weirdo! The wonder is in the birth, not death. Going back to non-existence is about as trivial as it gets. Now the other way round is much more curious
@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 I just now spotted your response. I won't take it personally, but I don't see birth as a big deal. An organism buds off a piece of itself that divides until it is large enough to separate completely and live independently. Nothing new was created. It's only notable because we give it a name and have to clean up its mess. Once you get to a certain age and become sentient and self-aware, then something new has come into existence, but only from you personal, internal perspective. From the outside, you are just another member of the herd. This is what ceases to exist, but only from the first person perspective, and what other perspective could matter?
Truth is the logical conclusion to provable fact. E=MC2 is a provable fact, and it reveals a truth processes explained within that equation. Rational inquiry.
It's pretty ironic that he would use Evolution by Natural Selection as his example of a good explanation when it should be his example for a bad explanation. Evolution says that whatever you find is what was selected or fittest. If the trees get taller, evolution, shorter trees, evolution. Animals get faster, or slower, becomes aquatic or climbs on to land, evolution. It covers everything, just like calling it magic. Also, I didn't hear anything about "truth".
@@jeff-co1zw Is it really though? I accept evolution as a fact, in the sense that Darwin did in Origins. I don't think anyone has a problem with "change over time" or "excess production and differential survival", but even the neo-darwinists will wax poetic about "selective pressures" or "filling niches", and will spin fanciful tales of animals adapting to high food or tall grass. Darwin only used the term selection in order to make his ideas more acceptable to his contemporaries who were going through a animal husbandry craze with pigeons and such. Right at the introduction to The Selfish Gene, Dawkins made it clear that genes were not actually selfish, but it was a useful heuristic to understand evolution. If you can make the same distinction with selection, niches, adaptations, and all the other human constructs imbedded in evolutionary theory, then you won't get any quibble from me.
@@build_the_future_ You are making my point. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing. How can you be wrong if you say that whatever survives and reproduces is "fit" and anything that doesn't is not fit. How about, any car that goes over 50mph is fast and anyone that doesn't is slow. I just explained how cars work.
His explanation of explanation is bad. He says it is an explanation of what is there in reality, but I can give an explanation about an idea which does not exist in reality, example: The square root of -1.
The error is actually made by you because you're taking the logical positivist route and are actually question-begging in your assumption that the only things that are real are things that can be kicked like a football or sliced like cheese. The square root of -1 is real as a concept with real applications in chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. even if that concept doesn't in itself, possess matter.
You need to distinguish fact, realization, and truth for the exact understanding the genuine truth. To the people who seek the genuine truth, I dare recommend without hesitation OnCharm’s book “Human, God, and Truth: Life is the Awakening Process - Amazon”.
As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, logic and didactics are the foundation of philosophy. Why not use those tools to explain the unobservable universe. I'll tell you why, because you don't have the tools to prove any of the theories about the unobservable part of the universe. In that case, isn't it pointless to philosophize about it?
Here are some examples of MAGIC: luck genetics (cause we know very little about this field) god soul conciseness (we can't even define it, this is about the answer to the difference between AI and humans)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
The clarity of DD's thought processes is something to behold.
This guy deserves much more public attention
He is a fucking quack. Read his theories. Total clown
Lee Hudson name one
Decision theory as a soultion to the issue of probabilities in the many worlds interpretation, and the many worlds interpretation is just nonsense as well,
Lee Hudson are you a theoretical physicist?
@@kevinpurnell9465 Apparently Lee Hudson created the 1st Quantum algorithm - LOL
Deutsch is fantastic to listen to.
If given the option of A) eternal life or B) listening to lies leading to certain death, which would one choose?
@@chrisc1257 What?
I just randomly found this video yesterday and must say I am intrigued by David, his splendorous logic and approach towards truth.
Just hearing him speak with such clearance and succinctness made me happy that I found this video. Just marvelous.
You have to read his book.
@@blueskies1237 books*
reading beginning of infinity now. epic
"Bad philosophy is philosophy whose effect is to close off growth of knowledge in that field". Thanks for the quote, David.
@@theodorepaul2610 Not quite. A good example of bad philosophy is pragmatism itself. The reason it is bad philosophy is because says we should not take any scientific theory seriously if it does not have any application.
Einsteins Relativity had no real world applications until it was used to engineer the worlds first GPS. If scientists had really taken pragmatism seriously, Relativity would have been ruled out, essentially preventing progress in fundamental physics.
