The Theory of Anything

This week we are joined by fellow traveler Dan Gish to discuss LLMs and AGI. Does it really, truly make sense to think that OpenAI or DeepMind are not at least an important stepping stone towards the creation of human-level creativity? What does it mean when CritRats assert that these AI algorithms are the opposite of human intelligence because they are obedient whereas we are disobedient?⁠⁠Support us on Patreon⁠

Here we discuss fidesim and critical rationalism. Fideism has many definitions, but at least how we are thinking of it, it is the idea that something like faith has validity in the process of moving closer to truth through reason.Our starting point is a paper written by prominent Popperian Joseph Agassi about how William Bartley, another critical rationalist philosopher closely associated with Popper, had a falling out with Popper after he accused Popper of being a fideist, which Popper apparently did not consider a compliment. But was Bartley perhaps correct?Note: we decided to cover this paper before we even realized it was about fideism which -- by pure dumb luck -- happened to be part of the topic of our last episode (#106: Karl Popper and God) where Bruce declared himself a Fideist. As such, episode #106 is not required listening, but you might find Popper's views on God and his views on epistemological fideism an interestingly interplay.⁠Support us on Patreon⁠

This week we discuss a short interview with Karl Popper from 1969 where he discusses God and religion. Specifically, he makes a case for agnosticism, asserts that all men are religious, and discusses the problem of evil. We use this as a starting point to consider if we live in an inherently meaningful universe or one ruled by something like entropy. We discuss arguments for the former related to fine tuning, causation, and beauty.Bonus: Bruce proclaims himself one of those much hated Fideists! (A group disliked by both rationalists and religionists alike.)Support us on Patreon⁠

This week Bruce speaks about the work or Michael Levin, who is a biologist know for his work on cell cognition and collective intelligence or the idea that electrical signals between cells influence the formation of biological systems. His work has potentially massive implications in cancer research and other fields. Though rarely identified with 3rd way evolution, his work has more than a passing similarity to it. Like 3rd way evolutionists, he seeks to expand evolutionary theory beyond the alleged reductionism of a gene-centric or neo-Darwinian approach. Presumably, these bioelectric effects could be considered a kind of epigenetic or evolutionary process existing outside the genome.However, unlike the 3rd Way evolutionists, he's ready to back up his views with clever and shocking experiments that confront popular interpretations of gene-centric evolution head on.Can Levin's work possibly help us determine who is more right in the argument between 3rd Way evolutionists like Denis Noble or James Shapiro vs mainstream evolutionary biologists like Zach Hancock?Support us on Patreon

How well do the collection of assertions called “3rd way evolution” stand up to criticism? Here, in our second of at least 3 episodes on this topic, Bruce considers the criticisms of Denis Noble and James Shapiro by YouTuber and evolutionary biologist Zach Hancock in his epic video on the subject.  Perhaps the role of epigenetics is overstated, Lamarckism is not back,  and neo-Darwinism is not dead after all.

This week we discuss neo-Darwinism vs post-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism meaning a gene centric view of evolution, which is also called the great synthesis since it unifies natural selection with genetics and paleontology and perhaps even human psychology. Post-Darwinism is a view that emphasizes factors outside random mutation, like epigenetics or the assertion that organisms and cells can alter their own genome in a beneficial way. Here Bruce specifically concentrates on the work of biologist James Shapiro's critical look at Richard Dawkins' neo-Darwinism.We consider, does it really make sense to see our bodies and minds as tools governed by our masters DNA? Does post-Darwinism, also called “third way evolution,” offer a meaningful alternative to both neo-Darwinism and the theism of intelligent design? Does this way of looking at biology say something about the very nature of reality and the laws of physics?This is part 1 of a loose series. Part 2 will cover criticisms of Noble and Shapiro. Part 3 will cover the work of Michael Levin. However, you don't really need to listen to them in order and we provide context each time.James Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21 CenturySupport us on Patreon

