ToKCast

In this question we discuss Stephen Hawking's claim that people are "chemical scum" on a typical planet orbiting a typical star in a typical galaxy and so on. How suitable is our planet for life, actually? How suitable is it for people in particular?

This interview can, in its original form be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MEgZ4f7Bw   “Do Explain” is a podcast interview series created by Christofer Lövgren (Chris as I call him because I can’t pronounce his surname). Find “Do Explain” anywhere podcasts can be found - for example Apple here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjr6PqYvdDxAhVbb30KHb_dDwMQFjAMegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fus%2Fpodcast%2Fdo-explain-with-christofer-l%25C3%25B6vgren%2Fid1482313214&usg=AOvVaw0G27IzC-h5LsxVAY3_tY44 or “Tune In” here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjr6PqYvdDxAhVbb30KHb_dDwMQFjACegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftunein.com%2Fpodcasts%2FEducation-Podcasts%2FDo-Explain-p1284002%2F&usg=AOvVaw2LktTeYavrEMGpDDG7xC4r   The main website and host for Do Explain for now is here: https://doexplain.buzzsprout.com

In this, the third part discussing the first chapter of "The Fabric of Reality" we speak more about reductionism. In particular we look at the limitations of the traditional conception of physics and how attempts to make breakthroughs in fundamental physics tend not to rely on a completely new "mode of explanation". We speak about unifications and all of this is very much a prelude - clues here for the taking - of "Constructor Theory". I provide a quick overview of "the relativity of simultaneity" where I am suggesting that the "in principle" claim to be able to have a predictive theory even in physics seems to me to be a dead end. There is genuine creativity in the world - things that cannot be predicted. But even taking the laws of physics as they are seriously, seems to put a boundary on the knowledge we would need in order to make even a reductive prediction. Some more comments on logical positivism, instrumentalism and Wittgenstein. The Nexus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTxBkmr4LE In this video I mention the work of physicist Sam Kuypers. He gives a talk on non-commuting qubits here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0LauOLR70

David Deutsch, a pioneering quantum physicist, discusses deep philosophical ideas alongside Tyler Cowen, an economist and writer. They dive into the multiverse's impact on identity and decision-making, challenging traditional concepts of reality. The conversation highlights the differences between instinctual animal knowledge and human understanding. They also tackle the complexities of science philosophy, exploring the divide on unobservable phenomena and how Nietzsche's 'will to power' can drive humanity forward. Political systems are also critiqued, spotlighting the strengths of first-past-the-post voting.

With a special introduction for audio only listeners, here in this "rather different" episode, I've tried tapping in to my inner Douglas Murray to summon the right level of outrage. This is about as angry as I get. I’m essentially reading through and responding to this “Scientific American” article (which has nothing scientific nor American about it) https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar... with some supplementary remarks about a “Nature” article which goes a long way towards rubbishing the good name of that great journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/s4146... If you’re not in agreement with the articles you might appreciate trading my time spent making this defence of freedom, free trade and progress with some of your own money here: https://www.patreon.com/tokcast or here for a monthly contribution: https://www.patreon.com/BrettRHall or on my website click “Donate” to make a one off contribution www.bretthall.org

This episode covers chapter 2 titled "Beyond Laws of Motion?". In this chapter we explain some of the successes of the "dynanical laws + supplementary conditions" vision of physics and some of the limitations. Those limitations include the fact that the supplementary conditions - notably the initial conditions - cannot be explained under that scheme. Nor can time itself. The idea of things being possible or impossible in the universe (for example computers) may better be understood via constructor theory and there is more grist-for-my-mill when I get back on my hobbyhorse about free will (to mix some metaphors).

This is a question for David about Popper's notion of "verisimilitude". Can we utter the truth? What does David think about probability? Two excellent talks by David referred to in this video are the one he did on "Statements, Propositions and Truth" with the Oxford Karl Popper Society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs and the one on Probability (which is somewhat misleadingly titled "David Deutsch on Physics Without Probability" - it's actually far broader than this and should be required viewing for anyone who thinks they already understand lots about probability. After this, they might need to rethink their life ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE...

Yes, this is me asking David Deutsch about the supposed "evidence" of UFOs that are the US Military's release of footage from jet aircraft that have become known as "Tic Tacs". I do not mention this in the video, but the best explanation I have seen of at least some of this stuff is by Mick West who was able to reproduce at least some of the images: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fq... Neil deGrasse Tyson also makes broadly similar remarks to David in this podcast with Sam Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBVg5... Whatever the case, the deeper point is the more general one. When we do not know the explanation for a set of observations, then we have a problem. Not a solution. In this case, we seem to have either very prosaic solutions (as Mick West explains - in the form of camera effects) or perhaps something we "don't know". What we do not have is "evidence for" something amazing. Namely alien life visiting us in their spacecraft. The only way "evidence for" actually works is when it *rules out* every other theory. That is, in fact, the purpose of evidence in science. For more on that, see here: http://www.bretthall.org/general-rela... and here: http://www.bretthall.org/philosophy-o... #Tictacs #UFO

This is the second part of my interview with David - with me making some remarks about it. I will eventually release the entire conversation.   If you would like to support this endeavor, do consider making a one off (or even monthly) donation by clicking the “Donate” button on the front page of www.bretthall.org or you may “subscribe” at https://patreon.com/BrettRHall or contribute "per episode" at https://www.patreon.com/tokcast

The first episode in a new series of "Questions for David" - featuring David Deutsch himself - as a supplement or appendix to my series on "The Beginning of Infinity". This first one is about "The Reality of Abstractions".