This is what he Deutsch means.
That doesn't mean pragmatism, or positivism is "bad" on the whole, but rather that there are some bad things in it, or that it can be taken beyond reasonable limits. We need to be surgens(forgot how to spell) and remove only the bad bits and not throw the whole thing out as bad...
Labelling schools of thought as binary good or bad is itself doing philosophy in a vague or "bad" way itself.
While thinking in nuanced ways is "good" philosophy, or rather an aspect of what it means to do good philosophy.
But even vague statements can have their place. General vs specific can have a balance.
Most of Analytic Philosophy!
@@taulantsalihi5512that is not his point
*All forms of collectivism is an example of bad philosophy.*
I swear he's from another dimension. Very enlightening man.
David Deutsch is the antidote to dogmatism that is so very needed in science today. His ideas are relevant to science, meaning, and even consciousness.
I could listen to this guy all day
One of the best videos ever recorded. This claim has no variation, it's just a fact.
One MUST love this guy…
So clear, the distinction is whether the idea has a chance of making progress or not.
This is like music to my ears. Last minute is sublime 9:20. It basically goes like this:
+ what's the antidote to "bad philosophy"?
- good philosophy (i.e. "truth", the scientific method...) will always pass the "tests" for it to be worthy of being promoted, whereas bad philosophy will not.
The truth will prevale. Not because a book says so, but because it will be impossible for another book not to say so. I hope I've made my point, my english could be better, lol.
I feel like David Deutsch is the mind of reality awake. He is the language of the universe.
Court Jester Ashe He's fucking awesome
No he is not, he is the mind of the egoistic judgmental atheist.
That's a bad explanation.
I wish this video was playing on repeat in every public building on Earth.
I'm just starting down the Deutsch rabbit hole. One area I'm intrigued by is the concept of "the mode of explanation". Coming at problems from a different perspective that leads to a line of inquiry that ultimately provides new insight. What's the source of these "modes"? Genius? Creativity? Why have some people like Einstein, Darwin etc capable of coming up with these "angles of attack" to problems. The quest for good explanations...some are better than others. How and why? I'm obsessed.
"a better MODE of explanation" - truly revealing
Im sure he means by a better explanation a rule that can be applied to everything labled X
I find Deutsch to be very enlightening
"error is the standard state of human knowledge"
"The Truth is reflects it's value to the observer to validate the observation in dynamic rather than state fundamental of reality." Got that today in a fortune cookie anyway, hope this helps.
If every scientist thought like him we would be light years ahead by now in knowledge
Layers on layers of knowledge
5:50 "False philosophy is not harmful. In fact error is the standard state of human knowledge, where we can expect to find error everywhere and including in the theories that we most cherished as true."
David Deutsch makes my ears feel the states: Happy, Content
An explanation of a good meal is not only the combined ingredients but always the good experience of it too.
and so being rich or successful in dating or whatever- asymptotically at least- without knowing its how&why is not so desirable after all- for it's just luck, asymptotically cutting both ways...
Wow love this guy
why is that they are speaking english but i can not understand a word?
Noseefood i feel better now.
because THIS IS A BAD EXPLANATION, recording to his theory.
Noseefood I find he's easy to understand.
It takes a while and a lot of "background knowledge" to understand what they're saying.
I don’t believe you. Surely you can understand some of what he is saying about explanations a
i would like an explanation for his explanation.
Read his book The Beginning of Infinity, his explanation for his explanation!
While conversing with another woman about religion, her defense was that those in churches give each other support. I agreed, and when I asked her if what they teach within the churches is based on truth, she informed me that truth comes in many layers.
I replied that that was news to me, because I always believed that if truth existed, it would only have one layer.
Where can I view the entire interview? This guy was just getting started!
www.closertotruth.com/contributor/david-deutsch/profile
I like this guy!
Excellent !!
Truth is that which continuously replicates. A truth is an instance of truth, like a fact or a perspective.
"the idea that formula is an explanation prevents real explanations from being discovered"
"quest for good explanations"
My definition of TRUTH is...a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It accounts for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.
Bravo 👏👏👏
Now we know more about the truth. Thank you.
why's the interviewer 60fps and David 30fps?
[00:23]
[00:49]
[01:41] completely inadequate
[02:40]
03:11
04:16
04:24
05:26
06:44
07:50
09:02
09:12
=====
07:37 - conclusion it draws applies to itself.