This time we discuss Nassim Nicholas Taleb's article "IQ is Largely a Pseudoscientific Swindle" -- a title whose compliment is that he's claiming IQ is a bit scientifically valid. But which bits does he claim are valid? We use this article as a springboard to consider: Do the numbers produced by an IQ test say something meaningful or useful about human minds? Would these tests be better off in the dustbin of history? Are they ever useful? And is there overlap between Taleb's take on IQ and the negative view of these tests held by many critical rationalists? What does Taleb agree (or disagree) with CritRats over when it comes to IQ? Taleb's original article found here.

Bruce takes a deep dive into Stephen Wolfram's ideas regarding computational universality, which may go further than the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis in that Wolfram's theories imply that all of nature could be simulated even by relatively simple systems, so even nature itself may be computational rather than something that can just be simulated on a turning machine or quantum computer. Stephen Wolfram is a renowned physicist, computer scientists, and entrepreneur. Bruce also talks about the related ideas on philosophy of computation promoted by Rudy Rucker, who is a mathematician, computer scientist, and science fiction author associated with cyberpunk genre. Both thinkers believe, rightly or wrongly, that the complexity of life and the universe can be explained by relatively simple computational rules.

Our Christmas gift to you this year is episode 100: an interview with The Man (TM) himself! Bruce stumbles over himself fan-boying as he asks all his burning (but geeky) questions about cosmology, the omega point, and probability. How do Deutsch and Tipler differ on optimistic end-time cosmology? Is the Omega point refuted by observation (Deutsch) or not (Tipler)? Does heat death contradict the principle of optimism? Is it a bummer? Does stochasticity really not exist? And is it rational to wear a mask during COVID? How do you apply epistemology to a question like that when you lack enough data to severely test your theories but still need to make a decision? Peter asks: Are free will and downward causation related? Do our genes attempt to coerce us? Why are explanatory and computational universality so confusing? And what if studies show that authoritative parenting is best for children? Support us on Patreon --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

AKA "David Deutsch DESTORYS the Simulation Hypothesis" Bruce take a deep dive into solipsism in the form of the brain in a vat thought experiment, Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis, and related ideas. Does the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis suggest we could live in a simulation? What does critical rationalism say about these theories? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

This week we discuss the chapter “Why are Flowers Beautiful?” from the book Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Through our discussion we consider: Does relativism make any sense? Is preferring Mozart to a child banging on a piano really just an arbitrary preference? If progress in art is real, will human minds ever stop increasing the level of beauty in the world? Are humans more objectively beautiful than other species? (And are women more beautiful than men?) Is music “cheesecake for the ears,” as Steven Pinker puts it? And is cheesecake itself even “cheesecake for the mouth”? Is progress in science also intertwined with aesthetic progress? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

We take a deep dive into Karl Popper's philosophical ideas about music that he outlines in four chapters in this intellectual autobiography Unended Quest: “Music,” Speculations about the Rise of Polyphonic Music,” “Two Kinds of Music,” and “Progressivism in Art, Especially in Music.”  We are joined by Peter's brother, Chris Johansen, who is a straight-ahead jazz tenor saxophonist living in NYC.  We discuss how Popper's ideas on classical music intersect with Chris's ideas on jazz, as well as the role of conservatism in music. We examine how Popper's thinking on music influenced his concept of the 3 worlds and his ideas on such concepts as dogmatism, essentialism, and historicism.  Plus, you get Bruce's rant about the importance of constraints in music, science, criticism, and Popper's epistemology. Bruce argues that absent at least the attempt to outline epistemological conventions (i.e. constraints) you can't error correct Popper's epistemology and you lose what makes it special. You can listen to more of Chris's music here. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Here we interview AI researcher Kenneth Stanley, who makes the case that in complex systems, pursing specific objectives can actually be counterproductive. Instead, whether in machine learning, business, science, education, or art, we should pursue what is interesting. It is in this search for novelty—fueled by curiosity—where innovation and open-ended knowledge creation occurs. Get Ken's book! Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective Also: Can Bruce find a counter example to Ken's thesis? How does one 'detect novelty' using an algorithm? Is creativity really a search algorithm? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

