ToKCast

This is part of my series on Chiara Marletto's groundbreaking book on Constructor Theory "The Science of Can and Can't". In this episode, I do not read from the book but set the scene for newcomers who may not have a physics/engineering/chemistry or perhaps the scientific background to be familiar with some of the concepts introduced in the next chapter from that book. Chapter 6 is called "Work and Heat" and Chiara (along with David Deutsch) are working on a "Constructor Theoretic" approach to thermodynamics: which is a first. I thought it instructive to first look at where we have come from: what the understandings are at the moment with all this, what the history has been and therefore set the scene for what Constructor Theory adds which is new. In this episode I cover the basics (but subtleties!) of the 4 laws of thermodynamics, heat engines, temperature, heat, work, energy, degraded energy and entropy along with some remarks about the philosophy and pedagogy of it all. Readings from physical chemist Peter Atkin's and physicist Paul Davies older and more recent books are made so we get an understanding of the significance many place on this area of physics elevating it to a position alongside quantum theory and general relativity as an essential component of a complete worldview for understanding physical reality as of this moment.

Just a bit of fun more than anything else. A quick response (despite the length of the podcast!) to the pessimism, despair and implied authoritarianism found in an "article" on the Guardian penned by the academics at Monash University in Australia. The article may or may not survive, who knows? So at my Substack here https://bretthall.substack.com/p/the-planetary-health-authority?sd=nfs&s=w#details the article has been cut and pasted by me as an image. But the original article as of today is here: https://www.theguardian.com/monash-university-the-endangered-generation/2022/may/17/wake-up-call-are-we-really-endangering-the-next-generation

This is newsletter number 8 which is an unusually lengthy one, hence it is being released here also as an "irregular" podcast.    The transcript and references can be found here: https://bretthall.substack.com/p/heat-work-universality-and-exams?r=3r9kb&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

This is my succinct explanation of "Objective Knowledge" - the concept and not the book of the same name by Karl Popper. However that book of course informs this entire thesis of what Objective Knowledge is. My view of objective knowledge is augmented by more recent advances in epistemology, philosophy and physics by David Deutsch as expressed largely in "The Beginning of Infinity" but also with some reference to "Constructor Theory". I will place more precise time stamps on this episode later but for now there exist roughly 4 parts to this episode: 1. Objectivity vs Subjectivity 2. Objective Knowledge 3. Other ideas about epistemology 4. Conclusions.   This episode not only explains "objective knowledge" from the so-called "Popperian" or "Critical Rationalist" perspective in the 21st century but also serves to refute the dominant other competing epistemological notions. In the order I deal with them using quotations from their own proponents and "primary sources" they are: Bayesian Epistemology (as endorsed by other "rationalists" and as explained in places like www.lesswrong.com) and "Objectivist Epistemology" (as first explained by Ayn Rand and promoted by, among others, the Ayn Rand Institute and self-identified "objectivists"). I show how both of these alternatives views of epistemology are not "objective" in two senses. And those two senses of objective are the criteria for objective and are only met by the Popperian framework.

Although an episode devoted to "virtual reality" may seem quirky, parochial or quaint: the fact is that the concept of virtual reality runs very deep. Our understanding of reality is via virtual reality: that conjuring of the external physical world that our minds manage to do. I cannot do better than a part of the chapter itself where David writes "All reasoning, all thinking and all external experience are forms of virtual reality. These things are physical processes which so far have been observed in only one place in the universe, namely the vicinity of the planet Earth. We shall see... that all living processes involve virtual reality too, but human beings in particular have a special relationship with it. Biologically speaking, the virtual-reality rendering of their environment is the characteristic means by which human beings survive. In other words, it is the reason why human beings exist."(1) These are lofty claims but as always - as appropriate for this book, grounded entirely in reality and understood through reason. I refer to this chapter in some senses as the "synecdoche" chapter: a part of the book that represents the whole. (1) Deutsch, David. The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Science) (p. 121). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

This is the podcast version of my Substack Newsletter number 3 here https://bretthall.substack.com/p/manners-and-misattributions?r=3r9kb&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web   Links referred to in the podcast can all be found in that article however here is a link to the historian who writes about Dr. Neil Tyson https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/nil-degrasse-tyson-knows-nothing-about-nothing/ and crucially here is a link to my page providing a pdf version of "Schools of Hellas" the book by Kenneth John Freeman https://www.bretthall.org/schools-of-hellas.html  