Why does a good or bad explanation have to do with wether or not a idea has a chance at making progress? Can we have bad explanation that is correct?
BTW, Deutsch is also the same guy who invented so-called 'Constructor Theory' for describing the Laws of the Universe and their relation to the 'possibilities', which has started receiving a lotta attention lately... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory
what would be a valid alternative to logical positivism according to Deutsch?🤔
Empirical Induction
Who is listening while reading comments?
how can somebody dislike this video?
Today, when I'm watching this video (19 September 2022) - I barely could focus on what he was saying as my mind was constantly wandering off. I didn't get what he was saying.... I understood nearly 10% (being generous to me) of what he said.
I'm about to read his book The beginning of Infinity. I also am going to practice to silence my monkey mind progressively with time.
I'll keep coming back to this video until I understand what he is trying to say.
I want to raise my dopamine standards. I hope, when I edit this comment (which I'll do 5-6 times) I hope to be making progress. Till - I feel, I've embodied the quality of focus and sense of urgency my mentors had.
It's not the philosophy I'm behind, it's the Intent which I look for.
I look forward to it. 😊
I once found this video utterly confusing, understanding barely anything. But now after a couple of years of reading his books and watching every video I can find, I can generally understand everything. Each time I re listen I understand more. So it’s definitely possible. What’s funny is that his ideas actually become intuitive and simple, compared to most irrational thinking.
It’s like we should have been taught this stuff when we were kids. It’s super easy to understand, it’s just everything else that’s been drilled into us otherwise.
Just the simple concept alone of bad philosophies are those that close off progress (but error is totally expected) - such a basic sentence that explains so much.
Does David not accept ontological reductionism, i. e. the view that any higher level “emergent” phenomenon could in principle be fully described solely by reference to the parts involved in the phenomenon? Another way to phrase the question would be to ask whether David believes in the possibility of what philosophers have dubbed “strong emergence.”
I can’t really tell whether it’s that or whether he’s just saying that higher level explanations are often times more suitable and that seeking them is more conducive to the advancement of understanding than trying to understand everything at a fundamental level. In other words, is David rejecting ontological reductionism or just methodological reductionism?
He's rejecting methodological reductionism.
Genius.
From what David Deutsch says about logical positivism, it would seem that "cancel culture" is one a prime example of bad philosophy.
Brilliant. Science (expalanation) does not have to be about reductionism/ because it is about connections which are most true. Because they are reoccurring and therefore predictive, or of the highest relevance level (importance) to understand a current state. Because reality is also momentum driven and therefore does not only depend on reoccurrence.
"A good explanation is one that is hard to vary while still explaining what it purports to explain"...so, fine tuning may not be a problem but a virtue?
[Fact, Real, and Truth]
Truth is the logic that is always absolutely right, regardless of the physical world, fact is what happened in the physical world, and ‘real’ is the case that truth or fact reveals as it is.
So whether it is truth or not is a matter of whether it is always true regardless of the physical space and time or not, whether it is a fact or not is a matter of whether it happened in the physical world or not, and whether it is real or false is a matter of whether the revealed truth or fact is revealed as it is or not, that is, whether the truth or fact is hided, masqueraded or manipulated, or not.
OnCharm Lee (Author of the book "Humans & Truth - Human life is the awakening process")
OnCharm Lee sounds like nonsense to me, btw "hided" is not a word.
I agree that a mathematical formula may not be an explanation, but that implies that we do not yet have a proper and rigorous language for explanation. Or perhaps there are many languages, but they are not rigorous enough to guarantee good explanation.
2:00 I don't quite agree with or misunderstand this bit. The origin of species is explained by the TOE. Ok, but there should be some underlying mechanism that make evolution part of the bigger picture of molecules, atoms, quantum mechanics... And there is no clear link yet, so why is it a good explanation? I mean, when you tell me, well, there are genetic mutations, I would ask why do the happen. And if you tell me, there is still going to be a why... And to be a 'good explanation' any deeper explanation that you would give me would need to show why exactly the upper level reality emerges out of this deeper reality, and not something else...
So, isn't a good explanation the one that has no whys after it?
Who knew Rod Stewart was such a brilliant scientist? Sorry- couldn't resist that one.
Do good explanations have to be true?