This time we invited some of the coolest and smartest people we know to have a freewheeling discussion on morality loosely centered on Jonathan Haidt's “rider and the elephant” metaphor. We take a deep dive into this idea that moral reasoning is a slave to our passions. Guests: • Lulie Tanett (https://open.spotify.com/show/6OPFnEt6uTOTGeSpnZ1YDp?si=4exIQOUfQzOg4TIU2hZ5hA) • Vaden Masrani (https://open.spotify.com/show/1gKKSP5HKT4Nk3i0y4UseB?si=Iu1WkwJMR1GHlm3OLrUwNA) • Ivan Phillips (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08VGCFVJB?ref=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_33ZJEY7V0RP00CG7566Z&ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_33ZJEY7V0RP00CG7566Z&social_share=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_33ZJEY7V0RP00CG7566Z&language=en_US) • Ray Scott Percival (https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Closed-Mind-Understanding-Rational-ebook/dp/B007ED2YOG/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=18OW1OJ7SHU0F&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.JSCCp7cMzHYl926ph94huzUH8e6nS5VFbeyXnBuWHk_8xfeA3aYMNGdbPKf51RTbatD5MJ6psFT9Md-wcXMohLMIVZMTtZYFZPkdvMPLieZem163A_H5xch8hiTt28hByPAtMm3xFqIUtQ9GLpkOI_5Pr7TzJ8Fw7bfiYqt36gnx4yeJSb8a4eOSff3p5QJ04oLY9PUNBdGPtxcILt_ung.cTeFXFI-PZaMPhyBZtFcJ7mIY2k4Kkq1fTEIafAEsxs&dib_tag=se&keywords=ray+scott+percival&qid=1728763752&sprefix=ray+scott+percival+%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1⁠; https://open.spotify.com/artist/3B1Bh10uUljUX9iNmPOYZo?si=NWnRyuv1T7aHRGWZIXZYzA) --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

