Theory of Anything Hosts David Deutsch
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- This was recorded during the 24 hr. transcontinental Popperian ZOOM Meet 'n Greet of January 9th-10th, 2021 organized by OurKarlPopper.net. Bruce was asked to host a session with the subject of David Deutsch and how he brought a whole new generation to Karl Popper's philosophy. But at the last minute, we found out David Deutsch himself was attending. So we redid our plans to allow people to ask him questions.
Follow us on Twitter at / bnielson01
Audio version available at Anchor Podcasts:
anchor.fm/four...
For more information on the Podcast visit our website at fourstrands.org/
A new David Deutsch! Yes! Thank you
So great to have any new material that shows what David is thinking.
Really enjoyed this event, thanks to everyone involved!
this was so fun!!
7:15 Traditions of criticism stabilize a culture that can change
21:00 David’s ideas on implementing AGI
23:45 What is knowledge, how does it relate to useful stuff
33:20 Mistake in morality can be much more costly than other sorts of mistakes
37:20 Why David thinks progress is some of the sciences have stalled
Thank you!
Thanks for making this
Also, see last question after interview is done
A great event. Very interesting to hear David’s comments around 44 minutes concerning the application of the maxim “if you cannot program it you haven’t understood it” to what he implicitly refers to as “non-informational processes”. I take him to be referring to an agent’s problem (eg “how do stars shine?”) being solved by a good explanation in terms of emergent non reductive entities conjectured by the agent. Every conjectured explanation makes use of some vocabulary; perhaps new modes of explanation posit novel vocabulary in order to track novel emergent entities in reality? Once there is such an explanation then I assume that a computer could simulate it using information processing by programming of a suitable algorithm, but it’s the novelty of the vocabulary that is related to there being a new mode of explanation. Whether there is a causal relationship is an interesting question!
That's an interesting viewpoint. I need to think about it more. But as an initial conjecture, I like it. Flexibility in language (and thus a certain level of vagueness) does seem to play an important role in how we explain things. At least at first.
@@theoryofanything6137 Creating new vocabulary ex nihilo isn’t in my view a sensible idea unless one is prepared to humbly carry out rigorous error correction thereafter! However creating a new distinction to split an existing term, or an existing standpoint or assumption may be a better first step. Still it will require lots of honest error correction afterwards, as far as we know!
Underrated channel
Theory of anything is not only love, but also hatred😅，as your talk, Sir.
Does anyone know what is the Pickle Rick episode mentioned in the end of this video?
This is actually the most useful part of this discussion. ruclips.net/video/_gRnvDRFYN4/видео.html
Mathematics is like a language with deep terms. So when a vocabulary of deep terms can be utilized. Some of it, will be used by our brain. And applied. Perhaps we can do brain design because we know so deeply with it. (@ 35 min)
(@38min) Thus, our brains can do physics (and other things).
"Animals appear to have feelings" - But mammals have most of the same feelings as us, just to a different degree.
Even insects have a lot of feelings that I recognize - fear, panic, hunger, sexual. Dogs are capable of huge love feelings (and hate).
Dunno about plants though .....
Very interesting, although his observations on psychology seem to contradict his own explanation of explanation as he didn't refer to emergence and the level of explanation. Nor did he refer to the uniqueness of the human mind in being able to come up with explanations, which is most certainly psychology requiring an emergence explanation. His belief that everything that can be understood must be computable is also jarring, given Penrose's very powerful arguments that consciousness is not a computation, let alone Hoffman's conjecture that consciousness itself is the fundamental of the universe. Not that it matters - like me, his passion is for mathematics and physics rather than psychology.
I agree with you on the psychology front. Psychology is sort of a loosey goosey science, for sure, but it's effective at many things. There should be a science of psychology for the very reason you outline -- emergence. As far as Penrose's argument, I'll have to cover it in detail in a future podcast. But let's just say his argument isn't actually very good. In fact, I spent years studying it and it was what finally convinced me Deutsch was right about computation being universal because his argument -- when fully understood -- undermines his own point.
I lisen to big wurd jibber jabber tong talk for big anser but leaf disapointored as sceinceman anser is dunno. We got anser bro
When a physicist becomes a philosopher late in life, one cannot expect as brilliant results as before. It becomes somewhat incorrect to use insight from a previous subject to a later one. Popper's idea of falsifiability cannot be applied to David Deutsch's later and more philosophical theories. Thus, it goes from being a scientific theory to a philosophical idea, just like Popper's own philosophical ideas (a type of ideas that he almost looked at with contempt himself and did not put in the same class as the scientific ones). How can these theories be falsifiable I wonder? And how to be scientific? Of course, they are not and are thus equated with any other philosophy. And not quite equal either. Because most philosophers who have developed a philosophy have spent their entire lives on it.
David Deutsch's 'theory' is really just these four theories combined: Popper's epistemology, Biological Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, Computational Theory. Which of those do you believe can't be falsified? As far as I can tell, all four can be.
@@theoryofanything6137 Only quantum mechanics as far as I can tell from what Popper himself meant (who was the one who introduced it?). Not computation, because mathematics is not science, not Popper's own theory (it is philosophy), not biology (it is not an exact science).
@@arnebovarne7759 Interesting. I can think of how to falsify every one of those, regardless of how they are 'classified.' I'm not sure classifications matter.
@@arnebovarne7759 Biology is not an exact Science? Really?
如果人類還停留在希臘神話時代，大家就是嫉妒，爭吵，吃醋，爭鬥，生了又死，死了又生，可能人類心理還健康些，後來人類給宙斯發了一張結婚證，從此進入光明期，但也代表黑暗終將降臨，如果只有梵天，沒有濕婆，就不完美啦。你耶穌這樣廣被眾生，也只選了十二門徒，救世主丟下這些人真是不負責🤣
Democratic...!