I didn't know Robin Gibb is good at philosophy ...
Interesting, but I don't see he's saying much more than Popper did with his notion of falsifiability. There is something more, but it's a bit odd, because on the one hand he is really trying to be non-dogmatic about the notion of explanation (for example, science shouldn't be constrained by a dogmatic reductionism; I think that's a good stancemyself), but then he presents a *single* notion of explanation which he believes can be applied to *every* domain of scientific, juridical, ethical, and philosophical thought. But, like the "explanation" of the magic trick as actual he (rightly) dismisses as a bad explanation because it can be applied to anything, his own theory of explanation seems to be deracinated by its applicability to everything.
Yes, but good explanations will be general, and general explanations will be "simple." A good, general explanation cannot be more "complicated" than the object of the explanation.
But you can't apply it to everything like you can with his explanation of the magic trick.
@@HitomiAyumu go on you two, please
Curious if he has any explanation with visiting Angels to children ...
In his example of bad or non-explanations, he didn't address the fact that the value of the explanation depends on level of understanding the recipient has for the topic being explained. If the recipient, or student, really, has no prior knowledge of conjuring, then the explanation, "well, the conjurer did something" would be of value and, hence, a good explanation. It's only a bad explanation if this is already understood. It's an incomplete explanation, mind you, but then all explanations are because all must end on an agreed point of satisfaction. Explanations are only deemed good if: 1) they don't state what is already known by the student, 2) say something new to the student, and 3) advance the student's understanding. E.g. explanations would differ wildly if the student is a practitioner and or a neophyte.
the room has no gravity , that explains the movement of the camera
9:43
"Bad philosophy is philosophy whose effect is to close off growth of knowledge in that field"
Is this statement a bad philosophy itself then? Should it not include bad philosophies as one the tools in the toolbox as well?
So Occam's Razor is bad philosophy? It disregards things beyond human experience, such as the unseen statistical outliers. If it is beyond human experience, we may still care, but it may be impractical to put it at a high prioriy to explore.
Do we just need more intellectual humility? "I don't know." is often a true statement and an honest explanation.
loving it, sadly
Good point, fine tuning and bad explanations are example of self referential reasoning gone wrong.
#WhatAKindGentleWise1
I disagree with about 80% of the conclusions he comes up with, but I do like his way of looking at things.
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical fallacy of its truth?
The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize
that truth, by definition, isn't true . . .
The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that
an analysis is in progress.
Truth infers an analysis of the probability that
it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2),
an inference that a truth is never 100% true.
Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the
exact degree that that truth was not true.
Are we reaching synthesis as what is true
from testing our truths OR are we killing
what is true, one truth at a time?
And so on
I must have missed the part where the question of the video title was addressed?
🤔🤔
Welcome to youtube.
5:18 *RELATIVELY* buck and weave; it's still a constant background.... objectively speaking.
🙏🥰🙏
Testability is the only way to make progress, that's pretty obvious. Checking if something does work or if it doesn't is the only way to discover what actually works and to which point it works.
Still, this is not enough to reach "the truth", if there's any... We'd need an infinite amount of time and resources for that quest of reaching some kind of empirical truth.
We're going to be treating for always with temporal and partial "truths" merged with illusions.
Popper's falsification criterion
I Agree. Mr. Deutsch should be More Mainstream to us. And in University Classrooms. This Man is Too Intelligent.
Explain that haircut!
Bob Aldo This is what you take away from all that wonderful explanation: How someone looks a certain way?! I bet you're a Trump supporter, too. Actually, that would be a good explanation for your demonstrated degree of stupidity and misguided sense of coolness. Get a life.
I bet you're a three headed toad from the Planet Of The Lizard people, Nothing.
404 error.
nothing master no AI allowed
It’s amazing how quickly people invoke trump. Might as well be hitler or Satan or Stalin. “If you do or think something I consider to be negative, then Trump!”
Truthiness "act or quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than those known to be true," catch word popularized in this sense by U.S. comedian Stephen Colbert, declared by American Dialect Society to be "2005 Word of the Year."
I wouldn't say 'It's Magic', anymore than I'd say 'It's Nature'. A good explanation must specify the magical process or natural mechanism.
Lol, what? He's not talking about Occult magick but stage magic.
RE: the title.
Does the word "truth" even make an appearance in this discussion?