This episode we interview Professor of Philosophy Stephen Hicks. In his excellent books Explaining Postmodernism and Nietzsche and the Nazis it becomes clear that the history of bad and good ideas—which he sees through the lens of Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment philosophers—is more than an academic issue but something with monumental importance for human life and prosperity. Rather than focus on this aspect of his work, which is widely known, we thought we'd ask him questions on epistemology, focusing on contrasting critical rationalism and objectivism. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Can philosophical theories be refuted? What is a bad explanation? Can all theories be made more empirical? In search of an answer to these questions, Bruce takes a deep dive into what he believes is the correct way to apply “Popper's ratchet” to metaphysical or philosophical theories. Along the way, Bruce puts forward a generalization of testability he calls “checkability” and explains why “vague-maning” our theories is “worse than dogmatism.” --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Continuing from episode 91, we continue our deep dive into Popper's Conjectures and Refutations Chapter 8 where Popper explains how to use his epistemology on philosophical theories that (by definition) can't be 'refuted'. Despite agreeing with most of Popper's specific arguments, we offer some considerable criticisms to Popper's approach to criticizing philosophical theories -- particularly to Popper's criticisms of the theory of Determinism which is a 'best theory' by any fair standard but Popper (incorrectly) thought was false. Bruce argues that Popper's approach in C&R Ch. 8 is problematic because it opens the 'Crit Rat Loophole', which is a common way CritRats interpret Popper that allows any preferred theory to be declare a 'best theory' based on the scantest of criticisms. Bruce argues that Chapter 8 of C&R fails in this important regard because it doesn't give a good answer to the question "How does one tell the difference between a good philosophical explanation and a bad explanation?" --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Forgive the clickbait title. The episode should probably actually be called "The (Lack of) Problem of Induction" because we primarily cover Popper's refutation of induction in C&R Chapter 8. This episode starts our deep dive into answering the question "What is the difference between a good philosophical explanation and a bad explanation?" To answer that question we go over Karl Popper's "On the Status of Science and of Metaphysics" from his book Conjectures and Refutations Chapter 8. In this chapter Popper first explains why he believes 'there is no such thing as induction' (from page 18 of Logic of Scientific Discovery) by offering his historical and logical refutation of induction. In this episode we go over Popper's refutation of induction in chapter 8 of C&R in detail and then compare it to Tom Mitchell's (of Machine Learning fame) argument of the 'futility of bias free learning.' We show that Mitchell's and Popper's arguments are actually the same argument even though Mitchell argues for the existence of a kind of induction as used in machine learning. Bruce argues that the difference is not a conceptual or theoretical difference but just a difference in use of language and that the two men are actually conceptually fully in agreement. This makes machine learning both a kind of 'induction' (though not the kind Popper refuted) and also gives machine learning an interesting and often missed relationship with critical rationalism. Then Bruce asks the most difficult question of all: "Is there anyone out there in the world other than me that is interested in exploring how to apply Karl Popper's epistemology to machine learning like this?" You can find a copy of Mitchell's text here if you want to check out his argument for the futility of bias free learning for yourself. As I mention in the podcast, I'm shocked Critical Rationalists aren't referencing Mitchell's argument constantly because it is so strongly critical rationalist in nature. But the whole textbook is just like this. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Today our guest Ivan Phillips methodically explains what Bayesianism is and is not. Along the way we discuss the validity of critiques made by critical rationalists of the worldview that is derived from Thomas Bayes's 1763 theorem. Ivan is a Bayesian that is very familiar with Karl Popper's writings and even admires Popper's epistemology. Ivan makes his case that Bayesian epistemology is the correct way to reason and that Karl Popper misunderstood some aspects of how to properly apply probability theory to reasoning and inference. (Due in part to those theories being less well developed back in Popper's time.) This is a video podcast if you watch it on Spotify. But it should be consumable as just audio. But I found Ivan's slides quite useful. This is by far the best explanations for Bayesianism that I've ever seen and it does a great job of situating it in a way that makes sense to a critical rationalist like myself. But it still didn't convince me to be a Bayesian. ;) --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

This week we discuss the book Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton (1908), perhaps the most famous defense of the Christian tradition. We contrast this with Karl Popper's talk, “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition” (1948), from his collection of essays, Conjectures and Refutations. We consider: What is the role of tradition in science and knowledge? Is there a relationship between liberalism and Christianity? Is Chesterton actually a rationalist? What are the paradoxes of Christianity? Is there a link between madness and rationality? Follow us on Twitter: ⁠https://x.com/bnielson01⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Here Bruce reflects on AI researcher Kenneth Stanley's assertion that setting specific, measurable goals may actually hinder discovery and innovation, which he writes about in his book, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective. How does Stanley's insight relate to critical rationalism, education, and life in general? We cover topics including: Why are objective sometimes misleading? When are objectives appropriate and when are they misleading? How did Stanley and his team discover the problems with objectives? How does this relate to the problem of open-endedness? How did he implement a program to explore alternatives? What was the result? What are implications for AI/AGI, scientific research, and education? How does these theories relate to Darwinian evolution and Popperian epistemology? Are natural selection and biological evolution the same thing? How important is 'selection' to knowledge creation? Follow us on Twitter: https://x.com/bnielson01 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Is the universal explainer hypothesis falsifiable? How does the concept of universality relate to human minds? Is anything truly beyond human comprehension? And how would you frame universality as an interesting topic at a party? This week we also feature a guest, Dan Gish, a fellow traveler Bruce has connected with on Twitter. Dan (on Twitter) had questions about if the incomprehensibility of LLMs refuted the universal explainer hypothesis. This was Bruce's attempt to give him an honest answer to Dan's questions. Follow us on Twitter. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

