ToKCast

Chapters 1 to 4 of a multi-chapter series about the reach of what I argue is one of the most important lessons to learn in order to solve many pressing problems: explanatory universality. This podcast provides an explanation that "explanatory universality" is an idea of such depth it may have among the greatest reach of any idea. Chapters: 00:12 Chapter 1 - Universality and Reach 09:09 Chapter 2 - The Reach of Explanatory Universality 20:01 Chapter 3 - Explaining Explanatory Universality 30:23 Chapter 4 - Explanatory Universality and Education

We are told by people working in the field, researchers and those who publish academic papers on the topic that artificial intelligence or deep learning or LLMs or Machine Learning or Recurrent Neural Networks - call them what you like - employ some form of inductive reasoning. But do they? What is inductive reasoning? What is deductive or adductive for that matter? Is "new physics" or other new science being discovered by the most recent and best chatbots or other "artificially intelligent" computer systems? My response to all that is contained herein.   For images see: https://youtu.be/9Dimv7mOls4 For more information: https://www.bretthall.org/blog/induction

This episode is a reading of and reflection upon more writing by David Deutsch - an article you can find at https://takingchildrenseriously.com/in-praise-of-ignorance/ Joining me is philosopher and language educator Liberty Fitz-Claridge. Liberty holds Master Degrees in both Philosophy and Applied Linguistics and English Language teaching, as well as a Bachelors in The Philosophy of Science. As well as teaching, Liberty runs the Popper-Deutsch Reading Group which can be found at www.meetup.com/popper-deutsch-reading-group/ In this conversation Liberty refers to the following articles: 1. Ioup, Georgette, Elizabeth Boustagui, Manal El Tigi, and Martha Moselle. “Reexamining the Critical Period Hypothesis: A Case Study of Successful Adult SLA in a Naturalistic Environment.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, no. 1 (1994): 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012596.   2. Alsulaimani, Adil. (1990). Reading problems in Arab learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). London University, UK.   3. Randall, Mick and Meara, Paul. (1988). “How Arabs read Roman letters.” Reading in a Foreign Language, 4 (2): 133-145.

Woke is a rejection of the truth, the good, the beautiful. Is the best response a return to traditional religion? Are some dogmas worth defending?

A summary of some arguments made in the previous 4 parts, and a conclusion to my evaluation of https://ai-2027.com I refer to Daniel Kokotajlo's paper which contained an earlier set of predictions made in 2021 about the 5 years leading to 2026 which is found here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-2026-looks-like Note that Part 4 is here: https://youtu.be/C3jDjuSLBv0 Part 3 is here: https://youtu.be/7P-UlHiTins Part 2 is here: https://youtu.be/o3Rdj37UJjw Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ Credit to  ⁨@drpeterboghossian⁩  for the inspiration,  ⁨@NavalR⁩  for the support and  ⁨@DavidDeutschPhysicist⁩  for many of the arguments made with errors, as always, my own.

Note that Part 3 is episode 239 or can be found here: https://youtu.be/7P-UlHiTins Part 2 is here: https://youtu.be/o3Rdj37UJjw Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ I react to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com

Episode 238 contains Part 2 of this podcast and Episode 237 is Part 1. Also all parts are available on Youtube as almost always. Eg here for part 2: https://youtu.be/o3Rdj37UJjw Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ   I am reacting to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com

Note that Part 1 is found in Episode 237 or can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ   I react to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com with some further general comments on ‪@DwarkeshPatel‬ 's interview with two of the authors here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htOvH12T7mU

I react to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com with some further general comments on ‪@DwarkeshPatel‬ 's interview with two of the authors here:    • 2027 Intelligence Explosion: Month-by...     Youtube version of this podcast is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ

Max is a tax lawyer who is applying Popperian epistemology to legal science and issues in AI. Links to some more of his work, and the slides to accompany part of this video are below. Slides for Max's talk(s): https://www.bretthall.org/popper-and-legal-science.html Max’s journal article on AI with Eric Marcus (in NLFiscaal TaxTech): NLFiscaal | Problems in AI, their roots in philosophy, and implications for science and society: https://www.nlfiscaal.nl/nlfiscaal-doc/BEEAD89DD9E44E81B23811716258A4C4 Slides to accompany: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7290619876879028225/ Made possible with support from, and In association with, https://nav.al

This is a "megasode" combining two episodes from Youtube all about the Simulation Hypothesis. In the first part I provide the philosophical basis for the simulation hypothesis as explained especially by Nick Bostrom and compare it to other "ultimate" explanations of reality. In part 2 I discuss and evaluate the arguments made by Scott Adams and Joe Rogan who endorse some version of Bostrom's argument.