The statement that a good explanation is hard to vary while still explaining what it purports to explain is very odd. If an explanation explains something, it adds nothing more to say that if it is not varied (because it is hard to vary) it continues to explain that thing. There must be a much better way to phrase the idea.
im not sure i agree entirely. depends on which fields he's talking about when he's saying that bad philosophy has dominated. it's certainly not true of philosophy of religion, where alvin plantinga revived it. his modal ontological argument for gods existence can easily be combined with for example the works of etzel cardeña on synchronicity and penrose and hameroffs work on quantum consciousness.
i don't take his argument to mean that god exists, but that there's a fundamental nature of existence that is non-contingent. to me, this means that consciousness has a fundamental nature in some sense, and i hypothesize several or possibly infinite amounts of discrete and individual 'consciousnesses' on a more fundamental level, and that causality arises bottom up from there, explaining for example why and how synchronicity works among other things.
i think there's a lot of physicists who don't know enough about philosophy of religion. to create a fundamental theory of everything cannot be limited to physics, as physics only describes the machinery itself, but not how it arises. alvin plantinga explained the reality of a necessary existence. the problem is to realize what is necessary and it cannot be bound to physical laws of causality, which is why you can't get at it to understand physics. but to look at for example the variants of physics that people predominantly practice, there is no explanation for the well attested concept of synchronicity. usually, synchronicity is explained as being mere coincidence.
i don't understand how physicists, ignorant of the fundamental nature of reality, write off such things such as synchronicity even though they do NOT know the fundamental nature of reality. i find existence to be in a sort of perfect harmony, so i find the assertion that everything is arbitrary to be baseless. on that note, for example, richard dawkins assumes that for evolution to have teleology, its purpose must have been to minimize suffering to the greatest degree possible, and to make everything as efficient as possible. i do not understand this at all. but if you take the view that i have, it's perfectly obvious why everything is kind of clunky. consciousness is at the fundamental nature of reality, and humans like diversity, adversity and struggle. considering this, we should not imagine that we come by everything we want easily, or that we never get cancer, or that murder is impossible, or any sort of thing of the sort.
If the explanation "Well it's actually magic" applies to everything equally, could it not be argued that it actually the height of truth?
A poor explanation that can equally apply to everything is still a poor explanation.
No because it does not answer the question "why magic and not something else. Like, say, a slight of hand".
Guys a fucking genius !
What is truth ?
If you have to ask, how are you ever going to know the answer ?
If our outer reality is presented to our senses as "icons on a desktop" as described by Professor Donald Hoffman, how about exploring our inner reality? Experiment: Sing *HU* . Search how to sing *HU* . A sonic tuning fork to safely personal frequency.
Aren't the mathematical formulas the best explanations we have right now, because they make really accurate predictions? That doesn't mean other less accurate explanations are bad, but often just not as useful. In the humanities scientists can try to find explanations in both quantitative and qualitative ways. There is really no reason to neglect either of these approaches. Both methods can be done well or poorly.
No, absolutely not. Mathematics, like science, is just an special case of reason. It is not an ultimate foundation.
I didn't say it is an ultimate foundation, did you reply to the wrong comment?. I said it produces much better predictions in problems where it's applicable. I think predictive power is the most useful part of explanatory power.
Mikko Haavisto Within certain disciplines perhaps. But in the sciences in general? I think not. English is just as useful and powerful a language as Mathematics!
Well now we are just arguing about semantics, since you can spell out any mathematical formula in English and it is still a mathematical formula.
Mikko Haavisto No absolutely not. There are some things the mathematics can do, that English can not. Mathematics is designed to perform a particular task. Not all tasks that humans are interested in can be reduced to mathematics. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved this.
1. Human experience IS the only thing worthy of investigation.
2. The investigation of the non-experienced is a waste of life.
What purpose other than your experience does your investigation of the non-experienced serve? Do you do it for world peace and prosperity of mankind? No. You do it because the process and/or its outcome gives you some kind of experience. E.g. when our ancestors experienced cold they investigated how to feel warmer and came up with winter clothing expecting to change the experience of being cold. All our motivation is nothing but expectations of experiences. And to have an experience is the whole point of being alive. So by mocking the idea that human experience could be the single most important thing to investigate, you're confessing to be absolutely clueless about reality, including your own.
Good video, but it's about explanation, not truth. I would recommend updating the title.
There's no such thing as truth, only good and bad explanations.