How do humans form 'fuzzy categories'? How does this all relate to essentialism? Is essentialism false? Or is it partially true? And how does this all relate to Critical Rationalism? Picking up where we left off last week, Bruce gets deeper into Douglas Hofstadter's ideas on language and the mind and his assertion that “analogy-making lies at the heart of intelligence.” Bruce considers how Hofstadter's theories may be interwoven with ideas on language and cognition promoted by Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works" along with, as usual, the epistemology of Karl Popper and David Deutsch. We again consider if this is an inductive theory? And how should critical rationalists view theories like this? Follow us on Twitter: ⁠https://twitter.com/bnielson01⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

This is the first of our two part series (that may or may not be released back-to-back) where Bruce delves into the work Douglas Hofstadter, specifically the book Surfaces and Essences. We consider what is the relationship—if there is any—between critical rationalism and Hofstadter's idea that analogy is a core mechanism of human cognition. Is it fair to criticize Hofstadter's ideas as being inductivism in disguise? Could something like what Hofstadter suggests (i.e. analogy) be central to human consciousness and creation of AGI? Follow us on Twitter: ⁠https://twitter.com/bnielson01⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Here we discuss a 1992 interview with David Deutsch where he makes the case that video games are inherently educational, not addictive, and that children should not be stopped from playing as much as they want. We contrast the view of humans, science, and knowledge promoted there by David Deutsch with the more pessimistic view of thinkers such as Jonathan Haidt today. Bruce and Peter reflect on their own mixed feelings on this issue both as critical rationalists and parents. David Deutsch on video games: https://takingchildrenseriously.com/video-games-a-unique-educational-environment/ Peter briefly quotes from this recent article by Jonathan Haidt: https://www.thefp.com/p/jonathan-haidt-worried-about-the-boys-too Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bnielson01 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Bruce summarizes his (unique?) understanding of Karl Popper's epistemology that (possibly?) straddles the line between orthodox and unorthodox and is Influenced both by Deutsch, more old school Popperians, and his own unique interpretation of critical rationalism. Bruce claims that the key difference between regular "folk epistemology" (i.e. how humans reason without a correct understanding of epistemology) and "Popper's epistemology" (aka "Critical Rationalism" or the correct epistemology) is due to Popper's epistemology having a 'second axis' that regular folk epistemology entirely lacks. This 'second axis' is rooted in a choice to make your theories bold and risky by maximizing empirical content. This makes Popper's epistemology 2-dimensional instead of 1-dimensional. If this fact is missed, Bruce claims your epistemology collapses back to be regular old folk epistemology and you are no longer doing critical rationalism. Refutation, corroboration, explanation, induction, falsification, verisimilitude, “the Popperian war on words,” and “Popper's ratchet” -- from past podcasts! -- are all touched upon. Follow us on Twitter: ⁠https://twitter.com/bnielson01⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

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. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Bruce sympathetically critiques David Deutsch's concept of “easy to varyness” as a way to judge our explanations. Are our best theories about reality truly hard to vary? Bruce makes the case that Popper's concept of “ad hocness” may be a strangely interwoven concept. Along the way we get deeper into whether Popperian epistemology is best seen as an attitude or a methodology. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Bruce wraps up his epic 6 part series on knowledge and the 'two sources hypothesis' (i.e. Deutsch's theory that all 'knowledge' comes from only two sources: Biological evolution and human minds). What happens if we take all the non-two sources examples of 'adapted information that cause itself to remain so' (e.g. the walking robot, the immune system, trade secrets, animal learning, animal memes, etc.) and give them their own theory distinct from the theory of 'knowledge'? Sort of like a theory of "a simulacrum of knowledge" (to uses Deutsch's own term) or "Simul-Knowledge" for short. This turns out to be remarkably easy: you just take the constructor theory of knowledge without any implicit additional criteria. Doing this has immediate profound implications that impact how we see and understand Deutsch's theory of knowledge. Like to a version of the drawing Bruce refers to throughout the episode. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Is human creativity algorithmic? What is the difference between an Inspiration and a perspiration algorithm? Can mechanical processes ever create knowledge? What is the relationship between creativity and explanation? If we had the 'inspiration' algorithm today, would it use perspiration? Here Bruce continues his exploration of these issues and more. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

