ToKCast

This is the first in the series of "Things that make you go mm?" (Get it - shorter!). Minisodes getting to the fundamentals of each of the Mmmms I've been discussing recently. Theories are misconceptions. All our knowledge contains misconceptions - as well as truth.

This is the second part of "Minds" which is the 5th part of the "Things that make you go mmmmm?" series. In this we encounter some deep misconceptions. What is intelligence? Is it about setting and achieving goals? Can a system be intelligent and yet only obey its instructions? What is the relevance of disobedience? What are the practical moral implications of misunderstanding epistemology? This is me at my most animated.

This is part 1 of part 4 (if you take my meaning) of my "Things that make you go mmmmm?" series. It's called "Minds" and when recording I was unable to anticipate how long it would go for - so I've needed to split it into 2 parts. This is the first.  I discuss what a mind might be, and what intelligence could be thought of as. What, then, is super intelligence? What is supernaturalism? What is creativity? What is the moral status of a person? What are the hazards of guessing at the problems our descendants will have? What are the moral dangers of a false epistemology? Is "super intelligent" and "super unintelligent" a strict contradiction? Does Google plan on test driving their self-driving cars? Yes: all this is discussed and more - hopefully in a somewhat fun way. 

Yes, that's plural. Multiverses. I have spoken many times before on this podcast about "the multiverse". Indeed it is a central theme of ToKCast and a thread running through both the Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity. But here we discuss other kinds of multiverse - Max Tegmark's 4 species of multiverse. To what extent do they count as science? Are they testable? Does that matter? I found this one a lot of fun.   As an alternative to Max Tegmark's work on all this, the lesser known but perhaps more specialised Luke Barnes (@lukebarnesastro on Twitter) focusses on Fine Tuning in cosmology. His website https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/luke/ is prolific when it comes to this issue and he takes on the problem from a vast array of perspectives.  This is Sabine Hossenfelder & Luke Barnes debating "The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OoYzcxzvvM And this is him "against" Sean Carroll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJEWg1ifUCg These discussions with Luke (a relative unknown) up against "celebrity" physicists can be really interesting for a couple of reasons sociologically. Luke's no-nonsense Aussie attitude against a continental European in the first instance and an American in the second instance is just worth noticing for the subtle cultural differences (very subtle perhaps!) and also because Luke, as I say, is highly specialised on this particular problem of fine tuning of the laws of physics. Sabine and Sean understand the basics of this - but it's not their day to day work. It is Luke's and so that difference is telling at times. Finally here is Luke's discussion with Robert Kuhn of "Closer to Truth" - what I said is my favourite Youtube channel (where you can also find discussions with David Deutsch, Jaron Lanier, Paul Davies and well, almost anyone who's anyone in physics/science/cosmology/philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY7Ck1y1fx4   Also see his page on the Closer to Truth website which has his background and links to lots of his videos: https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/luke-barnes/profile Luke may be an Aussie, but I don't actually know him personally - I just happen to think he is a particularly cogent voice on these issues!  

This episode is an interlude for the "Things that make you go mmmmm?" series. It provides, I hope, some helpful advice for "spotting errors" motivated by my recent readings of certain other "popular science" books where I kept spotting certain errors, mistakes and misconceptions. My conclusion: the writer lacked something like a more coherent worldview. I present a very brief exposition of an alternative: namely to have a coherent worldview and what that could look like.

Here I discuss the "mathematician's misconception" from a number of angles: the confusion between mathematical reality - and our knowledge of that mathematical reality. We also discuss why it is mathematics is effective in the natural sciences, like physics and whether and to what extent physics must reduce to mathematics in some ultimate sense. In the discussion between Sam Harris and Max Tegmark here, they are really probing the border between metaphysics and physics.

This is the first episode of a new series about the multiverse, mathematics, morality, mind, metaphysics, M-theory, misconceptions, mistakes and much more. It is prompted by an episode of "Making Sense" where Sam Harris' spoke with physicist Max Tegmark. I am using that more as a prompt than anything else to give my own views on the wide range of topics they cover there and present a different perspective on what they discuss there. Sam's own "intuitions" are challenged at times by Max's and I want to go a few steps further still in challenging even our intuitions about intuitions...among other things. It's a lot of fun and in keeping with the M-theme, there's even minuscule musical moments. 

Here, we get to the conversation itself. We draw a line with some laughs along the way from early Popper, to later Popper, early Fabric of Reality, through to The Beginning of Infinity and to "The Logic of Experimental Tests" - what I regard as the current best known explanation of explanations and science in particular. We can see an evolution - a refinement of Popperian epistemology which, of course is the same as just "epistemology". This chapter shows not only the fallacious way in which inductivism casts science as merely being about prediction but is also a knock down refutation of variants thereof like Bayesianism. Enjoy - this one was a lot of fun to record, so I hope it's likewise an enjoyable listen.

This is part of "The Fabric of Reality" series of podcasts, working as a supplement to material in Chapter 7 "A Conversation about Justification". In this episode I am beginning to draw a line from where Popper was, what epistemological worldview he was trying to (philosophically!) escape from - where he began in that journey, what he passed through, where Deutsch took off from and where we are now. This one may be for the real Popper "die hards" so to speak. Although esoteric and quibbling, nonetheless there should be something in here of use to anyone new to Popper or just interested in science, the philosophy of science and epistemology.

This chapter continues the themes from Chapter 5 and purports to be an exploration of the use of so-called "rational choice theory". I discuss this "theory" and how well it applies to the "real life process of the same name". How do we make rational choices? By assigning probabilities? By weighing our options? Something else?