The more eccentric the look, the more they bend your mind.
The only "real" magic that I have been able to identify is death. A thing (you) that exists suddenly does not exist anymore, even though all of the matter and cells and parts are lying there looking just the same, you are gone. Abracadabra, indeed.
I think we must assume that death is an illusion and all life is immortal. We cannot ignore the best theory we have quantum physics.
You are a weirdo! The wonder is in the birth, not death. Going back to non-existence is about as trivial as it gets. Now the other way round is much more curious
@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 I just now spotted your response. I won't take it personally, but I don't see birth as a big deal. An organism buds off a piece of itself that divides until it is large enough to separate completely and live independently. Nothing new was created. It's only notable because we give it a name and have to clean up its mess.
Once you get to a certain age and become sentient and self-aware, then something new has come into existence, but only from you personal, internal perspective. From the outside, you are just another member of the herd. This is what ceases to exist, but only from the first person perspective, and what other perspective could matter?
But Alice,WHO ARE YOU??????
Truth is the logical conclusion to provable fact.
E=MC2 is a provable fact, and it reveals a truth processes explained within that equation.
Rational inquiry.
It's pretty ironic that he would use Evolution by Natural Selection as his example of a good explanation when it should be his example for a bad explanation. Evolution says that whatever you find is what was selected or fittest. If the trees get taller, evolution, shorter trees, evolution. Animals get faster, or slower, becomes aquatic or climbs on to land, evolution. It covers everything, just like calling it magic. Also, I didn't hear anything about "truth".
You're strawmanning David. The example he used was neo-darwinism which is different than what you just wrote.
@@jeff-co1zw Is it really though? I accept evolution as a fact, in the sense that Darwin did in Origins. I don't think anyone has a problem with "change over time" or "excess production and differential survival", but even the neo-darwinists will wax poetic about "selective pressures" or "filling niches", and will spin fanciful tales of animals adapting to high food or tall grass. Darwin only used the term selection in order to make his ideas more acceptable to his contemporaries who were going through a animal husbandry craze with pigeons and such.
Right at the introduction to The Selfish Gene, Dawkins made it clear that genes were not actually selfish, but it was a useful heuristic to understand evolution. If you can make the same distinction with selection, niches, adaptations, and all the other human constructs imbedded in evolutionary theory, then you won't get any quibble from me.
@@caricue general purpose comes to mind 🤔
not to mention a referencing to the most universally successful explanations so far, as such
@@build_the_future_ You are making my point. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing. How can you be wrong if you say that whatever survives and reproduces is "fit" and anything that doesn't is not fit. How about, any car that goes over 50mph is fast and anyone that doesn't is slow. I just explained how cars work.
He's basically expounding Popper.
But with a twist. Popper was a philosopher of science and Deutsch is at the same time more specific (about phyics) and more general (about truth).
He is a self declared Popperian
He Is Popperian
His explanation of explanation is bad. He says it is an explanation of what is there in reality, but I can give an explanation about an idea which does not exist in reality, example: The square root of -1.
The error is actually made by you because you're taking the logical positivist route and are actually question-begging in your assumption that the only things that are real are things that can be kicked like a football or sliced like cheese. The square root of -1 is real as a concept with real applications in chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. even if that concept doesn't in itself, possess matter.
Nor does the square root of 1 exist in reality.
What is Truth? Go look into the "mirror" and tell me what you "see" ?
I wonder if thats why the government doesnt talk about ufo ... because they cant give a good explanation
You need to distinguish fact, realization, and truth for the exact understanding the genuine truth. To the people who seek the genuine truth, I dare recommend without hesitation OnCharm’s book “Human, God, and Truth: Life is the Awakening Process - Amazon”.
As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, logic and didactics are the foundation of philosophy. Why not use those tools to explain the unobservable universe. I'll tell you why, because you don't have the tools to prove any of the theories about the unobservable part of the universe. In that case, isn't it pointless to philosophize about it?
Very good - I wonder if we'll ever 'explain' why gravity bends spacetime. Isn't the best but very bad explanation that God does it?
Gravity doesn't bend spacetime. Objects do.
Here are some examples of MAGIC:
luck
genetics (cause we know very little about this field)
god
soul
conciseness (we can't even define it, this is about the answer to the difference between AI and humans)
his hair 🤣
I doubt if this person took his metaphysic class seriously, though striving to make metaphysical claims.