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? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Bruce continues to consider what our best theories tell us about knowledge. Is there something special (or even physically different) about the knowledge created by nature through biological evolution and human minds (i.e. the 'two sources hypothesis')? How should we think about knowledge created in human minds that could take us to the moon and beyond or divert an asteroid? Is it physically different from the kind of adapted information created by animals or the immune system? Or does it merely a broader and deeper search for solutions? Along the way, he delves into machine learning, animal behavior, the immune system, trade secrets, robots, and many other concepts related to David Deutsch's ideas about knowledge but are outside the 'two sources' and thus not considered 'knowledge' by David Deutsch. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

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) --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

What is the “two sources hypothesis,” or the idea that there exist only two sources of knowledge in the known universe: Darwinian natural selection and human minds? Does a “genetic programming algorithm” used to make a robot walk create knowledge? Thus begins our deep dive into Deutsch's Theory of Knowledge and particularly his "Two Source Hypothesis." Bruce hints that this is leading towards an investigation into the difference between a non-testable (or philosophical) explanation and a bad explanation as our series on knowledge continues. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

What is the “problem of open-endedness”? Bruce explores how what might sound like an esoteric machine-learning issue may actually be interwoven with our deepest theories on evolution, human consciousness, and knowledge creation. Also included: Bruce's guide to how NOT to argue with a Creationist. References: Kenneth Stanley's article: "Open-endedness: The last grand challenge you've never heard of" The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch Probably Approximately Correct: Nature's Algorithms for Learning and Prospering in a Complex World by Leslie Valiant --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Here we move three arguments from social media to the podcast. 1. Given Deutsch's universal explainer hypothesis, does it make sense to say that men commit more crimes due to testosterone? Are humans only 'approximately' Universal Explainers? 2. Can anything in reality be simulated? What exactly does it mean to be simulated? 3. Is “heat death” a bummer? What would Conan the Cimmerian say? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Here we use Nassim Nicholas Taleb's essay “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority” as a springboard to discuss majority rule, moral progress, knowledge growth, wokism, Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, and “big agriculture.” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

With guest Ivan Phillips, we discuss and debate subjective vs objective morality. Does the concept of objective morality ever make sense given “Hume's guillotine”? Can humans ever really live as though morality is subjective? Along the way, we take detours into Bayesian epistemology vs critical rationalism. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

How does ChatGPT really work? Is there a relationship between a program like ChatGPT and artificial general intelligence (AGI)? This time we review the famous paper "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4" from Microsoft Research as well as Melanie Mitchell's criticisms of it. Other papers mentioned: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Recurrent Neural Networks (2015) GPT-4 Technical Report (2023) Language Models are Few-Shot Learners (2020) --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