I recently had the opportunity to participate in "Spectrum Street Epistemology" with  @drpeterboghossian  and a number of others including  @destiny  . This episode was inspired by both that event and the many other conversations I had with Peter, Reid, David, Evan, Mia and Travis across the days I spent in Florida with those excellent people engaged in the important work of defending the Enlightenment. This is a sort of disjointed episode as I have in mind a particular audience of sophisticated thinkers on epistemology so I meander through my own worldview, take a historic look at why it is "belief" and "degrees of belief" or "strength of feeling", "confidence" and so on arose and became an important improvement on more primitive ways of thinking about the world. I compare all of that to what I argue is the most rational way of conceiving of "critical thinking". I end with some personal reflections. If you go to Peter's channel I imagine the many conversations we recorded together will be gradually released in the coming days and weeks. Compared to what I do here: their's is a very professional production! The videos accompanying the audio are a mixture of my own poorly shot camera work and stock footage - just so the viewer does not have to stare at nothing but my head for ~40 minutes. 00:00 Introductions 01:00 Are humans unique…just like every other species? 03:45 We are 98% the same as chimpanzees? 07:00 Was there an “Adam” - a first person? 09:00 The first creative minds 10:10 The evolution of authoritarianism 12:30 Medieval societies vs primitive tribalism 13:20 Early individualism, empiricism, rationalism and reason 16:10 Empiricism, rationalism and inductivism as “appeals to authority” 18:25 Belief and the weight of evidence 21:00 “Updating one’s priors”. 22:20 The God of the Subjectivism 23:30 Fossils 26:04 Better ways of thinking 29:00 Knowing and believing 31:00 Moving beyond “degrees of belief” and subjectivism 32:00 Knowledge: what it is 34:00 Knowing is binary 36:00 Reason is more than feeling 36:55 Reflecting on Spectrum Street Epistemology 41:05 Gratitude and acknowledgements

The first part of my discussion of the differing visions of science and how scientific knowledge "grows" (or not) according to Thomas Kuhn vs Karl Popper as outlined in this chapter of "The Beginning of Infinity". Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" explains the concept of a "paradigm" and "paradigm shifts" comparing "revolutionary" and "normal" periods of science. Kuhn's work remains the most cited in the social sciences and so far more people - especially in academia - are familiar with his work that Popper's. What explains this? What does Kuhn have to say? And what does a "critical rationalist" perspective on the growth of knowledge have to say in response to Kuhn?

The second in the series on "The Myth of the Framework" paper. Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction with some reflections on Joe Rogan and Gad Saad 05:14 Section IVa reading - on “Confrontations” 06:32 Section IVa reflection 09:48 Section IVb reading 10:17 Section IVb reflection 12:14 Section IVc reading - tolerance and respect 13:26 Section IV c reflection on Herodotus and tolerance 15:08 Section IV d reading. When should a discussion reach agreement? 16:39 Section IV d reflection. Quibbling with Popper? True Theories or Best Explanations? 28:54 Section IV e reading Goodwill 30:00 Section IV e Reflection on Goodwill, courtesy and politeness. And an anecdote about “professors”. 36:54 Interlude: Popper’s Introduction to “The Myth of the Framework” - expertise and authority 40:00 Section V a Reading Clash of civilisations 40:56 Section V a Reflection (including remarks on Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson) 44:00 Section V b “Culture Clash” the impact on Greek Philosophy and Rationality - Reading and reflection interleaved. 57:15 Section VI a Reading - How we make the world understandable to ourselves 57:55 Section VI a Reflection on the task of “reason”. 59:23 Section VI b Reading: The invention of explanations and the two components of rationality. 1:00:13 Secton VI b Reflection on rationality 1:03:40 Section VI c Popper’s conjecture on the origins of the critical method I 1:05:08 Section VI c Reflection on Hesiod’s Theogony. 1:07:05 Section VI d Reading Popper’s conjecture part II 1:08:08 Reflection on Popper’s Conjecture 1:09:04 Section VI e Reading on Anixmander’s theory 1:10:12 Section VI e Reflection on Anixmander’s theory 1:11:25 Section VI f Conjecturing about conjectures and “The Critical Tradition I” 1:12:52 Section VI f Reflections on “The Critical Tradition” 1:13:16 Section VI g The Critical Tradition II 1:14:33 Section VI g Reflections on “The Critical Tradition II” and “schools” of philosophy. 1:15:30 Section VI h The Ionian School 1:16:36 Section VI h Reflections on the modern critical method and thoughts about Aristarchus and Parallax measurements 1:20:50 Section VI I Conclusion

I take another deep dive into a deeply insightful and original lecture by Karl Popper: The Myth of the Framework. In this first part (of 4) I spend most of the episode unpacking our motivations, Popper's own thoughts on his success in combating bad ideologies and the purposes of discussion. Indeed this piece can be considered an instruction manual for discussions: how to have them and why. Below: timestamps for this episode: 00:00 Purpose of this new series 05:41 Woke, DEI and Popper 10:47 Popper in his own words on his “success” 12:23: Marxism and Relativism as “ideas that survive” 19:47 Popper in the modern day 22:30 Frameworks and “echo chambers”. 26:05 Some personal anecdotes and reflections 32:43: Defending an idea is different to explaining one. 35:00 Personal anecdotes. 47:47 Discussions 49:33 Why do we talk to each other? :) 59:13 The Myth of the Framework. Section 1 1:01:04 Commentary Section 1 1:03:33 The Myth of the Framework Section 2 1:04:29 Commentary Section 2 1:06:15 The Myth of the Framework Section 3a 1:07:07 Commentary Section 3a 1:12:12 The Myth of the Framework Section 3b 1:13:40 Commentary Section 3b 1:16:39 Should we “talk” to North Korea? 1:26:12 The West and its enemies 1:28:42 The Myth of the Framework Section 3c 1:29:59 Commentary Section 3c 1:32:25 The Myth of the Framework Section 3d 1:33:24 Closing Reflection

