The Theory of Anything

Bruce discusses his unique interpretation of Karl Popper's epistemology, emphasizing the importance of a 'second axis' for bold and risky theories. Concepts like falsification, corroboration, and verisimilitude are explored, challenging traditional views on critical rationalism. The discussion touches on the evolution of Popper's ideas, the role of induction in science, and the necessity of fostering a culture of criticism in epistemology. Practical examples like Florida oranges and vitamin C are used to illustrate theory evaluation and empirical content.

In an episode that may (or may not) be his magnum opus, Bruce introduces his term for Karl Popper’s idea that you are only allowed to solve problems with your (scientific) theory by making it more empirical, not less empirical. Bruce makes the case that this is one of Karl Popper’s least appreciated ideas, as all of us are tempted by ad hoc saves that move our ideas in the direction of vagueness. Bruce also considers where conjectures come from and if Popper thought there existed a scientific method.

Exploring the concepts of 'easy to varyness' and 'ad hocness' in theories, the podcast delves into Popper's epistemology and its implications. From analyzing the challenges of understanding causal mechanisms to debating coercion and intelligence theories, the episode navigates through various thought-provoking discussions on critical rationalism and good explanations.

Exploring the creation of knowledge through evolution and human minds, challenging Deutsch's theory. Discussing the concept of 'Simul-Knowledge' and its implications. Comparing different sources of knowledge and the unique role of humans. Diving into theories of primal knowledge and human creativity, questioning traditional definitions of knowledge.

Exploring the debate on determinism in knowledge creation and the role of perspiration vs. inspiration. Analyzing the relationship between creativity and explanation, questioning if mechanical processes can generate knowledge. Discussing the interplay of hard work and innovative thinking in creativity, using examples like Edison and Einstein to illustrate the dynamics.

Do animals create knowledge? Deutsch claims they don't because all their knowledge is in their genes. Yet he admits that animals do have memes! But aren't memes, by definition, knowledge outside the genome? How does Deutsch attempt to deal with these problems with his theory of knowledge? And how well do his arguments hold up?

The podcast explores the concept of knowledge and its relation to artificial general intelligence (AGI). It discusses counterexamples to Deutsch's theory of knowledge, including trade secrets and animal intelligence. The chapter also delves into machine learning, animal behavior, the immune system, and robots.

In the previous episode, Bruce pointed out an apparent contradiction between Deutsch's criteria for knowledge as 'adapted information that causes itself to remain so' and his example of the 'walking robot algorithm' which is a case of adapted information causing itself to remain so but that Deutsch doesn't consider to be knowledge. This time we consider if we can eliminate the 'walking robot algorithm' from being considered 'knowledge' using Deutsch's and Marletto's Constructor Theory of Knowledge. Does the Constructor Theory of Knowledge save the 'two sources hypothesis'? (i.e. the hypothesis that there are only two sources of knowledge: biological evolution and human ideas)

Exploring Deutsch's Theory of Knowledge and the two sources hypothesis. Discussing the creation of knowledge through artificial evolution. Debating the validity of genetic programming algorithm as a source of knowledge. Exploring the difference between good and bad philosophical explanations. Questioning the relationship between non-knowledge and Deutsch's theory.

Bruce, an expert in machine learning, delves into the "problem of open-endedness" and its connection to evolution, human consciousness, and knowledge creation. He also shares tips on how NOT to argue with a Creationist.