Pinker lecturing on Rationality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW43X... Link to "psychological study" on what people think about meteorological predictions: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1... titled “A 30% Chance of Rain Tomorrow”: How Does the Public Understand Probabilistic Weather Forecasts?” This video and associated podcast are about Steven Pinker's book "Rationality". Today I am looking at the chapter titled "Probability and Randomness". Well, to be fair: more than "looking" I am doing a close reading...perhaps an excruciating close reading for some. However the book is about rationality and I think we need to be especially careful when explaining this concept to be precise and careful and - yes - perhaps even consistent (as far as is possible). This episode of ToKCast can be watched or listened to in conjunction with episode number 111 titled "Probability: Reality, Rationality and Risk" because in that episode I summarise David Deutsch's lecture on the topic of probability which brings to bear physical realism to the topic and so what I am doing here is comparing the perspective on "Probability" (and randomness) as described in the book "Rationality" with the perspective on probability as viewed under David Deutsch's realistic conception of the concept given what we know from physics (and philosophy). Todays episode serves 3 functions: (1) as a close reading (i.e: a critique in places) of how the concepts "probability" and "randomness" are used in the book - sometimes, as I argue in ways that appear to be inconsistent (2) as a summary of much of the good content in the chapter - for example anyone who wants a refresher on the high school mathematics of probability - we go through some of that (this is not meant to be a backhanded comment - it is interesting material!) and (3) as I have already said this version of probability which I might call the "mainstream academic" vision of probability as compared with probability in light of more recent discoveries in physics. At this point I should also advertise: my newsletter (see episode 112 for details on that) and my Patreon and donations links at www.bretthall.org

This is an advertisement more than a regular ToKCast episode/video. I will sometimes publish some rough and ready material (compared to what appears here on the actual podcast and so forth) on Substack. If you don't know what Substack is - it's just a place where people write stuff (normally). Usually it's journalists who do most of the stuff there. I am choosing a format where I can write and/or also do audio. Go here to see https://bretthall.substack.com/p/manners-and-marketing?r=3r9kb&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web and sign up. I won't publish everything that I produce there here as well. As I say the purpose of Substack, for me, will be to produce less polished material and perhaps stuff that is less "timeless" - so I can comment on cultural issues and perhaps topics of the day. I mention a few things in this episode and links to those things are: Science Historian criticises Neil Tyson: https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/nil-degrasse-tyson-knows-nothing-about-nothing/ Astronomical Disdain: https://www.bretthall.org/blog/astronomical-disdain Penn Jillette on the funding of libraries: https://youtu.be/nGAO100hYcQ?t=280

"Slides" are referred to in this episode. Their absence will not hinder understanding for audio-only listeners - enjoy! This is a "talk about a talk". Back in 2015 David Deutsch gave a lecture titled "Physics without Probability" which ranged over the history of probability, it's uses and misuses and essentially concluded there was no way in which probability featured in the real world - according to known physics. This is a shocking (for most) conclusion and something many will baulk at. The original talk can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE... and I strongly commend it to all listeners/viewers. Over the years since I have found myself over and again referring to this talk and pointing others to it on the topics of quantum theory or Bayesianism or simply risk assessment. I do not understand why that talk does not have 10 times the number of viewings. Or 100. It is ground breaking, useful, compelling stuff. It is neither too technical nor too subtle. So this is my attempt to re-sell that talk and provide a slightly different phrasing of what I think is a clear articulation of those important ideas. People claim to think in terms of probabilities. Physicists speak in terms of probabilities. Philosophers and those who endorse Bayesianism speak in terms of probabilities. How can we do away with it? As an instrument probability might work well. But then so can assuming that your local land is flat even though we know that - strictly - the Earth is curved. Does this matter? If you care about reality and explaining it and hence genuine rationality then you should. Especially when it comes to risk assessment. Towards the end of the podcast I go beyond David's talk into my own musings about various topics - including the notion of risk which has been a request on ToKCast. As always errors herein are my own. If you enjoy this podcast, consider supporting me on Patreon or Paypal. The links for donating can be found on the landing page right here: https://www.bretthall.org

A version of this podcast without the musical soundtrack can be found here: https://youtu.be/YfVl70treS8   An explanation of a tradition of criticism as an error correction mechanism helping ensure the stability of a society. Also a defence of free speech and liberty for the 21st century. Music by Ketsa: 1. "Tradition" 2. "Our Little Blessings"   And for those who need it: a pocket sized response to modern day anti-enlightenment figures who say “the west” lacks culture/tradition. Inspired by "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.