The best part! If you missed the others, don't miss this one. All four strands come together to explain the possibility of time travel and the intrigue that arises when considering travelling to "your" past or future to visit "yourself". Rough timestamps follow: 00:00 introduction and the significance of virtual reality 04:03 Physically possible renderings and resolving paradoxes 07:30 what does VR time travel tell us about physics?  11:05 Personhood and time travel  13:30 Highly unlikely events, the multiverse and “never”. 15:45 General Relativity and time travel 18:51 David’s 70th birthday online acknowledgement https://dd70th.weebly.com/ 20:14 Past directed time travel: the consensus 25:25 Black holes, wormholes and time travel 34:10 More on paradoxes and quantum gravity 38:00 The unpredictability of the growth of knowledge . 42:05 Visitors from the future 45:50 Time travel, BoI and Fungibility 56:00 Knowledge Paradoxes? 1:00:40 Creation ex nihilo and “recombination”. 1:06:39 Biological and explanatory knowledge 1:11:32 Useless information and the resolution of knowledge “paradoxes” 1:15:23 The knowledge “crystal” - structure across the multiverse. 1:22:18 The entire biosphere as a computation. 1:26:20 Civilisations as virtual reality renderings. 1:30:00 The four main strands and time travel.

An outside broadcast as you will hear. Image generation and virtual reality provide a window on the physics of time travel. Why is that? And what about all those time travel paradoxes? The resolution to all is found herein.

An assortment of topics looking forward to 2025. Timestamps:   00:00 Truth is indispensable 04:06 The “search for truth” is error correction 08:11 Remarks on selflessness and personhood. How can we square the two? 09:14 Decisions and free will and creativity 10:46 Truth and the two senses of “believe”. 13:30 Belief, epistemology and psychology 17:16 “Popperian” knowing. 18:07 Newtonian Gravity I 23:53 Why GR and QM do not mesh. 26:57 Newtonian Gravity II 27:43 Knowledge is… 29:11 Knowledge creation, reason, rationality and reality. 31:11 Reason, Creativity, Fun and Flow States 36:13 Learning is knowledge creation 39:06 Selfishness and having fun 42:53 Fun, innovation, wealth and value 43:51 Wealthy people create value 48:17 Creativity, Wealth and energy 52:27 Optimism about 2025

Live from Sydney, Yaron Brook and Nikos Sotirakopoulos join me on stage to discuss capitalism, liberty, personhood, energy policy, Israel and antisemitism and much more. Rough timestamps are here: 00:00 Brett’s welcome and introduction 02:32 Nikos on “What is Capitalism?” 04:21 Yaron on “What is Capitalism?” 07:33 Brett on the relationship between personhood and capitalism. 10:02 Nikos on why progress is not inevitable. 12:06 Yaron on humans vs other animals 15:14 Yaron on why capitalism is retreating in the West. 19:56 Brett on the self similarity of the mind 25:40: Yaron on Israel and her allies 32:33 Brett on protectionism and nationalism 33:17 Nikos on defending your allies and nihilism. 37:01 Yaron on faith, collectivism and nationalism. 42:13 Brett on “concentrated losses, dispersed gains”. 43:50 Yaron on free trade and tarrifs 49:52: Yaron’s iPhone 54:52 Brett invokes Deutsch’s pattern, anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism. 56:01 Nikos on Marx’s role as an antisemitic anticapitalist and “secondhandedness”. 1:02:21 Brett on environmentalism and anti humanism 1:05:22 Nikos on energy policy 1:07:25 Yaron on saving the planet. 1:11:21 Brett on the death trap that is planet Earth  1:13:15 Question 1: What is an Objectivist foreign policy? 1:18:21 Question 2: Is democracy necessary for protecting individual human rights? 1:25:31 Question 3: What explains the anti-ANZAC phenomenon in Australia? 1:30:01 Question 4: Should the government protect individual property rights? Remarks on “the minimum wage”. 1:32:53 Question 5: Should we be pessimistic about “woke”, “DEI” and the state of universities? 1:41:33 Question 6: Has China managed to achieve a beneficial separation of their political and economic systems? 1:47:02 Question 7: What is the role of the Fed in the USA? Is it necessary?

I discuss the point of philosophy and how "concrete" the work of Karl Popper and David Deutsch are in marshalling examples taken directly from science in order to illustrate how philosophy solves problems in other areas. Then I have some lengthy remarks on some recent criticism of Popper and Deutsch which is found here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-152605209