This week we have criminologist Brian Boutwell on again for part 2 of our discussion on critical rationalism and social science. Does all science share the same structure? How do you apply Popper's epistemology to social sciences? Are there laws of human nature? If humans are universal explainers, what does it mean to study our behavior? See episode 68 for a summary of Caldwell's "Clarifying Popper" that we discuss. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Bruce Caldwell (a scholar interested in Popper and Hayek) wrote a long paper in the Journal of Economic Literature (March 1991) called 'Clarifying Popper'. In this episode, Bruce Nielson summarizes and discusses Caldwell's paper on how Popper's ideas could be applied to economics. How well did Bruce Caldwell do in his goal of clarifying Popper's epistemology? Out next episode is another interview with Brian Boutwell and we discuss this paper a few times. So this summary will help those that don't have access to it. Copy of Bruce Caldwell's "Clarifying Popper" --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Though our guest Mark Biros is clearly immersed in critical rationalism and the worldview of Popper and Deutsch, he also has some fairly strong criticisms of some of the ideas popular in what could be called the CritRat community. Here we try to work out our differing ideas on environmentalism, epistemology, quantum mechanics, social media, optimism, monarchies, cults, human extinction, and more. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Historian Matt Bowman discusses his new book, The Abduction of Betty and Barney Hill: Alien Encounters, Civil Rights, and the New Age in America. Betty and Barney Hill were one of the first and most famous persons who claimed to be abducted by aliens. Aside from being a story about UFOs, their life story hinges on a complicated relationship with religion, race, politics, science, and psychology in America in the 50s and 60s. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

What did David Deutsch get right and wrong in chapter 11, “Time: The First Quantum Concept,” from his first book, Fabric of Reality? Is the flow of time real or an illusion? What does it mean to have free will in a deterministic world? And what are the implications of Bruce's “Turing world within a Turing world” thought experiment? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

What did Karl Popper really mean by refutation? How are empirical theories special? How do objective criticisms differ from subjective criticisms? What is the difference between a theory and an explanation? We consider these questions with a tangent into the theory that animals don't have feelings. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Brian Boutwell is a professor of criminal justice at the University of Mississippi who specializes in “quantitative genetics, with a focus on environmental and psychological risk factors for antisocial and violent behavior.” He has a TED talk, numerous articles in Quillette, and has been published in many journals. Here we discuss his upcoming meta-analysis on twin studies soon to be published in Nature. We discuss the following two articles: Behavioural genetic methods by Willoughby, Polderman, and Boutwell in Nature. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fify years of twin studies by Polderman, etc. in Nature. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Is the government hiding a secret UFO recovery program? What should the critical rationalist attitude be towards these kinds of claims? Why exactly would aliens want to hide from us? We discuss these questions and much more. If you missed it, be sure to check out the congressional hearings on UFOs (UAPs). It was actually quite interesting. Mick West's video criticizing the theory that aliens are behind all this. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

What did Popper say about corroboration in science? Can a theory NEVER be supported with evidence in any sense at all? Is the Popperian “war on words” justified? Are the positivists, Bayesianists, verificationists, and inductivists really wrong about EVERYTHING? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

We interview Bruce's nephew, Brandon Nielson, who is a well-known electronic music artist under the name Dvddy. We discuss how he uses AI as a tool to create music and how this technology is changing how we work and learn. Could AI liberate us from menial labor and education? Along the way, Cameo makes an AI-generated comic book about David Deutsch. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

A deep dive into David Deutsch's “principle of optimism” featuring Sam Kuypers, Vaden Masrani, Hervé Eulacia, Micah Redding, Bill Rugolsky, and Daniel Buchfink. (Plus, of course, Peter and Bruce). Are all evils due to a lack of knowledge? Are all interesting problems soluble? ALL the problems, really?!?! And what exactly is meant by interesting? Also, should “good guys” ignore the precautionary principle, and do they always win? What is the difference between cynicism, pessimism, and skepticism? And why is pessimism so attractive to so many humans? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support

Back in 2012, David Deutsch wrote an article called "Creative Blocks: How Close are we to Creating Artificial Intelligence?" This article inspired Bruce to go back to school and study Artificial Intelligence and get a Master's degree in the field. A decade later, a lot has changed in the field of AI, and the field has never seemed so exciting. But are we really any closer to the goal of true universal intelligence? We take a look back at the article and assess it from the vantage point of what we know now, a decade later. How much did Deutsch get right and how much is on less solid ground? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/four-strands/support